Valid Eucharist by Episcopal priest, formerly Catholic?

[Jotto]

For some, yes like Confession and Marriage, which cannot be performed validly without faculties from the local Ordinary. Others like the Eucharist and Holy Orders are still celebrated validly, but illicitly.

Actually Rome has recognized the marriage of two baptized Christians in a Protestant setting as valid for some time now. This is clearly the case as a Protestant couple who become Roman Catholic are not asked to go through another marriage ceremony.

 

[Jotto]

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.

Interesting since the Catholic/Lutheran dialog on this matter concluded that it is the question the validity of Lutheran ordinations that is the stumbling block in this matter not the Lutheran understanding of Real Presence. In rejecting the use of the Aristotelian terminology of substance and accident, Luther and his followers were not intending to teach something other than what the Catholic Church had always taught. Their motivation for speaking of the Presence of Christ being "in, with and under the bread and the wine was their attempt to make the doctrine intelligible to their congregants, intelligible in a way that as even today, the terms “substance” and “accident” often are not correctly understood even among practicing Roman Catholics.

Although many Catholics and Lutherans still speak as if their understandings of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist are different, I myself am unable to discern why. Lutherans speak of the consecrated species as “bread” and “wine” meaning I believe what the Catholic Church means by speaking of the “accidents” of the bread and the wine. When Lutherans speak of Christ being present “in, with and under” the bread and the wine, they mean to communicate what Catholics are talking about when they speak of “substance.”

If one goes on to speak of the presence of Christ in Eucharist as Vatican Council II did, namely that in the Mass, Christ is present through the proclaimed word, the presiding celebrant and last but hardly least in the celebrating congregation, the affinity of the two communions’ understandings becomes even more evident. Though I must say many Lutheran pastors seem to be unaware that the Confessions of the Lutheran Church speak of the presider at Mass as one acting “in persona Christi.”

Finally if one wishes to differentiate the Lutheran understanding from the doctrine of transubstantiation than one must ask whether the understanding of the Early Church was truly Catholic as the categories of “substance” and “accident” were not used by them. Furthermore, one must wonder whether the earliest generation of Christians were not heretics in this regard as, according to many Catholic exegetes, the “This” in the phrase, “This is my body” is not thought to refer to the bread at all (as the case endings of the word, “this” and of the word, “bread,” are not compatible). But rather the “this” of this phrase in fact has the same reference as the “this” of the following sentence, Namely “Do this for…”. Which is the say our Lord in typical Hebrew fashion was not focusing upon the bread as a substance at all but rather upon the action of breaking and sharing the bread. Thus what he was saying was, “When you break and share bread in my name, you reveal that you are my body.” Indeed it is thought that the Apostle Paul’s whole theology of the “Body of Christ” is rooted in this understanding of the Eucharistic meal.

When the Church entered into a predominantly Hellenistic culture where the noun rather than the verb, substances rather than actions, were more central to their understanding of reality as was their understanding of sacrament as they celebrated the rites of their pagan mystery religions, then the Church shifted the focus of her sacred meal from the actions of the Eucharist to the substances of the Eucharist - a shift which can clearly be seen in the Fourth Gospel - "…unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood… One understanding does not need to exclude the other. Unfortunately, in most Roman Catholic settings as well as in most Lutheran settings the presence of our Lord continues to be celebrated as if it only has to do with the elements of the bread and the wine. Even among Roman Catholics what the Council taught in this regard is ignored.

 

[porthos11]

Actually Rome has recognized the marriage of two baptized Christians in a Protestant setting as valid for some time now. This is clearly the case as a Protestant couple who become Roman Catholic are not asked to go through another marriage ceremony.

That’s outside the scope of this thread. We know that; we’re talking about the faculties of a former Catholic priest within the context of Catholic sacramental rites.

 

[Jotto]

For some, yes like Confession and Marriage, which cannot be performed validly without faculties from the local Ordinary. Others like the Eucharist and Holy Orders are still celebrated validly, but illicitly.

Hmmm, I could have sworn that the marriage of two baptized Protestants is considered to be valid by the Magisterium.

 

[Aramis]

Hmmm, I could have sworn that the marriage of two baptized Protestants is considered to be valid by the Magisterium.

Yes, but a Catholic married by a protestant is invalidly married unless his own bishop consented.

 

[Jotto]

Yes, but a Catholic married by a protestant is invalidly married unless his own bishop consented.

I thought we were talking about someone who had made the decision to no longer be in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church and thus in effect had become a Protestant. Is it the case that a Protestant who had once been a Roman Catholic and a Protestant who had been baptized by a Protestant minister are regarded differently by the Canon Law of the Roman Church?

 

[Aramis]

I thought we were talking about someone who had made the decision to no longer be in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church and thus in effect had become a Protestant. Is it the case that a Protestant who had once been a Roman Catholic and a Protestant who had been baptized by a Protestant minister are regarded differently by the Canon Law of the Roman Church?

The basics, in a nutshell:

Three kinds of marriage: sacramental, natural, and invalid.

For a Catholic to marry at all requires his bishop’s permission. If he/she is marrying a catholic of the opposite gender, and the witness is a Cleric (ordained minister) of the Catholic Church, it’s presumed to be a valid sacramental marriage and the permission is also presumed by canon law. Catholics are not permitted to have non-sacramental marriages.

For Orthodox, two orthodox, one man and one woman, whose marriage was celebrated by an Orthodox Cleric is presumed sacramentally married.

For non-Catholics, a legal marriage between a man and a woman is presumed to be a valid natural marriage. If they convert, it then becomes a sacramental marriage.

Any other case is wrong - it’s not a marriage at all in the eyes of the church, but a sham.

Natural marriages can be disolved by competent authority; sacramental cannot.

Annulments are a finding that the sacramental marriage didn’t exist - not a disolution of a sacramental marriage, but a finding that the marriage was, at best, a natural marriage, if not even lacking that, and thus is not “permanent” in the eyes of the church.

A former catholic cannot be the church’s witness normally - a special delegation would be required by the individual’s bishop, who might require another Catholic witness the exchange of vows. Also, in such cases, the bishop’s permission is not automatic, and each case is reviewed at outset.

Likewise, a catholic marrying a non-catholic cannot be presumed to have the bishop’s permission - the bishop has to give explicit permission.

 

[RyanBlack]

The basics, in a nutshell:

Three kinds of marriage: sacramental, natural, and invalid.

For a Catholic to marry at all requires his bishop’s permission. If he/she is marrying a catholic of the opposite gender, and the witness is a Cleric (ordained minister) of the Catholic Church, it’s presumed to be a valid sacramental marriage and the permission is also presumed by canon law. Catholics are not permitted to have non-sacramental marriages.

For Orthodox, two orthodox, one man and one woman, whose marriage was celebrated by an Orthodox Cleric is presumed sacramentally married.

For non-Catholics, a legal marriage between a man and a woman is presumed to be a valid natural marriage. If they convert, it then becomes a sacramental marriage.

Any other case is wrong - it’s not a marriage at all in the eyes of the church, but a sham.

Natural marriages can be disolved by competent authority; sacramental cannot.

Annulments are a finding that the sacramental marriage didn’t exist - not a disolution of a sacramental marriage, but a finding that the marriage was, at best, a natural marriage, if not even lacking that, and thus is not “permanent” in the eyes of the church.

A former catholic cannot be the church’s witness normally - a special delegation would be required by the individual’s bishop, who might require another Catholic witness the exchange of vows. Also, in such cases, the bishop’s permission is not automatic, and each case is reviewed at outset.

Likewise, a catholic marrying a non-catholic cannot be presumed to have the bishop’s permission - the bishop has to give explicit permission.

I find a couple of problems with your post. One is that it is not true that Catholics are not permitted to have non-sacramental marriages. Catholics can receive permission to marry non-Christians, in which case you have a non-sacramental, but valid marriage. The second is that non-Catholics who are baptized do not have to convert for their marriages to be sacramental. If two baptized Protestants marry and there are no impediments to their marrying, their marriage is both valid and sacramental.

 

[Jotto]

The basics, in a nutshell:

Three kinds of marriage: sacramental, natural, and invalid.

For a Catholic to marry at all requires his bishop’s permission. If he/she is marrying a catholic of the opposite gender, and the witness is a Cleric (ordained minister) of the Catholic Church, it’s presumed to be a valid sacramental marriage and the permission is also presumed by canon law. Catholics are not permitted to have non-sacramental marriages.

For Orthodox, two orthodox, one man and one woman, whose marriage was celebrated by an Orthodox Cleric is presumed sacramentally married.

For non-Catholics, a legal marriage between a man and a woman is presumed to be a valid natural marriage. If they convert, it then becomes a sacramental marriage.

Any other case is wrong - it’s not a marriage at all in the eyes of the church, but a sham.

Natural marriages can be disolved by competent authority; sacramental cannot.

Annulments are a finding that the sacramental marriage didn’t exist - not a disolution of a sacramental marriage, but a finding that the marriage was, at best, a natural marriage, if not even lacking that, and thus is not “permanent” in the eyes of the church.

A former catholic cannot be the church’s witness normally - a special delegation would be required by the individual’s bishop, who might require another Catholic witness the exchange of vows. Also, in such cases, the bishop’s permission is not automatic, and each case is reviewed at outset.

Likewise, a catholic marrying a non-catholic cannot be presumed to have the bishop’s permission - the bishop has to give explicit permission.

Are we to conclude from this explanation that a Protestant who marries a person who was a member of a Roman Catholic parish but now has been received into membership of a Protestant congregation is “living in sin?”

 

[Aramis]

Are we to conclude from this explanation that a Protestant who marries a person who was a member of a Roman Catholic parish but now has been received into membership of a Protestant congregation is “living in sin?”

Yes. Or, that’s what I’ve read. The church will require a convalidation for them should they return to Catholic praxis.

THe issue of marriage to non-christians is odd - the marriage is treated as sacramental for the Catholic; it’s uncommon for marriage to Muslims to be approved, due to the Muslim norms for children. Marriage to Jews is likewise uncommon, but since they share the same basic approach to marriage, it can be said to be sacramental for them, as well.

Marriage to pagans is not supposed to be approved, per the Vatican II documents.