What constitutes a valid Eucharist?

[tkvoice]

What makes the Eucharist a valid Eucharist?

What does the Catholic Church teach?

St. Ignatius, 3rd bishop of Antioch around the year 117
in his letter titled: “Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans” on paragraph 8 stated:

“The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him.”

Does the Catholic Church still teach this?

I can think of two synarios that this answer would be useful to me:

1. If a priest from another diocese visits my diocese and celebrates a mass unknown to the Bishop of my diocese.( I am mostly worried about schismatic priest or bishops that claim to have been validly ordained but are bent on teaching herieses. )
2. Defending protestant claims that they have a valid Eucharist in their celebration.

Thank You

In Christ
tkvoice

 

[Brain]

i think that what st. ignatius was saying was just to ward off the potential of idolatry (if its isnt god, you are worshipping bread, and you look prettuy dumb). but yes, a priest needs the permission of the approbpriate local ordinary (diocisean bish. or religious order superior the priest belongs to i belive) to celebrate.

but if a valid priest celebrates a mass, and makes the concecration clear as to what he is doing and what is happening, it may be wildly illicit but still valid.

in the case of a protestant, he was not ordained by a bishop with the apostoclic sucession. he is not a priest, no power to concecrate so he has no euchrist. and even if he were an ex-catholic who was ordained, his intention as a protestant would not be to do what the church does, so he would not be confecting the saciment

 

[_veritas]

tkvoice:

What makes the Eucharist a valid Eucharist?

What does the Catholic Church teach?

St. Ignatius, 3rd bishop of Antioch around the year 117
in his letter titled: “Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans” on paragraph 8 stated:

“The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him.”

Does the Catholic Church still teach this?

Yes. In order for a Mass to be valid there must be correct matter (validly ordained male priest; wheat bread; wine), correct form (the proper words of consecration), and correct intention (the priest must intend to do what the Church intends).

See David P. Lang’s book “Why Matter Matters” for more information on all of these requirements in an easy-to-read format.

I can think of two synarios that this answer would be useful to me:

1. If a priest from another diocese visits my diocese and celebrates a mass unknown to the Bishop of my diocese.( I am mostly worried about schismatic priest or bishops that claim to have been validly ordained but are bent on teaching herieses. )
2. Defending protestant claims that they have a valid Eucharist in their celebration.

#1. Any validly ordained priest, so long as he fulfills the other requirements, can celebrate a valid Mass. However, certain other requirements must be met for it to be a licit Mass (“legal”, “proper”). One of these other requirements is permission/approval from the ordinary (the bishop).

Therefore, if a visiting priest (or a schismatic priest) celebrates a Mass without permission from the bishop, the Mass can still be valid (Jesus can still be present in the Eucharistic species) but not licit ("illicit"). A Mass of this type would be considered not just generally known as an illicit Mass, but a gravely illicit Mass. Catholics in good standing are not to knowingly attend such a Mass, to do so is to cause scandal and be supportive of schism.

There (praise God) are very very few Masses that are invalid Masses… however, there are many many Masses that are in some way illicit Masses. And Masses that are both valid and completely licit are getting harder and harder to find.

As for #2, almost no Protestant will even claim that they have a valid Eucharist, because very few of them have retained the idea of the Eucharist as Catholics have held it for over 2000 years. The primary denominations that will claim it are the Anglicans/Episcapalians, Lutherans, and the Eastern Orthodox.

The entire Anglican/Episcopalian church claims to have the Eucharist (I believe, though this could have changed…) There are some male Anglican priests who have been co-ordained by a bishop in the line of apostolic succession – so long as they fulfill the other requirements, the Catholic Church recognizes that they may (may) have a valid Eucharist. However, the female “priests” and the male priests who do not have recognized apostolic ordination cannot celebrate a valid Eucharist, and the Catholic Church does not recognize the Anglican church as being an apostolic church. In other words, the possibility of a valid Eucharist is acknowledged, but not assumed.

The Lutherans claim to have the Eucharist, but they do not have apostolic succession any longer, and their pastors are not validly ordained. Thus, they do not have a valid Eucharist.

The Eastern Orthodox claim to have the Eucharist, and the Church recoginizes that indeed, they do have a valid Eucharist, as they have maintained the apostolic succession and have only male priests who are validly ordained. However, they are still separated from Rome, and as such Catholics are only allowed to participate in Orthodox sacraments if there is a danger of death and no way to find a Catholic priest (ie, a dying Catholic can go to an Orthodox priest for confession and last Communion)

+veritas+

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

tkvoice:

What makes the Eucharist a valid Eucharist?

What does the Catholic Church teach?

St. Ignatius, 3rd bishop of Antioch around the year 117
in his letter titled: “Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans” on paragraph 8 stated:

“The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him.”

Does the Catholic Church still teach this?

I can think of two synarios that this answer would be useful to me:

1. If a priest from another diocese visits my diocese and celebrates a mass unknown to the Bishop of my diocese.( I am mostly worried about schismatic priest or bishops that claim to have been validly ordained but are bent on teaching herieses. )
2. Defending protestant claims that they have a valid Eucharist in their celebration.

Thank You

In Christ
tkvoice

Basically that does still hold true. Priests are granted permission to celebrate Mass by their Superior or Bishop. Most Bishops have allowed Pastors to determine if a visiting priest can celebrate Mass in their parish. I have known Pastors who when they received a call from a priest visiting on vacation and wishing to celebrate Mass. Have called the diocese from where the priest said he was from and asked was he a priest in good standing with faculities. Only one time that I’m aware there was some question because the diocese didn’t return the call quickly enough and the pastor concelebrated with the visiting priest.

 

[tkvoice]

+veritas+: Thank you very much for your reply this is the kind of answer I am looking for. I am wondering if you could elaborate on the following questions your reply has brought up:
+veritas+:

See David P. Lang’s book “Why Matter Matters” for more information on all of these requirements in an easy-to-read format.

Do you know of any official Church documents that cover this topic. Does the book you recommend have valid Church references to back up this teaching?

I looked in the Catechism and found the Ignatious of Antioch quote in this Paragraph:
**1369 **The whole Church is united with the offering and intercession of Christ. Since he has the ministry of Peter in the Church, the *Pope *is associated with every celebration of the Eucharist, wherein he is named as the sign and servant of the unity of the universal Church. The *bishop *of the place is always responsible for the Eucharist, even when a *priest *presides; the bishop’s name is mentioned to signify his presidency over the particular Church, in the midst of his presbyterium and with the assistance of deacons. The community intercedes also for all ministers who, for it and with it, offer the Eucharistic sacrifice:

       Let only that Eucharist be regarded as legitimate, which is celebrated under [the presidency of] the bishop or him to whom he has entrusted it.

Through the ministry of priests the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful is completed in union with the sacrifice of Christ the only Mediator, which in the Eucharist is offered through the priests’ hands in the name of the whole Church in an unbloody and sacramental manner until the Lord himself comes.

But I could not find any of the other comments you made which I am very interested in. I beleive your comments to be true but I need to be able to read them from original Church source. As when I try to defend the Catholic faith I can not bring “hear-say evidence” into arguements. Perhaps if you have answered the question above then this is an obsolete question now. Thanks in advance.

… however, there are many many Masses that are in some way illicit Masses. And Masses that are both valid and completely licit are getting harder and harder to find.

This comment sounds terrible
What do you mean by it?

Can you explain why the Church isn’t moving in the other direction. (i.e. how come I am not hearing from you that more and more Masses are both “valid” and “licit”.)

The Lutherans claim to have the Eucharist, but they do not have apostolic succession any longer,

According to history Luther was only a “Catholic priest”. A priest does not have the authority to ordain; isn’t it true that only the bishops have that authority to give valid “holy orders”? So are you saying that the Lutherans; at one time in history; had a Catholic bishop ordaining Lutheran priests? I don’t know the complete reformation history so a brief explaination on this will do. If you don’t know then don’t sweat it as this question is sort of a curiousity question.

Thank you,

tkvoice

Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto!:dancing:

 

[FrmrTrad]

Please be advised, as an aside, that there are traditionalist screeds claiming that the Pauline rite of mass uses an incorrect form of the sacrament. Sources pre-dating the 1960s by decades affirm the form used. Traditionalists are upset about “for all” and “the mystery of faith”; neither point causes the form to be invalid. Their arguments have been amply refuted. Cheers.

 

[_veritas]

+veritas+: Thank you very much for your reply this is the kind of answer I am looking for. I am wondering if you could elaborate on the following questions your reply has brought up:

Do you know of any official Church documents that cover this topic. Does the book you recommend have valid Church references to back up this teaching?

I would have to check it to be sure, but I think so… I do not know how many are primary sources (direct Church sources) and how many are secondary sources (Aquinas, Kreeft, Hahn, etc). Also, he primarily discusses the need for correct matter, why we use plain wheat bread and not pizza, why water and not any liquid for baptism, why men and not women priests, etc etc etc. However, it does also address some of the other issues of validity for each sacrament, the form (words/method) and intention.

But I could not find any of the other comments you made which I am very interested in. I beleive your comments to be true but I need to be able to read them from original Church source. As when I try to defend the Catholic faith I can not bring “hear-say evidence” into arguements. Perhaps if you have answered the question above then this is an obsolete question now. Thanks in advance.

I’ve picked up a lot of this from various sources, and it all fits together now in my head There is no one place to go I’m afraid…

The first place to look is the GIRM, the General Instruction for the Roman Missal, which is the “rulebook” for the liturgy. Along with that goes the new liturgical instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum. Also of interest is our Holy Father’s recent encyclical on the Eucharist, Ecclesia de Eucharistia.

The current GIRM is online at usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.shtml

Redemptionis Sacramentum is online at
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

Ecclesia de Eucharistia is online at vatican.va/holy_father/special_features/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_ecclesia_eucharistia_en.html

A thorough reading of these documents should give you most of the theology and historical background of the Eucharist.

As an aside, you may wish to read the Didache, an ancient Christian manuscript from the early 100s, where there is described a liturgy that shows great similiarities with the Mass. Fascinating reading for all those who think that the Mass is not “historical”… it is online at earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-hoole.html

Also, St. Ambrose’s classic work “On the Sacraments” (Or “On the Mysteries”) is a beautiful writing describing the sacramental understanding of the early Church (St. Ambrose lived in the 300s, and was instrumental in the conversion of St. Augustine to Christianity!) This work is online at newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm

I know that’s a lot… and that’s only the beginning!! Well, you asked for it!

(…continued next post)

 

[_veritas]

This comment sounds terrible
What do you mean by it?

Can you explain why the Church isn’t moving in the other direction. (i.e. how come I am not hearing from you that more and more Masses are both “valid” and “licit”.)

Well, perhaps I should not have used the phrase “harder and harder” – things are getting better I think. However, it is still incredibly rare to find a Mass that is both valid and completely licit (with every rule followed, and every phrase as it is written for the priest to say as opposed to “close enough”). Happily, the vast majority of Masses are valid, and happily enough, most Masses are basically licit – few, however, are “perfect” Masses (Masses without intentional changes).

Most Catholics will not be able to tell the licitness of a Mass unless it is really noticibly illicit (ie, whole lines are dropped, whole parts are skipped, etc etc). I only mentioned it because it is sad to me that so many Masses are purposely illicit – again, I am not referring to mere forgetfulness or accidents, I am referring to priests deliberately changing or removing various parts of the Mass because they “think that works better” and know that they’re not being that disobedient, because the changes they are making are not going to affect the validity. However, by doing this, these priests are making the statement that they know better than the Church, even if they do not realize it…

According to history Luther was only a “Catholic priest”. A priest does not have the authority to ordain; isn’t it true that only the bishops have that authority to give valid “holy orders”? So are you saying that the Lutherans; at one time in history; had a Catholic bishop ordaining Lutheran priests? I don’t know the complete reformation history so a brief explaination on this will do. If you don’t know then don’t sweat it as this question is sort of a curiousity question.

As far as I know, yes, the Lutherans never had apostolic succession… though I am not sure as to whether or not any bishops left with Luther and ordained priests for him. Even if that were so, it is not true today and hasn’t been for a long time… I’m not really clear on this either though… sorry

+veritas+

 

[tkvoice]

I appreciate the answers thank you very much.

I will look into the books/letters you have referenced some of which I have already read:
+veritas+:

Redemptionis Sacramentum is online at

%between%
I have read this
+veritas+:

As an aside, you may wish to read the Didache,

I have read this too

There is a really good early church writing by Justin Martyr that worth mentioning too:
Justin Martyr [a.d. 110 -165]
The 1st Apology
Chapter LXV. Administration of the sacraments.
But we,after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled,in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated ] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to [so be it ]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

Chapter LXVI. Of the Eucharist.
And this food is called among us [the Eucharist ],of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is My blood; and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn. You can download a copy of this and other early church fathers from this site in various e-formats:
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.html

Thank you for the links to the other documents you have mentioned. I guess I will be busy reading for the next little while

In Christ

tkvoice

 

[Jade]

I have a question.
I attended Mass in the town I was travelling through, and I noticed the the priest, at communion, did not eat the consecrated bread (he did not use a host, but bread) but instead proceeded to break the bread into individual portions. Neither did he drink from the chalice before distribting communion. This struck me as very odd.

Does this mean that the Eucharist is somehow invailid or not properly instituted? Can anyone tell me why he may have done this?

 

[_veritas]

Jade:

I have a question.
I attended Mass in the town I was travelling through, and I noticed the the priest, at communion, did not eat the consecrated bread (he did not use a host, but bread) but instead proceeded to break the bread into individual portions. Neither did he drink from the chalice before distribting communion. This struck me as very odd.

Does this mean that the Eucharist is somehow invailid or not properly instituted? Can anyone tell me why he may have done this?

It is absolutely illicit (assuming this was at a Roman Catholic parish, and not an Eastern rite parish…). If it was indeed “real” bread, then it likely was leavened bread, which is not allowable in the Latin rite (leavened bread may be used in the Eastern Church, however, so the fact that it might be leavened bread does not affect the validity). However, what would affect the validity of the Mass would be if the bread was not wheat bread. Under no circumstance can non-wheat bread be validly consecrated, as non-wheat bread is not valid matter. There have been cases where parishes use “real” bread that is not wheat, and so the validity is questioned. (Same goes for parishes that have tried to use rice wafers… )

The fact that the priest did not receive Communion before distribution is at least gravely illicit (gravely illegal), and if the priest did not receive at all the Mass is, I believe, considered invalid. If a priest does not partake of both the Body and the Blood it is as if Christ did not do it at the Last Supper – in so doing the priest is failing to act in persona Christi (“in the person of Christ”) and the Mass is not valid.

As far as you are concerned, do not panic. While it is true that a Mass can be made invalid, the grace that the unknowing faithful receive at Communion is the same. They may not be objectively receiving the actual Body of Christ, but they are not culpable for this fact, and the Church teaches that in situations like this “the Church provides.” I think it is likely that the Mass was indeed valid for you anyway, without more detailed information there are some questions about it, but generally you assume validity unless you know absolutely otherwise (for example, they came right out and told everyone it was non-wheat bread, or the priest completely left out the words of consecration “This is my Body” etc).

The situation should be reported ASAP. As you were a visitor in town, it is appropriate for you to write a letter directly to the bishop of that area, with a copy being sent to the priest/parish in question. At the very least, the Mass is being celebrated very incorrectly, which is denying the faithful their right to a proper Mass, and at worst, there is a (granted, slight) possibility of invalidity.

:nope:

+veritas+

 

[Jade]

Veritas,

Thank you for your reply! I am also very glad that those who partook in Communion are not sinning ( I refrained, as I am in RCIA). But this news brings much peace. I have to admit, I am a little nervous about reporting it to the Bishop of the area and esp. the priest. I know that this is wrong and I would like to see the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to be celebrated properly, but I am very scard of the reprocussions this may have for the Priest. I mean, who am I to tell him and the Bishop what to do?? I still have so much to learn! Would they take me seriously, being in RCIA and all, not even a Catholic yet? Could you please pray for me, for courage and strength to do what is right?

Thank you.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Does the Catholic Church still teach this?

Saint Ignatius is not using the word “valid” in the same sense that the Church later used the word.

A Mass celebrated without permission of the bishop is still valid, so long as a validly ordained priests celebrates with the proper form and matter.

Such an unauthorized Mass would be illicit, however. And this is what Ignatius is trying to say.