Validity of Non-Catholic Eucharist vis-a-vis Former Catholics

[Padres1969]

Came across a fairly unique situation, that has some tangential relation to groups like Old Catholics and the like we’ve discussed on CA previously on this subforum and others.

Mainly I’m asking about the validity of a confected Eucharist (from the Catholic POV) by a validly and licitly ordained Catholic priest, who has subsequently joined another Christian church.

I present this because, while it sounds like a hypothetical or thought experiment, it has actually happened at my own parish last week. Namely a Catholic priest, with valid/licit Holy Orders in the Catholic Church, was received, along with his orders, into the Episcopal Church by the Episcopal Bishop of my Diocese.

So my question would be, what is the Catholic view of the validity of his confection of the Eucharist at subsequent Episcopal Church masses?

 

[GKC]

Came across a fairly unique situation, that has some tangential relation to groups like Old Catholics and the like we’ve discussed on CA previously on this subforum and others.

Mainly I’m asking about the validity of a confected Eucharist (from the Catholic POV) by a validly and licitly ordained Catholic priest, who has subsequently joined another Christian church.

I present this because, while it sounds like a hypothetical or thought experiment, it has actually happened at my own parish last week. Namely a Catholic priest, with valid/licit Holy Orders in the Catholic Church, was received, along with his orders, into the Episcopal Church by the Episcopal Bishop of my Diocese.

So my question would be, what is the Catholic view of the validity of his confection of the Eucharist at subsequent Episcopal Church masses?

Sounds like a case similar to Fr. Cutie.

By my understanding, the validity of his orders, with respect to confecting sacraments, is not in question. The licity, of course, is. And the validity of any sacrament Fr. Cutie might confect (or not) would, as usual, depend on the validity of the other relevant sacramental factors.

 

[Padres1969]

Sounds like a case similar to Fr. Cutie.

By my understanding, the validity of his orders, with respect to confecting sacraments, is not in question. The licity, of course, is. And the validity of any sacrament Fr. Cutie might confect (or not) would, as usual, depend on the validity of the other relevant sacramental factors.

I should have added that, and will add it as an addendum to my OP. I figured it would be an “illicit” confection. But my interest isn’t in whether it is licit or not from a Catholic POV, but rather in the validity. I.E. from a Catholic POV would transubstantiation have occurred.

By “sacramental factors” I presume you’re referring to things such as, does said priest still believe in transubstantiation, did the mass take place according to a form that would be valid per Catholic teaching, etc…

 

[GKC]

I should have added that, and will add it as an addendum to my OP. I figured it would be an “illicit” confection. But my interest isn’t in whether it is licit or not from a Catholic POV, but rather in the validity. I.E. from a Catholic POV would transubstantiation have occurred.

By “sacramental factors” I presume you’re referring to things such as, does said priest still believe in transubstantiation, did the mass take place according to a form that would be valid per Catholic teaching, etc…

Form is the most possibly problematic, but form, intent, matter, yes.

 

[joeybaggz]

So my question would be, what is the Catholic view of the validity of his confection of the Eucharist at subsequent Episcopal Church masses?

Had this very same situation occur in a parish I attended several years ago. The pastor, a very beloved figure, left the RCC and became an Episcopal priest about 10 miles away.

The priest was encouraged by his bishop to recant. When he didn’t, he was excommunicated. He no longer had the powers and authority of a Catholic priest. As to how he is seen but the Episcopal church, that is their business.

Excommunication removes the licit authority of a RCC priest. I don’t believe the RCC recognizes the apostolic succession of Peter through the Anglican or Episcopalian churches.
From my Catholic understanding, attending an Episcopalian service on Sunday and receiving bread and/or wine is not a proper fulfillment of my responsibility as a Catholic to keep holy the Sabbath, at least from a sacramental perspective.

Shalom

 

[Padres1969]

Form is the most possibly problematic, but form, intent, matter, yes.

Well I imagine intent and matter are not problematic, at least in my specific example. As his understanding of the Eucharist has not changed, nor his intent to confect it in the same manner. And the matter is identical to the matter utilized in a Catholic mass (namely unleavened communion wafers and wine).

Form may be the biggest issue depending on if the RCC views the Episcopal Rite II form as being too far from the Catholic form I’d imagine. But even then the words of institution in particular are very close.

        Take this, all of you, and eat of it:
        for this is my body which will be given up for you.

        Take this, all of you, and drink from it:
        for this is the chalice of my blood,
        the blood of the new and eternal covenant.
        which will be poured out for you and for many
        for the forgiveness of sins .
        Do this in memory of me.

vs

On the night he was handed over to suffering and death, our
Lord Jesus Christ took bread; and when he had given thanks
to you, he broke it, and gave it to his disciples, and said, “Take,
eat: This is my Body, which is given for you. Do this for the
remembrance of me.”

After supper he took the cup of wine; and when he had given
thanks, he gave it to them, and said, “Drink this, all of you:
This is my Blood of the new Covenant, which is shed for you
and for many for the forgiveness of sins. Whenever you drink
it, do this for the remembrance of me.”

 

[Padres1969]

Had this very same situation occur in a parish I attended several years ago. The pastor, a very beloved figure, left the RCC and became an Episcopal priest about 10 miles away.

The priest was encouraged by his bishop to recant. When he didn’t, he was excommunicated. ** He no longer had the powers and authority of a Catholic priest.** As to how he is seen but the Episcopal church, that is their business.

Excommunication removes the licit authority of a RCC priest. I don’t believe the RCC recognizes the apostolic succession of Peter through the Anglican or Episcopalian churches.
From my Catholic understanding, attending an Episcopalian service on Sunday and receiving bread and/or wine is not a proper fulfillment of my responsibility as a Catholic to keep holy the Sabbath, at least from a sacramental perspective.

Shalom

Your two sentences don’t necessarily mesh. Licit authority is admittedly not present as I mentioned earlier. At this point consider it a presupposed point that no such priest is performing a mass licitly, what I’m interested in is “valid” authority. Unless a Catholic priest has been laicized, my understanding it even if they perform mass illicilty, they’re still performing mass validly from the Catholic POV, correct?

Provided as GKC points out form, matter and intent are all present.

 

[GKC]

Your two sentences don’t necessarily mesh. Licit authority is admittedly not present as I mentioned earlier. At this point consider it a presupposed point that no such priest is performing a mass licitly, what I’m interested in is “valid” authority. Unless a Catholic priest has been laicized, my understanding it even if they perform mass illicilty, they’re still performing mass validly from the Catholic POV, correct?

Provided as GKC points out form, matter and intent are all present.

Yes.

 

[GKC]

Well I imagine intent and matter are not problematic, at least in my specific example. As his understanding of the Eucharist has not changed, nor his intent to confect it in the same manner. And the matter is identical to the matter utilized in a Catholic mass (namely unleavened communion wafers and wine).

Form may be the biggest issue depending on if the RCC views the Episcopal Rite II form as being too far from the Catholic form I’d imagine. But even then the words of institution in particular are very close.

vs

The point would be whether the form, deriving from the Edwardine Ordinal, possesses, in the judgement of the RCC, the same negative quality of *nativa indoles ac spiritus *: whether it can, be used at all to confect the sacrament, regardless of any other sacramental factor.

 

[joeybaggz]

Yes.

It is my understanding that an excommunicated Catholic Priest has no power or authority, either licit or valid, to confect the Eucharist as understood in the RCC. Whether an excommunicated RCC priest is ‘laicized’ or not, I am not certain. I understand a laicized Catholic priest always has the ability in a circumstance where death is imminent, to hear a confession and absolve a person prior to death. that is the only power/authority he retains as a RCC priest. One must remember that in the RCC, a sacrament is a permanent mark on the soul. “You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizadek.” That’s my understanding.

In fairness, my post was from the perspective of a Catholic (myself) understanding that the reality of a sacrament of the RCC, cannot be brought about by a minister of another denomination, baptism being the exception.

Shalom

 

[GKC]

It is my understanding that an excommunicated Catholic Priest has no power or authority, either licit or valid, to confect the Eucharist as understood in the RCC. Whether an excommunicated RCC priest is ‘laicized’ or not, I am not certain. I understand a laicized Catholic priest always has the ability in a circumstance where death is imminent, to hear a confession and absolve a person prior to death. that is the only power/authority he retains as a RCC priest. One must remember that in the RCC, a sacrament is a permanent mark on the soul. “You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizadek.” That’s my understanding.

In fairness, my post was from the perspective of a Catholic (myself) understanding that the reality of a sacrament of the RCC, cannot be brought about by a minister of another denomination, baptism being the exception.

Shalom

I understand your point in the last para. But the indelible mark is the counter point. As an excommunicated bishop (or a schismatic or a heretical one) retains the authority of valid/illicit ordination, other sacramental factors being valid, so a validly ordained RC priest retains his sacerdotal functions, validly, but not licitly.

 

[Padres1969]

**It is my understanding that an excommunicated Catholic Priest has no power or authority, either licit or valid, to confect the Eucharist as understood in the RCC. ** Whether an excommunicated RCC priest is ‘laicized’ or not, I am not certain. I understand a laicized Catholic priest always has the ability in a circumstance where death is imminent, to hear a confession and absolve a person prior to death. that is the only power/authority he retains as a RCC priest. One must remember that in the RCC, a sacrament is a permanent mark on the soul. “You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizadek.” That’s my understanding.

In fairness, my post was from the perspective of a Catholic (myself) understanding that the reality of a sacrament of the RCC, cannot be brought about by a minister of another denomination, baptism being the exception.

Shalom

If this link is correct, and it’s a pretty good source I’ve found over the years, then you’re not correct here. While an excommunicated Catholic priest cannot say a licit mass, he can say a valid mass even if said mass is illicit.

canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/08/01/are-sspx-sacraments-valid-part-i/

Even an excommunicated priest, which presumably a priest jumping to another Christian church such as I came across would be from a RCC POV, would still be able to confect a valid Eucharist as say the SSPX do despite being illicit.

 

[Crusaderbear]

Sounds like a Bishop level question to me…maybe even a Cardinal. Definitely not any of us CAF types.

 

[joeybaggz]

I understand your point in the last para. But the indelible mark is the counter point. As an excommunicated bishop (or a schismatic or a heretical one) retains the authority of valid/illicit ordination, other sacramental factors being valid, so a validly ordained RC priest retains his sacerdotal functions, validly, but not licitly.

did you mean to say "the authority of valid/licit (illicit) ordination?

Are you saying that a validly ordained RC priest retains his sacerdotal functions, validly, in the RCC church (from which he has been excommunicated), but not in the Episcopal church? Or are you saying that his valid ordination remains regardless of whatever denomination he chooses to serve in?

Kind of would like to hear from a Canon lawyer on this one. (Apologies if you are a canon lawyer)

Shalom

 

[Emperor_Markus]

If he is no longer a Catholic priest, his Eucharist is false, methinks.

But the fact that we even have to ask questions like this shows that there is a great crisis in the church today. We must stop this apostasy - priests leaving the faith! Unthinkable.

 

[joeybaggz]

Even an excommunicated priest, which presumably a priest jumping to another Christian church such as I came across would be from a RCC POV, would still be able to confect a valid Eucharist as say the SSPX do despite being illicit.

Gee, that’s great to know. When some Jehovah’s Witness preacher who happened at one time to be a Catholic priest shows up and says Mass, I’ve fulfilled my Sunday obligation. Heck, why don’t we just post a listing of all churches, whatever the denomination, where the preacher is a formed Catholic priest so wherever I am, I can just go to the local Baptist church where he now ‘practices’, give the guy a hundred bucks, and ask him to say a Mass for me because the local Catholic Church isn’t close enough to the beach.

Ponderous man, ponderous.

 

[Padres1969]

The point would be whether the form, deriving from the Edwardine Ordinal, possesses, in the judgement of the RCC, the same negative quality of *nativa indoles ac spiritus *: whether it can, be used at all to confect the sacrament, regardless of any other sacramental factor.

Yeah that’s the question I suppose. To your knowledge have RCC ever ruled on it one way or the other?

 

[Padres1969]

Gee, that’s great to know. When some Jehovah’s Witness preacher who happened at one time to be a Catholic priest shows up and says Mass, I’ve fulfilled my Sunday obligation. Heck, why don’t we just post a listing of all churches, whatever the denomination, where the preacher is a formed Catholic priest so wherever I am, I can just go to the local Baptist church where he now ‘practices’, give the guy a hundred bucks, and ask him to say a Mass for me because the local Catholic Church isn’t close enough to the beach.

Ponderous man, ponderous.

Well lets not get crazy

As GKC stated, they’d still need matter, form and intent. If some Catholic priest became a JW, by nature of what JW’s believe you’d almost definitely be missing intent and form, and matter may well be an issue as well. I’m unclear if JW’s regularly even perform any kind of table/communion/Eucharist at their services.

The issue I’m talking about would more than likely be limited to a very handful of denominations outside the RCC, Anglican, Old Catholic, maybe Lutheran, etc… which perform liturgical services that are in form closely approximate to Catholic mass. And even then you’d still need an individual priest meeting the form, intent, matter requirements. As GKC and I are discussing in this thread, form being the biggest question mark.

 

[GKC]

did you mean to say "the authority of valid/licit (illicit) ordination?

Are you saying that a validly ordained RC priest retains his sacerdotal functions, validly, in the RCC church (from which he has been excommunicated), but not in the Episcopal church? Or are you saying that his valid ordination remains regardless of whatever denomination he chooses to serve in?

Kind of would like to hear from a Canon lawyer on this one. (Apologies if you are a canon lawyer)

Shalom

Always interested in hearing more on this general subject, myself. No, not any species of lawyer, just a moderately well read lay person, with an interest in this sort of thing.

Yes, I meant to say that a validly consecrated RC bishop, even if excommunicated (etc) retains the authority and episcopal function of valid ordination which is done, illicitly, outside the RCC. See Ott/FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA, p. 458.

No, I am not saying that a RC priest, validly ordained, but now in (say) the Episcopal Church, retains the sacerdotal functions within the RCC, which he has left. He retains the sacerdotal function of confecting the Eucharist, which, if he exercises it, confects a valid but illicit sacrament, outside the RCC. Indelible.The point is analogous to the ability of an excommunicated (etc) bishop to ordain…

 

[GKC]

Gee, that’s great to know. When some Jehovah’s Witness preacher who happened at one time to be a Catholic priest shows up and says Mass, I’ve fulfilled my Sunday obligation. Heck, why don’t we just post a listing of all churches, whatever the denomination, where the preacher is a formed Catholic priest so wherever I am, I can just go to the local Baptist church where he now ‘practices’, give the guy a hundred bucks, and ask him to say a Mass for me because the local Catholic Church isn’t close enough to the beach.

Ponderous man, ponderous.

No, an illicit Mass will not satisfy your Sunday obligation. I’d stick with the home team on that one. You need a valid/licit Mass.