A piece back I noted that Protestant churches"apart from very exceptional circumstances, do not have the Real Presence when they celebrate the Lord’s Supper.”
Following which, a reader wrotes:
What are these circumstances?
The big problem keeping most Protestant Eucharists from being valid is the absence of a valid, sacramental priesthood in Protestant circles due to the fact that at the time of the Reformation all of the Protestant denominations failed to preserve the sacrament of holy orders, either altogether or in a valid form.
In rare cases, however, a Protestant minister may have a valid priestly ordination. There are basically two ways this can happen:
- He was ordained as a priest in a non-Protestant church, such as the Catholic Church or one of the Eastern Orthodox churches. Sometimes priests of these churches may become Protestant, in which case their priestly ordination remains valid.
- The Protestant denomination itself may have acquired valid holy orders, as appears to be the case with the Charistmatic Episcopal Church, which obtained holy orders from a Brazilian schismatic group that split off from the Catholic Church.
Thus there may be lone individual ministers (as in case 1) in Protestant churches who have the power to consecrate the Eucharist or, in at least one case, an entire Protestant denomination that has it.
In addition to this basic requirement, the usual conditions of using the proper matter and form and having the proper intent also must be fulfilled for a valid consecration of the Eucharist.
Jimmy
Since the Charismatic Episcopal Church can’t ordain bishops (without the Holy See), will they only have a valid ordination until there are no longer any bishops to ordain them? I know the individuals won’t lose their ordination but will they be able to pass it on?
I asked a knowledgeable priest about Protestant services, and he said something to the effect that a former Catholic priest cannot validly celebrate the Eucharist because he is attempting to do so in the wrong context. He gave the example of a priest walking into a bakery and saying, “This is my body.” Nothing would happen, even if valid matter was present.
Um, yes it would, I think, assuming he had the intention of confecting the sacrament. It would be gravely illicit, but not invalid.
Priests in extenuating circumstances celebrate Masses in concentration camp messes, on the hoods of Jeeps, on the rain forest floor. There is no reason why the body and blood of Christ cannot be confected in a bakery, and the validity of the sacrament isn’t contingent upon the extenuating circumstances that would make such an act morally legitimate.
One must distuinguish between valid and illicit, as Jimmy will no doubt point out. A priest who leaves the Church may celebrate the Eucharist validly but it is illicit from the viewpoint of canon law.
Another non-Roman Catholic group that can validly celebrate the sacraments, ordain priests and consacrate bishops is the Old Catholic Church which broke away (bishops and all) in the 1870’s over the issue on infalliblity. Assuming they have, as they say, very carefully followed the same Roman Catholic rites of ordination of priests and consacration of bishops there priesthood is valid, although illicit in the eyes of the Chruch.
By the way, the bishop who ordained two women (Rev. Mary Ramerman and Rev. Denise Donoto) in Rochester, New York for Spiritus Christi Church was a bishop of the Old Catholic Church, which refered to in the last posting. Thus they are validly ordained at least in the eyes of those theologians who think it is theologically possible for women to be ordained.
Actually, if they have bishops, then they can make bishops. You don’t need to have the pope to make bishops. After all, the Eastern Orthodox don’t have the pope, but they still have bishops.
So, um, what if the priest-cum-minister doesn’t believe in real presence? Irrelevant?
I believe, following the thinking of St. Agustine, it is still valid, that is real, again however illicit from the viewpoint of canon law. Right Jimmy?
To answer this question, I Googled “intention” and “confecting the Eucharist,” and came up with this article by none other than our own Jimmy Akin, who states:
Hope that helps.
Okay, two follow-ups for SDG or whoever’d like:
a) Could my wife, who is Catholic (I’m not) “legally” take communion at a church where the minister is a former Catholic priest?
b) Since non-Catholics are barred (and rightfully so, I believe) from taking part in the Real Presence within a Catholic mass, should a non-Catholic trying to be respectful of Catholicism not take a Protestant communion when administered by a former Catholic priest?
(Both questions are completely hypothetical, mind — my wife’s best friend’s mother was a former nun, but I don’t know any former priests — but they’re very interesting to me.)
Except in rare extenuating circumstances, no, any more than she could ordinarily receive in an Orthodox church or in a schismatic church of the Latin tradition. The priest is not in communion with the bishop of Rome, and the communal dimension of the Eucharist generally forbids intercommunion across communal dividing lines.
That, my friend, is a fascinating question. Wow. I have absolutely no idea. Jimmy?
Believe me, my reaction was the same as those above. But the priest in question acted as if it were a long-settled issue. This shows I’m not making it up, whether or not I am correct.
How did the evangelical movement of the Augsburg Confession, erroneously 😉 excommunicated with Exurge Domine(sp?), lose valid priesthood. We had numerous bishops and one archbiship, and even where there are not records kept of apostolic succession (I can’t spell this morning), it is still impossible to be ordained apart from it. And we believe in the Real Presence (and not consubstantiation, though you might find some who do think that way)
I would assume you have more or less the same problem that Anglicans do. The old Catholic Encyclopedia article on the subject is still the best explanation I know of.
Geoff: Leo XII declared Anglican Orders null in Apostolicae Curae because the Edwardine rite of ordination was defective in form. It had later been changed to a more Catholic-like form, but all the bishops living then had been ordained with the Edwardine rite, so there was no power or ordination left. Apostolicae Curae didn’t pronounce whether the improved rite could confer the sacrament. This was the situation when the Catholic Encyclopedia was published in the 1910s.
However, Old Catholic bishops have participated in Anglican episcopal consecrations since the 1930s (with the renewed form), so it simply cannot be known whether Leo XII’s judgement applies today. Today almost every bishop in the Anglican Communion has a lineage of episcopal succession from the Old Catholic churches. In turn, they have participated in Lutheran episcopal consecrations in the USA and in Nordic and Baltic Countries. So the situation is really unclear.
I was an Episcopalian for 36 years, so I know the drill. AFAIK there has been no official ruling from the Holy See on whether the “renewed form” is adequate, nor do I know if that alone would be enough to fix things.
“Objectively considered, the intention of doing what the Church does suffices. ” – Ott
I think this intention is questionable in any group that does not have a Catholic theology of the sacraments.
What does an Anglican bishop with an evangelical theology of the sacraments intend to do when he attempts to consecrates a woman as a bishop? What does he intend to do when he consecrates a man? If he intends to do what the Anglican Church did when it consecrated bishops using the Edwardine ordinal he is doing something different from what the Church does when it consecrates a bishop.
Clearly, Anglican orders per se, are invalid. Just as clearly, many Anglican priests and bishops have valid orders. Sorting out whether a sacrament is validly performed by a particular priest in a particular setting is a practical impossiblity in the absence of a coherent Anglican theology of the sacraments to which Anglican priests are held accountable.
Now suppose we observe a Church that has a clear intention to do what the Catholic Church does but their liturgy doesn’t seem to be very clear about what’s happening. Then its sacraments would be valid. I think a recent decsion about the Eucharist in one of the Middle Eastern Churches deals with a situation like this.
i dont understand the validity of the priesthood. i belong to the lutheran church in the philippines and i want to know whether lutheran ordination are valid. because we believe in the real presence of the lord jesus in the celebration of the holy eucharist both body and blood, bread and wine.
Thy Kingdom Come!
Richee,
In general, Lutheran ordinations are not valid, since at the time of the Reformation the Lutheran church abandoned the Catholic sacrament of Holy Orders, which passes on the apostolic ministry. I’m not sure what the Lutheran church does to ordain its ministers, but I’m pretty sure it is not at all the same as what the Catholic Church did and continues to do.
Lutheran ordinations differ a bit from communion to communion. For those who have retained or restored Apostolic Succession, it is done through the laying on of hands of a validly ordained bishop (with all the relevant papers to back it up.) For those who have not kept the papers, the office of priest and bishop are understood to have been merged (as was the case in some Churches during Apostolic and near Apostolic times) and ordination is accomplished by the clergy, in the presence of the laity they will serve, again through the laying on of hands. This can be argued to be, in a sense, Apostolic Succession, without the paperwork to back it up, since every priest/bishop of even the lower liturgy Lutherans is confered from clergy to new clergy. The form of consecration is similar to the Roman rite (in some cases, identical.)
I must admit, from a Lutheran perspective, the Roman insistence on form unknown to Holy Scripture, reminds me why I am so fond of the Augsburg Confession’s point, that traditions and forms and laws of man should not be imposed upon the faithful as dogmatic requirements or for salvation.
The Spirit of the Living God continues to move throughout the world, through the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Sacraments, even without adherence to Roman law. Where the Spirit of God moves, living, saving faith in Christ is generated and sustained, and souls are joined to the mystical Body of Christ. I do not think either Lutheran or Roman would say that the Spirit of God is not active in Lutheran communions– and to suggest that the nourishment of the Body and Blood of the Lord is missing from those communions, is to suggest that these faithful baptized members of the Body of Christ are not nourished in their faith, and somehow have missed out on what Christ said was necessary for salvation in the Gospel of St. John– “If you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.”
Peace,
Brad