Catholics: Is Jesus present in the Eucharist at Lutheran and Anglican Churches?

Rhamiel said:

I am not sure if you have this right?

Click to expand...

I believe the point is made, whether the heretical RC priest would be allowed offer Mass is a different question.

Open Heart said:

Donatists were heretics that believed priests who were sinful could not confect the eucharist or do other sacraments. The Catholic church fully rejects Donatism. Thus, if a priest becomes heretical, he may still confect the eucharist according to Catholic teaching.

Click to expand...

Exactly. That idea was part of the quote I copied that they employed.

Albion said:

Technically so, but I don't think it's reasonable or profitable to make out that we're talking about something that would happen more than once in a blue moon and despite every safeguard against it being employed.

Just this morning I heard the story of the young woman who passed for black and became a local NAACP leader until she was 'outed' by her own parents as being white. But I don't think we can make it seem that this is routine, or inherent in the election of local leaders, or proves anything.

Click to expand...

True enough. I find it interesting, as you know from past conversations, that for RC, sacrifice/priest is the ultimate unforgiven heresy possible. IOW, anything else is possible, like baptism by witch is okay to impart the rebirth, but not that (priest/sacrifice).

Rhamiel said:

true, but would the Holy Orders be seen as valid if he was a heretic at the moment of ordination?

Click to expand...

From Apostlic Curea (sic), it appears all that matters is intent to sacrifice. The assumption the priest agrees with the rest of the religion doesn't appear to matter. For example, RC does not reordain EO priests, but does A priests. Although I wonder if EO really views Mass/DL as a sacrifice?

Standing Up said:

True enough. I find it interesting, as you know from past conversations, that for RC, sacrifice/priest is the ultimate unforgiven heresy possible.

Click to expand...

What makes you say that it's unforgiven? Nothing that's been said so far suggests that.

IOW, anything else is possible, like baptism by witch is okay to impart the rebirth, but not that (priest/sacrifice).

Click to expand...

But you just got through saying that an heretical priest could still say Mass (?)

Albion said:

What makes you say that it's unforgiven? Nothing that's been said so far suggests that.


But you just got through saying that an heretical priest could still say Mass (?)

Click to expand...

They think we're now separated brethren, but without a sacrifice to get us past our venial or mortal sins ...

I've assumed we agree that the priest does it per the "Catholic rite". IOW, a priest can fall into heresy, but if he still believes Mass is a sacrifice (the Catholic rite), then no problem.

Standing Up said:

From Apostlic Curea (sic), it appears all that matters is intent to sacrifice. The assumption the priest agrees with the rest of the religion doesn't appear to matter. For example, RC does not reordain EO priests, but does A priests.

Click to expand...

And the reason for that is the issue you refuse to recognize--that the RC consider the line of Apostolic Succession in the EO to be intact whereas they have decreed that the A lines were broken in the 16th century.

Standing Up said:

I've assumed we agree that the priest does it per the "Catholic rite". IOW, a priest can fall into heresy, but if he still believes Mass is a sacrifice (the Catholic rite), then no problem.

Click to expand...

Of course there's a problem--heresy. If it is discovered, he'll likely be kicked out.

Albion said:

Exactly. It is NOT a sacrifice or a re-sacrifice or any mumbo jumbo about it being the same sacrifice as that of Christ on the Cross!

Click to expand...

I don't believe this is true for the Episcopal Church necessarily, especially with the modern understanding of anamensis and memorial. The Lord's Supper is an action that transcends temporality and situates us in eternity with the Lamb who was slain "from the foundation of the world".

FireDragon76 said:

I don't believe this is true for the Episcopal Church necessarily, especially with the modern understanding of anamensis and memorial. The Lord's Supper is an action that transcends temporality and situates us in eternity with the Lamb who was slain "from the foundation of the world".

Click to expand...

From what I can tell, no one can say with any assurance what 'is true' for The Episcopal Church from day to day.

patricius79 said:

I've never heard that before. (That doesn't mean much, I know.) Is there a Canon Law or other documentation on this?

Click to expand...

I really have no idea. I'm speaking from what I believe to be a REASONED position.

Standing Up said:

From Apostlic Curea (sic), it appears all that matters is intent to sacrifice. The assumption the priest agrees with the rest of the religion doesn't appear to matter. For example, RC does not reordain EO priests, but does A priests. Although I wonder if EO really views Mass/DL as a sacrifice?

Click to expand...

Standing, this a prayer said by the priest as part of the Divine Liturgy,
You have served as our High Priest, and as Lord of all, and have entrusted to us the celebration of this liturgical sacrifice without the shedding of blood.

GreekOrthodox said:

Standing, this a prayer said by the priest as part of the Divine Liturgy,
You have served as our High Priest, and as Lord of all, and have entrusted to us the celebration of this liturgical sacrifice without the shedding of blood.

Click to expand...

He misunderstands the reasons, both the stated reason and the real reason, the Roman Catholic Church declared Anglican orders invalid.

GreekOrthodox said:

Standing, this a prayer said by the priest as part of the Divine Liturgy,
You have served as our High Priest, and as Lord of all, and have entrusted to us the celebration of this liturgical sacrifice without the shedding of blood.

Click to expand...

So the answer is yes?

Albion said:

He misunderstands the reasons, both the stated reason and the real reason, the Roman Catholic Church declared Anglican orders invalid.

Click to expand...

Here again is the reason per RC:

"So it comes to pass that, as the Sacrament of Order and the true sacerdotium of Christ were utterly eliminated from the Anglican rite, and hence the sacerdotium is in no wise conferred truly and validly in the episcopal consecration of the same rite, for the like reason, therefore, the episcopate can in no wise be truly and validly conferred by it, and this the more so because among the first duties of the episcopate is that of ordaining ministers for the Holy Eucharist and sacrifice. ... we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void."
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm

IOW, Anglicans eliminated the true sacrifice of Christ and the role of priest per se (as a sacrificer).

If you still believe I misunderstand, please copy/paste that part from the encyclical that supports your position.

Standing Up said:

Here again is the reason per RC:

Click to expand...

The point is that you think sacrifice or lack of same is the issue. In reality, it's continuity.

Standing Up said:

So the answer is yes?

Click to expand...

Yes it is. For a more detailed, see http://orthodoxyinamerica.org/article.php?id=38

Albion said:

The point is that you think sacrifice or lack of same is the issue. In reality, it's continuity.

Click to expand...

Yes, continuity ended.

GreekOrthodox said:

Standing, this a prayer said by the priest as part of the Divine Liturgy,
You have served as our High Priest, and as Lord of all, and have entrusted to us the celebration of this liturgical sacrifice without the shedding of blood.

Click to expand...

It is done in memory as a liturgical sacrifice without literal shedding of blood. The believers are members of the body of Christ as Jesus said eat this bread, it is my flesh, so when we do, we are proclaiming spiritually that we are tied to his spiritual body, his church. Drink this, this is my blood, the blood that atoned for our sins, we drink this in memory that he single handedly imputed his righteousness onto our accout by his precious blood.

Berean777 said:

It is done in memory as a liturgical sacrifice without literal shedding of blood. The believers are members of the body of Christ as Jesus said eat this bread, it is my flesh, so when we do, we are proclaiming spiritually that we are tied to his spiritual body, his church. Drink this, this is my blood, the blood that atoned for our sins, we drink this in memory that he single handedly imputed his righteousness onto our accout by his precious blood.

Click to expand...

So for you it's just the memory, the awareness, of forgiveness; past tense forgiveness, and not actual present tense forgiveness.