Valid Eucharist by Episcopal priest, formerly Catholic?

[Lapey]

Article 28 of the 39 Articles of Religion - Anglican

XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper.
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the

Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

So the cleric, with valid orders, would have to basically be operating on an individual basis only. Intent truly matters.

 

[Lapey]

Lapey, you said:
"These are two canons of the Council of Trent from the section titled “Canons on the Sacraments in General”, 11 clearly states the need to be in line with the intent of Mother Church. A priest who has been laicized and now acts in the person of a priest in another tradition not in communion, and in this case a protestant community, is not capable of acting with the intent of the Catholic Church. Anglo-catholic, or whatever you care to call the denomination is not Catholic. Therefore cannot be said to be “with the intent of the Church.”

“Intent” is THE word of interest here. What does this section mean when is says “intent” in regard to the sacraments.

Your interpretation of “intent” is that everything was be just “so” or “perfect” in regard to what the church wants. And if it isn’t then the sacrament is not valid.

This is a very broad idea of “intent” of the church. Actually, the intent of the church is that everyone become saints in the greatest way possible. Her intent is for everyone to be catholic.
Her intent is that people be very fervant and pious in the reception of communion. It is her intent that priests preach so well that every sermon move them to great depths of love. I could continue with this, but I think this is sufficient to understand that in this section of Trent on the sacraments, she did not mean a broad interpretation of “intent” but rather a more specified “intent” with regard to the sacraments.

From Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p343.
“The minister must further have the intention at least of doing what the Church does.” (De fide).

You mentioned “intent of Mother Church” which covers a lot of ground. Ott says “intention of doing what the church does”, which interpreted means, confect the body and blood, since this is about the sacraments, and this is doing what the church …DOES.

“intent of Mother Church” could be interpreted as being in the state of grace, since Mother Church wants all her ministers to be worthy. But even so, the sacrament would be confected even if the minister is unworthy.

“Intent of Mother Church” and “intention AT LEAST of doing what the church does” is not exactly the same.

I’ve cited Ott. I would be interested if someone of scholistic ability could be mentioned in favor of “intent of Mother Church” as it was intrepreted here.

Just some thoughts.​

“At the name of Jesus, every knee shall bow.” (hymn)

I’m not quite sure what you are trying to say…but I do believe you are reading into my words.

Trent specifically speaks of intent as in the Sacraments, and so am I. To be in line with what the Church intends where the confection of the Eucharist is concerned it to do exactly what Mother Church states, to change the substance of the gifts of bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Jesus. The Anglican tradition does not agree with this, in fact it denounces and prohibits this intent publically in the heresy included in the articles of religion. Therefore, Anglo-catholic clerics who are validly ordained would have to publically reject these articles and basically the tradition they now belong.

This is really getting hard to even keep track of what may “possibly” be taking place. So many obstacles to there being a valid Eucharist, and even if by the most miniscule of chances it is the minister is in grave sin repeatedly every time he consecrates.

I will stick to my first response, the simple answer is no the Eucharist would not be valid or licit. Possible??? Yes. Likely??? Not at all.

 

[porthos11]

If he uses the Book of Common Prayer as used by Episcopalians and Anglicans presently, the Eucharist would not be valid. I recall that the Book of Common Prayer used in the Anglican Communion states that the consecration is not intended to effect transubstantiation as understood by us Catholics. That would rob the minister of the intent to do what the Church does.

It’s not the Book of Common Prayer that was deemed defective, but the Rite of Ordination promulgated during the reign of Edward VI. This is what broke Apostolic Succession in the Anglican church.

 

[Lapey]

This is a broad statement and I can assure you that there are Anglican priests who did have the necessary intention to do what the Church does at their Eucharist. I know one of them. Of course such priests are most likely High Church Anglo-Catholics. His orders were invalid then, of course and therefore so was his Mass, but because of his theology and ecclesiology, he did have the necessary intention. In fact, because all that is required is for the minister to intend to do what the Church does, it’s quite easy to meet this requirement even for ex-Catholics.

Very well then.

St. Thomas Aquinas
ST III, Q. 82, art. 7. On whether heretics, schismatics and excommunicated priests can consecrate: newadvent.org/summa/4082.htm#article7

ST III Q. 82. art. 8. On whether degraded (i.e. laicized) priests can consecrate. newadvent.org/summa/4082.htm#article8

If that priest with valid orders you are speaking of would be operating in the intent of the Church they would no longer be Anglo-catholic, he would be Catholic. So this is not a broad statement but a truthful one.

These quotes you mention leave out some of the conversation. Such as, is the priest who holds the right and authority to consecrate working in the tradition of the Catholic Church? Is a validly ordained priest in the Anglo-catholic community able to use the rites used in the Catholic Church which would be valid words of consecration?

One thing these quotes do make obvious, it is not acceptable for anyone to participate in or receive communion from a liturgy involving this situation.

These quotes are being used out of context; they do not address the situation mentioned by the OP. This was written long before there ever was a Protestant split.

St. Thomas Aquinas lived a couple of hundred years before the split of 1517.

 

[koralixdnd]

Thi?t k? n?i th?t v?n lÃ* m?t khái ni?m tr?u tu?ng v?i nhi?u ngu?i. VÃ* chÃnh di?u dó d?n t?i vi?c nhi?u gia ch? v?n chua xem tr?ng vi?c thi?t k? n?i th?t ho?c t? trang trà n?i th?t khi?n cho can phòng tr? nên ch?t ch?i ho?c l?n x?n.
R?i kh?i th?i k? an hang, ? l?, con ngu?i dã bi?t d?ng nhÃ* d? ?. T? xua t?i nay, chúng ta d?u quen v?i vi?c thi?t k? nhÃ* mÃ* ch? y?u lÃ* thi?t k? ki?n trúc hi?n d?i. Dó lÃ* vi?c: xây nhÃ* dÃi, r?ng bao nhiêu, cao bao nhiêu t?ng, du?c chia lÃm bao nhiêu phòng. Ch? nh?ng t?ng l?p vua chúa, hay quý t?c m?i nghi t?i chuy?n trong t?ng can phòng dó s? bÃy trà nh?ng d? d?c gì d? phô truong s? giÃu có c?a mình.
? Vi?t Nam, n?p nghi trên v?n t?n t?i t?i nh?ng nam cu?i c?a th? k? tru?c và nhi?u ngu?i hi?n nay. M?t can nhÃ* riêng d?ng chia lô, hay bi?t th? cung ch? du?c ch? du?c xem xét ? vi?c thi?t k? ki?n trúc ho?c phong th?y thì ch? lÃ* hu?ng c?a hay hu?ng bÃn th? ra sao. M?t can h? chung cu, dã du?c chia phòng thì t?n d?ng luôn so d? b? trà m?t b?ng s?n có d? s?p d?t thêm giu?ng, t?, bÃn gh?. vÃo trong dó.
V?y thi?t k? n?i th?t có gì khác bi?t? VÃ* vì sao c?n ph?i thi?t k? n?i th?t?

M?t s? s?n ph?m thi?t k? n?i th?t c?a D&D Viêt Nam

D?u tiên, thi?t k? n?i th?t lÃ* vi?c t? ch?c, s?p d?t t?t c? các d? d?c trong m?t không gian sao cho hÃi hòa v? b? c?c, mÃu s?c, ánh sáng, ti?t ki?m không gian vÃ* có tr?t t? khoa h?c. Gói g?n trong nh?ng t?: th?m m?, công nang, Ãch d?ng và cá tÃnh. Bên c?nh dó là vi?c b? trÃ* phong th?y cung c?n du?c lÃm t?i t?ng không gian nh? v?i và d? t?ng phòng ng? c?a t?ng cá nhân khác nhau s? b? trÃ* khác nhau.
Do v?y, ngu?i lÃm thi?t k? n?i th?t không nh?ng dòi h?i có s? hi?u bi?t sâu s?c v? ki?n trúc, phong th?y, mà c? tÃnh ngh? thu?t, van hóa và tâm lý. MÃ* còn lÃ* ngu?i nh?y bén khi dua ch?t li?u, v?t li?u thÃch ?ng vÃo t?ng d? d?c sao cho phù h?p v?i công nang vÃ* kinh phÃ* c?a m?i gia ch? d? có th? lÃm d?p mà không khoe khoang hay không t?n kém nhu ngÃn xua v?n nghi.
Thi?t k? n?i th?t là m?t linh v?c ngh? thu?t vÃ* k? thu?t ph?c t?p, nhung d?y thi v? vÃ* nhân van. N?u b?n th?t s? mu?n s? d?ng m?t ngôi nhÃ*, hay don gi?n lÃ* m?t can phòng nh? trong dó h?i t? nh?ng y?u t? khoa h?c, th?m m?, van hóa vÃ* cá tÃnh c?a mình thì còn ch?n ch? gì mà không g?i t?i N?i th?t D&D. Chúng tôi th?t s? vinh h?nh du?c b?n chia s? mong mu?n vÃ* d?ng lòng cùng b?n xây d?ng không gian s?ng c?a mình.
Các d?ch v? thi?t k? t?i D&D

• D?ch v? Thi?t k? n?i th?t
• N?i th?t chung cu cao c?p.
• N?i th?t Phòng khách.
• N?i th?t Phòng ng?.
• N?i th?t Phòng cu?i.
• N?i th?t Phòng b?p.
• D?ch v? thi?t k? T? b?p
• N?i th?t Phòng tr? em.
• N?i th?t Phòng th?.
• N?i th?t Van phòng.
• N?i th?t Showroom.
• N?i th?t NhÃ* hÃ*ng - khách s?n - Spa
• N?i th?t Phòng hát - Karaoke.
• N?i th?t Qu?y bar - cafe.
• Ti?u c?nh - Tranh nu?c.

Hân h?nh kÃnh m?i quý khách tham kh?o Quy trình thi?t k? n?i th?t, Báo giá thi?t k? n?i th?t và các d? án thi?t k? n?i th?t dã th?c hi?n c?a D&D.
Xin trân tr?ng c?m on Quý khách hÃng dã tin tu?ng và l?a ch?n N?i th?t D&D!
M?i các b?n vÃ*o website designgroup.com.vn d? xem các thi?t k? v?:

• Thi?t k? bi?t th?.
• Thi?t k? nhÃ* lô ph?.
• Thi?t k? n?i th?t van phòng.
• Thi?t k? sân vu?n.
• Dich v? Tu v?n - Thi?t k? n?i th?t
  - D?ch v? Dóng t? b?p
• D?ch v? Thi công n?i th?t.
• D?ch v? Thi công ngo?i th?t.
• D?ch v? Cây xanh n?i th?t.

---

Công ty C? ph?n D&D.
DC: 165 Bùi Tu ToÃ*n - Phu?ng An L?c - Qu?n Bình Tân - HCM.
SDT: 0932723944 Website: designgroup.com.vn
Email: than.designgroup@gmail.com
Yahoo: than.designgroup.

 

[porthos11]

I’m not quite sure what you are trying to say…but I do believe you are reading into my words.

He is giving you a source stating clearly the minimum requirement of intent.

Trent specifically speaks of intent as in the Sacraments, and so am I. To be in line with what the Church intends where the confection of the Eucharist is concerned it to do exactly what Mother Church states, to change the substance of the gifts of bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Jesus.

No. For a sacrament to be valid, the minister need only intend to do what the Church does, whatever that is. This is an easy requirement to meet, even for those who are not Catholic. What you’re describing is the intent what the Church intends, which is not required, although it is ideal.

Quite often, those of the Anglo-Catholic strain have this minimum intention, and at best they have the full intention to effect transubstantiation (the Thirty-Nine Articles notwithstanding). Of course, their lack of valid Holy Orders makes this impossible. Those of the Evangelical strain may not have this intention, but they also may.

The Anglican tradition does not agree with this, in fact it denounces and prohibits this intent publically in the heresy included in the articles of religion. Therefore, Anglo-catholic clerics who are validly ordained would have to publically reject these articles and basically the tradition they now belong.

This is really getting hard to even keep track of what may “possibly” be taking place. So many obstacles to there being a valid Eucharist, and even if by the most miniscule of chances it is the minister is in grave sin repeatedly every time he consecrates.

I will stick to my first response, the simple answer is no the Eucharist would not be valid or licit. Possible??? Yes. Likely??? Not at all.

And this is what we’re trying to say. There are Anglicans who DO believe and intend this.
Further, Anglo-Catholics typically affirm Catholic doctrine and practice despite lack of communion with Rome and lack of Holy Orders. They therefore do not hold the Thirty-Nine Articles in high esteem and probably even just “conveniently” disregard the anti-Catholic ones.

This is why it would be wrong to simply say that a validly ordained ex-Catholic priest would automatically have his Anglican consecrations invalid. It’s also wrong to say that they would automatically be valid. Without any evidence for any particular Anglican liturgy or minister one way or the other Catholics must presume them invalid. But if the man is validly ordained, it’s certainly possible.

 

[Lapey]

He is giving you a source stating clearly the minimum requirement of intent.

No. For a sacrament to be valid, the minister need only intend to do what the Church does, whatever that is. This is an easy requirement to meet, even for those who are not Catholic. What you’re describing is the intent what the Church intends, which is not required, although it is ideal.

Quite often, those of the Anglo-Catholic strain have this minimum intention, and at best they have the full intention to effect transubstantiation (the Thirty-Nine Articles notwithstanding). Of course, their lack of valid Holy Orders makes this impossible. Those of the Evangelical strain may not have this intention, but they also may.

And this is what we’re trying to say. There are Anglicans who DO believe and intend this.
Further, Anglo-Catholics typically affirm Catholic doctrine and practice despite lack of communion with Rome and lack of Holy Orders. They therefore do not hold the Thirty-Nine Articles in high esteem and probably even just “conveniently” disregard the anti-Catholic ones.

This is why it would be wrong to simply say that a validly ordained ex-Catholic priest would automatically have his Anglican consecrations invalid. It’s also wrong to say that they would automatically be valid. Without any evidence for any particular Anglican liturgy or minister one way or the other Catholics must presume them invalid. But if the man is validly ordained, it’s certainly possible.

I’ll concede possibility you concede that it would be highly unlikely and impossible to know and grave sin to participate.

 

[porthos11]

If that priest with valid orders you are speaking of would be operating in the intent of the Church they would no longer be Anglo-catholic, he would be Catholic. So this is not a broad statement but a truthful one.

These quotes you mention leave out some of the conversation. Such as, is the priest who holds the right and authority to consecrate working in the tradition of the Catholic Church? Is a validly ordained priest in the Anglo-catholic community able to use the rites used in the Catholic Church which would be valid words of consecration?

Of course he isn’t, but no one is disputing that. His actions are illicit and gravely sinful. As for using rites in an Anglo-Catholic community, I can assure you yes they do use the Catholic rites. Anglo-Catholics quite often do not even use the Book of Common Prayer, they use a book called the English Missal, a translation of the Roman Missal in effect in the 1950’s with some BCP elements interspersed.

Consecrating the Eucharist requires only the power of order, not the power of jurisdiction. Therefore, even without faculties from a Catholic bishop, with proper form, matter and intention, he can validly, but illicitly consecrate the Eucharist. And again, because he does not need to intend what the Church intends, but to do only what the Church does, this minimum requirement can definitely be met.

These quotes are being used out of context; they do not address the situation mentioned by the OP. This was written long before there ever was a Protestant split.

St. Thomas Aquinas lived a couple of hundred years before the split of 1517.

No, I don’t think they are out of context. That’s why I gave you link to the entire articles and did not quote them in my posts. You have the full contexts. Further, truth does not change just because a Protestant split occurred in teh 1500’s. Protestants are still heretics and schismatics. Anglicans are also heretics, well probably most of them anyway, and definitely schismatics. The truth of St. Thomas’s writing applies equally to them. Valid priest, he can consecrate the Eucharist, in the Church or not.

 

[porthos11]

I’ll concede possibility you concede that it would be highly unlikely and impossible to know and grave sin to participate.

Oh, it’s probably not likely. As for grave sin to participate, I’m not sure why this is even being raised, since we all know that.

 

[Aramis]

PS. Leavened bread from my understanding is invalid matter, so therefore would be invalid Eucharist. This was a big issue several years ago where many parishes were using homemade bread for use in the Mass. This has been mandated to stop here in my area. I’m sure it may still take place in some areas but there are strict guidelines as to the make up of the matter. It’s not just simply “wheat bread” that constitutes proper matter, nor is it simply grape wine, there are certain requirements that must be met.

Fr. Deacon - if this were true - and it is not - then the Ruthenian, Ukrainian, Romanian, and Melkite Catholic Churches would have invalid sacraments - Which Rome assures they do not.

Validity can not be adjudicated differently church by church - what is valid for the Byzantine must be valid for Rome, if Rome is to accept them into union. And Rome has done so.

Later canons Rome has promulgated do not concur with Trent canons 11 and 12.

Can. 900 §1. The minister who is able to confect the sacrament of the Eucharist in the person of Christ is a validly ordained priest alone.

§2. A priest not impeded by canon law celebrates the Eucharist licitly; the provisions of the following canons are to be observed.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P38.HTM

Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ⇒ can. 861, §2.

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

§5. For the cases mentioned in §§2, 3, and 4, the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops is not to issue general norms except after consultation at least with the local competent authority of the interested non-Catholic Church or community.

(vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM but also CCEO 671)

Our present Pope Francis has celebrated the Divine Liturgy within the last year using leavened bread. And many times. He has celebrated the Divine Liturgy according to the rubrics of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, which is fully in union with Rome, and that includes the use of leavened bread.

 

[Aramis]

Oh, it’s probably not likely. As for grave sin to participate, I’m not sure why this is even being raised, since we all know that.

Because there are actually cases where it would not be sinful to participate in a valid but illicit divine worship service. They are few… and the lives of Martyrs are filled with them…

Blessed Theodore Romzha was ordained a bishop at a Divine Liturgy by a single consecrator, with the liturgy held in his kitchen… highly illicit, but not a sin due to the persecutions. He was martyred a few years later, having been enthroned due to the martyrdom of his predecessor as Bishop of Mukacheve.

Many of his faithful participated in liturgies held in places illicit due to being common use - kitchens, barns - but due to the persecutions, these illicit liturgies were needed because no other way existed.

Many a priest celebrated illicitly by using impure bread… for lack of access to wheat flour to make proper liturgical bread (leavened or not). One martyr, since beatified, used soda crackers because they were at least of wheat.

A person stuck due to circumstances where there is no Catholic liturgy (and this is a VERY real possibility if one accepts a job in rural Alaska) may have need to find some other valid minister of confession and eucharist in order to fulfill the precepts.

This has been a very real issue for those Catholics in the Balkans and in Russia. This has been a very real issue for Catholics in China. (The People’s Patriotic Church of China contains Catholic priests, but is not itself the Catholic Church - not all ministers are validly ordained. And visitors cannot ascertain casually whether the priest is or is not one of the Catholic priests hiding within the PPCoC.)

Generally, tho’, an Anglican will not have united himself to the mind of the Church, due to the heresies allowed within it.

But, by the same token, Rome says clearly that the SSPX has valid liturgies, despite them being suspended, and acting against the will of the Church in their persistant refusal of Rome’s authority. Cardinal Arinze has repeatedly said that participation by the faithful Catholic is not itself a sin, even while Canon law notes that for the priest himself, it’s grave matter.

And, due to the Anglicans laxity about Catholic priests who break communion with Rome, it is a very real issue.

If I were gravely injured, and my cousin Thomas were to hand (a laicized Roman Catholic priest, still in communion with Rome), I’d have him hear my confession; if I were dying, I have no doubt he’d provide viaticum if he couldn’t get a non-laicized priest. Same for Rev. Fr. Mike Hornig, defrocked biritual priest. Likewise, if Rev. Fr. Cutie were to hand instead, he’s a valid priest, and his intent in hearing a confession is to absolve from sin, so I would have no fear that the absolution would be invalid; I’d be dubious about his Eucharist, tho’. (Fr. Cutie was accepted into the Episcopal Church after being suspended for a secret marriage. He was validly ordained, and is suspended, and has obvious flaws in his thinking, but he’s still validly ordained.)

It is important to note that Rome still requires the intent of the sacrament to be the same as the church’s intent for that sacrament. Hence, anyone whose intent is consubstantiation, even if an active Catholic priest, invalidly attempts to confect the Eucharist, but an Orthodox priest, who would never use the term Transubstatiation, but still believes the Holy Mystery effects a permanent change, validly does so.

(Trent also said the Orthodox are all invalid and anathematized… But by 1917, the CIC showed that Rome no longer held that view.)

 

[Aramis]

You can’t even go to an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, despite its being valid, and still fulfil any obligation. You’re also not supposed to receive any kind of non-Catholic communion, for various reasons (invalid, or because the other church, e.g. Orthodox doesn’t want you to).

If they will hear your confession (and some won’t, while some will), you can fullfill the obligation of annual confession in an Orthodox parish.

If they will do so, you are permitted to fulfill the precept of annual or more frequent communion by the Orthodox Eucharist. Most won’t, but some will, and most of those who do will do so quietly, so as to not cause scandal.

For some Eastern Catholics, their bishops and pastors allow attendance at an Orthodox liturgy to fulfill the sunday precept exactly the same as a Roman mass. (Previous pastor was a JCD. He was quite adamant that the sunday obligation for canonical byzantines could be fulfilled at an orthodox parish.) Note that for some Eastern Rite Churches in Union, the sunday worship precept is not waived just because the obligation to attend liturgy is waived; in such cases, the obligation to worship is fulfilled by Reader’s Typica, or by Vespers and/or Matins. (My pastor has given a blanket permission to do matins if sick or homebound.)

Likewise, the wording of the canon law is that a divine worship service of any Catholic Rite fulfills the precept - note that the rite used in my parish is the same as the rite used in the Russian Orthodox cathedral down the road, at least as “rite” is defined in the CCEO - Roman, Constantinopolitan, Antiochene, Chaldean, Armenian, Alexandrian.

Can. 923 The Christian faithful can participate in the eucharistic sacrifice and receive holy communion in any Catholic rite, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 844.
(vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P39.HTM

As for Anglican and Episcopalian liturgies, we Catholics must always work on the presumption that they are invalid.

This is in part because Anglicans have no valid bishops for orders to flow from, and in part because the Anglican belief in the real presence explicitly allows for consubstantiation, which is heresy. The general principle is, “when in doubt, don’t”…

 

[Lapey]

Fr. Deacon - if this were true - and it is not - then the Ruthenian, Ukrainian, Romanian, and Melkite Catholic Churches would have invalid sacraments - Which Rome assures they do not.

Validity can not be adjudicated differently church by church - what is valid for the Byzantine must be valid for Rome, if Rome is to accept them into union. And Rome has done so.

Later canons Rome has promulgated do not concur with Trent canons 11 and 12.

Can. 900 §1. The minister who is able to confect the sacrament of the Eucharist in the person of Christ is a validly ordained priest alone.

§2. A priest not impeded by canon law celebrates the Eucharist licitly; the provisions of the following canons are to be observed.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P38.HTM

Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ⇒ can. 861, §2.

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

§5. For the cases mentioned in §§2, 3, and 4, the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops is not to issue general norms except after consultation at least with the local competent authority of the interested non-Catholic Church or community.

(vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM but also CCEO 671)

Our present Pope Francis has celebrated the Divine Liturgy within the last year using leavened bread. And many times. He has celebrated the Divine Liturgy according to the rubrics of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, which is fully in union with Rome, and that includes the use of leavened bread.

Thank you for the charitable correction of me on this topic. I am guilty of being fully of the Latin Rite and not at all familiar with other Rites who may be in or out of full communion with Rome. The conversation veered into different realm all together when I made this “after thought PS” comment and I should have refrained until researching my opinion to be true or false before posting it.

We have since headed back into the direction which this thread was all about Anglo-catholic or Episcopalian ministers with valid orders, not these apostolic churches you and others may be a part of. The thread was originally and should stay on the Protestant churches.

Thanks again!

 

[porthos11]

It is important to note that Rome still requires the intent of the sacrament to be the same as the church’s intent for that sacrament.

Hence, anyone whose intent is consubstantiation, even if an active Catholic priest, invalidly attempts to confect the Eucharist, but an Orthodox priest, who would never use the term Transubstatiation, but still believes the Holy Mystery effects a permanent change, validly does so.

And again, it must be pointed out that this is not true. To require that the minister intend what the Church intends is too high a requirement, and the Church does not mandate it, although it is ideal. All a minister needs to intend is to do whatever it is the Church does.

It is very well possible that a former Catholic priest can turn heretical and as a result, hold a defective intention, but we’ve pretty much conceded that point. One who actively intends consubstantiation knowing full well what the Catholic church teaches could also suffer a defect in intent as well.

However, even a belief in consubstantiation, or even a lack of belief in the Real Presence need not necessarily invalidate intent. Because all that is required is to intend to do whatever it is the Church does, all he need intend at the minimum is to execute the rite as it is in the Catholic Church.

In other words, when asked for a truthful answer, the minister does not need to be able to truthfully answer: “I intend to confect the Body and Blood of Christ” or “I intend to effect Transubstantiation in to the Body and Blood of Christ.” For the intent to be sufficient, he need only point to another Catholic priest and say, “Whatever it is he’s doing.”

 

[Aramis]

And again, it must be pointed out that this is not true. To require that the minister intend what the Church intends is too high a requirement, and the Church does not mandate it, although it is ideal. All a minister needs to intend is to do whatever it is the Church does.

It is very well possible that a former Catholic priest can turn heretical and as a result, hold a defective intention, but we’ve pretty much conceded that point. One who actively intends consubstantiation knowing full well what the Catholic church teaches could also suffer a defect in intent as well.

However, even a belief in consubstantiation, or even a lack of belief in the Real Presence need not necessarily invalidate intent. Because all that is required is to intend to do whatever it is the Church does, all he need intend at the minimum is to execute the rite as it is in the Catholic Church.

In other words, when asked for a truthful answer, the minister does not need to be able to truthfully answer: “I intend to confect the Body and Blood of Christ” or “I intend to effect Transubstantiation in to the Body and Blood of Christ.” For the intent to be sufficient, he need only point to another Catholic priest and say, “Whatever it is he’s doing.”

Actually, Rome HAS said that intent for consubstantiation invalidates the Eucharist. Repeatedly. Councils condemning it: Lateran IV, Constance, Trent.

Note also, that, as noted in forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1753 Consubstantiation renders symbolic only the words of institution - “Take, eat. This is my body.” For in consubstatiation, one does not believe the bread and wine are the body and blood, but that Christ is present with the bread and wine.

Consubstantiation confects not the body and blood, but bread and wine with the presence of Christ within. Which is a clear failure to match the intent to that of the church.

 

[porthos11]

Actually, Rome HAS said that intent for consubstantiation invalidates the Eucharist. Repeatedly. Councils condemning it: Lateran IV, Constance, Trent.

Note also, that, as noted in forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1753 Consubstantiation renders symbolic only the words of institution - “Take, eat. This is my body.” For in consubstatiation, one does not believe the bread and wine are the body and blood, but that Christ is present with the bread and wine.

Consubstantiation confects not the body and blood, but bread and wine with the presence of Christ within. Which is a clear failure to match the intent to that of the church.

We know that. Explicitly intending consubstantiation invalidates intent.

However, it is also possible for one to err and yet not fail in the intent requirement. For example, the minister mistakenly thinks the Catholic Church intends consubstantiation. But he still intends to simply do what the Catholic Church does (as could be the case in an Anglo-Catholic ministry whose ministers in good faith actually consider themselves Catholic and claim continuity with Catholic rite and doctrine). This error does not invalidate intent, because the minimum has been met: to do whatever it is the Church does.

Not even belief in the Real Presence is necessary for intent to be sufficient. Many of the Eucharistic miracles were wrought within the context of a valid Mass celebrated by a doubting priest. The miracle still happened because the priest, despite his doubt, never withdrew his intent to simply do whatever it is the Church does.

Again, intending what the Church intends is too high a requirement and is not necessary, although it is ideal.

 

[Aramis]

We know that. Explicitly intending consubstantiation invalidates intent.

However, it is also possible for one to err and yet not fail in the intent requirement. For example, the minister mistakenly thinks the Catholic Church intends consubstantiation. But he still intends to simply do what the Catholic Church does (as could be the case in an Anglo-Catholic ministry whose ministers in good faith actually consider themselves Catholic and claim continuity with Catholic rite and doctrine). This error does not invalidate intent, because the minimum has been met: to do whatever it is the Church does.

Not even belief in the Real Presence is necessary for intent to be sufficient. Many of the Eucharistic miracles were wrought within the context of a valid Mass celebrated by a doubting priest. The miracle still happened because the priest, despite his doubt, never withdrew his intent to simply do whatever it is the Church does.

Again, intending what the Church intends is too high a requirement and is not necessary, although it is ideal.

What the church has repeatedly stated about consubstatiation is that one who believes in it is incapable of intending what the church does. So, unless they are a Catholic priest, we have to presume a church that allows it invalidly attempts to confect the eucharist.

Its’ one of the few cases where the belief is proof of invalid intent, because the belief is directly about the Eucharist.

A priest who doubts is not the same as one who is a heretic - a priest in doubt is, if you’ll pardon the pun, given the benefit of the doubt.

But a priest who embraces a eucharistic heresy has always, since the earliest days, been deemed invalidly attempting to confect the eucharist. (Heck, even their baptisms are not held valid until the 19th C!)

A priest’s state of grace doesn’t invalidate the Eucharist, provided he BELIEVES he is confecting the Eucharist.

The problem with the Anglican priest ex-Catholic Priest issue is that, if he’s using the Anglican mass, with permission of an anglican bishop, he’s visibly joined his intent to the Anglican Church’s intent… and that intent, for the Eucharist, isn’t what the Catholic Church’s intent is. They intend “to cause the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ” (per the local Episcopal bishop, about 15 years ago), not the transmutation of the essential nature into the Body and Blood of Christ.

And, as a former Catholic priest, he can’t have ignorance - he can have delusion, but not ignorance due to his seminary training.

Don’t get me wrong: Most Anglicans do believe Christ is present in their communion bread - but not in the literal way that Catholics do. Some do believe in Transubstantiation - many of those anglicans are no longer in the mainstream Anglican Communion.

One has to presume, barring evidence to the contrary, that an Anglican priest, even if also an ordained Catholic priest, lacks intent to do what the Catholic Church does in the Eucharist because the Anglican intent for the Eucharist is in fact different.

To wit, article XXVIII of the Articles of Faith of the Anglican Communion:
XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper.
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html

If he’s gone Anglican, in one of the Anglican Communion members, he’s had to sign on to these. He denies the transubstantiation. He cannot join his intent to that of the church, unless he lied to the Anglicans.

The fundamentals of the Anglican church forbid belief in the Real Physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

 

[RyanBlack]

In the Episcopal Church, the 39 Articles basically bind no one–not even priests. Belief in transubstantiation is not really all that uncommon among Anglicans, including among the clergy (perhaps especially among the clergy).

 

[porthos11]

If he’s gone Anglican, in one of the Anglican Communion members, he’s had to sign on to these. He denies the transubstantiation. He cannot join his intent to that of the church, unless he lied to the Anglicans.

The fundamentals of the Anglican church forbid belief in the Real Physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

One must understand that Anglicanism is pretty much an anything-goes religion. Take some time to review the posts earlier as you came in late and you’ll find that those of us who defend the possibility of valid Eucharists for former Catholic priests turned Anglican also concede that defect in intention is very much a possibility.

However within Anglicanism, the Thirty-Nine Articles are conveniently disregarded by those who affirm Anglicanism’s Catholic heritage, which is why the distinction was made earlier between the Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic branches. I can assure you that there are Anglo-Catholics who reject the Protestant doctrines of the Eucharist and fully embrace the Catholic teaching. So no, one going Anglican does not automatically mean he denies the proper belief of the Church and there are indeed Anglican clergy who do intend to consecrate with the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does (in fact, intending exactly what the Catholic Church intends), only to be stopped, of course, by their lack of Holy Orders.

 

[andrewstx]

Actually, Rome HAS said that intent for consubstantiation invalidates the Eucharist. Repeatedly. Councils condemning it: Lateran IV, Constance, Trent.

Note also, that, as noted in forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1753 Consubstantiation renders symbolic only the words of institution - “Take, eat. This is my body.” For in consubstatiation, one does not believe the bread and wine are the body and blood, but that Christ is present with the bread and wine.

Consubstantiation confects not the body and blood, but bread and wine with the presence of Christ within. Which is a clear failure to match the intent to that of the church.

But Episcopalians do not teach consubstantiation. It is Lutherans who are usually accused if it. But they don’t teach it either.