Eucharistic Theology in the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox & Anglican Church

[Counter-Reformer]

only two pages and "Validity of the Eucharist in the Anglican Church, Eastern Orthodox & Roman Catholic " has already become "Why Anglican Orders are invalid."
Great job everyone

Valid Holy Orders tie into the authority by which the Celebrant confects the Eucharist. IF one does not have Valid Holy Orders, then they do not have the authority of the episcopate to say Mass. Therefore all echarists would truly not be be the Precious body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

 

[Father Rick]

Just a clarification...

John is using OC above to refer to the "Orthodox Church"... I use "OC" to refer to "Old Catholics" and "EO" to refer to Orthodox.

Those who may not be familiar with the OC's can find info here. In short, OC's seperated from Rome at Vatican I, and are a "hybrid" of RC's, EO's, and AC's with all three lines of apostolic succession.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Again i don't see how eating a piece of bread or drinking a sip of wine is a sin.

you mean for a Catholic/Orthodox? Because we see the Eucharist as proof of Unity. AND we believe that participating in a "reinactment" of the Eucharist is something that is very real. We are participating in that first Lord's supper in a very real although mistical way.
Here are the problems (the main ones... this is riddled with problems however):
1) If the Eucharist is proof of unity... how does it make sense that Catholics (or Orthodox) would be communing with those who can freely deny Catholic (or Orthodox) doctrine and dogma... clearly unbiblical.
2) Let's be realistic here: you and I can get together at an Italian Restaurant and share some "bread and wine". Above you suggest that "at worst" non-Anglicans just participated in a mere eating of bread and wine. Is that how you want others to treat your Eucharist? Like a night out in Little Italy? That would make a complete mockery of both your Mass and our beliefs in the sacredness and REALNESS of the Eucharist (remember that while we hold that beleiving in real presense IS necessary for us - which without this belief we sever true unity with our fellow brethern - your Church does not... that is not meant to be snotty or superior sounding... but it is a VERY important point... perhaps the most important althoguh not the only point)

But again... I think this comes down to how we view the nature of the Church. What is She? that's another thread... and probably needs to be settled first (which it won't be in CF but it is at least something we can talk about).

John

PS: please forgive me if any of the above sounds snotty or condescending, it is not meant to be. I just want to get to the point.

 

[Counter-Reformer]

Perhaps i'm being a bit slow here. As far as i see it there are two possible scenarios here. 1. That Anglican orders are valid and as such we have a valid eucharist. 2. Our orders are invalid and as such we have an invalid eucharist. Let's explore those options for a second. If one is correct then Jesus Christ our Lord is truely present whenever a mass is celebrated in an Anglican Church. I can't really see that as being a sin.

IF Anglican Holy orders are valid, then if you know that the Anglican Church is in Schism, then therefore you would be participating in an ilicit Mass by agreeing with that Schism.

If 2 is correct then at best all that happens at an Anglican mass is simply a rather ornate reinactment of the Last Supper. Again i don't see how eating a piece of bread or drinking a sip of wine is a sin.

If Anglican Holy Orders are invalid, then if you are proclaiming that is is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, knowing fulwell then any adoration of the host and wine would be idolatry and second a mortal sin of false witness would also be incurred as well.

If i followed ps139's argument before he was saying that maybe some Anglican orders are valid but as we can't really tell which then it's best for us to just stay away. I think the opposite is true. If there is even the remotest chance that Jesus is present at the eucharist then i don't see how you could possibly want to stay away.

Ps139s arguements maybe ecumenical, but they are wrong. The Church has already outlined in Apostolicae Curae that Anglican Hol;y Orders becuase of the removal of the Sacerdotal nature of the Priesthood makes them invalid already and that with the ordination of woman, any chance at "proving" Newman and Leo XIII "wrong" has gone out the window.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Just a clarification...

John is using OC above to refer to the "Orthodox Church"... I use "OC" to refer to "Old Catholics" and "EO" to refer to Orthodox.

Those who may not be familiar with the OC's can find info here. In short, OC's seperated from Rome at Vatican I, and are a "hybrid" of RC's, EO's, and AC's with all three lines of apostolic succession.

Oops.. thanks for that. In turn, I was using OC and EO to distinguish between the Churcha nd the individual Orthodox. I will just spell them out for now on in this thread Thanks Fr Rick!

 

[Counter-Reformer]

Just a clarification...

John is using OC above to refer to the "Orthodox Church"... I use "OC" to refer to "Old Catholics" and "EO" to refer to Orthodox.

Those who may not be familiar with the OC's can find info here. In short, OC's seperated from Rome at Vatican I, and are a "hybrid" of RC's, EO's, and AC's with all three lines of apostolic succession.

One could even make the arguement that since Utrecht has begun to ordain women that Utrecht no longer has a valid Apostolic Sucession and taht the only Church outside the SSPX and the EO with Valid Apostolic Sucession would be the Polish National Catholic Church as they left the Utrecht Communion.

 

[TomUK]

you mean for a Catholic/Orthodox? Because we see the Eucharist as proof of Unity. AND we believe that participating in a "reinactment" of the Eucharist is something that is very real. We are participating in that first Lord's supper in a very real although mistical way.
Here are the problems (the main ones... this is riddled with problems however):
1) If the Eucharist is proof of unity... how does it make sense that Catholics (or Orthodox) would be communing with those who can freely deny Catholic (or Orthodox) doctrine and dogma... clearly unbiblical.

So not allowing people to receive Christ is a sign of unity?

2) Let's be realistic here: you and I can get together at an Italian Restaurant and share some "bread and wine". Above you suggest that "at worst" non-Anglicans just participated in a mere eating of bread and wine. Is that how you want others to treat your Eucharist? Like a night out in Little Italy? That would make a complete mockery of both your Mass and our beliefs in the sacredness and REALNESS of the Eucharist (remember that while we hold that beleiving in real presense IS necessary for us - which without this belief we sever true unity with our fellow brethern - your Church does not... that is not meant to be snotty or superior sounding... but it is a VERY important point... perhaps the most important althoguh not the only point)

But again... I think this comes down to how we view the nature of the Church. What is She? that's another thread... and probably needs to be settled first (which it won't be in CF but it is at least something we can talk about).

Forgive me, i wasn't clear in my earlier post. There is nothing more sacred than the holy mystery at the eucharist. I truely did not mean to minimise it. I was merely pointing out that (in my opinion) then opinions of the Roman Catholic Church are based on faulty logic and i was simply taking their logic to it's natural conclusion which is in itself illogical. (i used the word logic far too many times in that sentence!)

PS: please forgive me if any of the above sounds snotty or condescending, it is not meant to be. I just want to get to the point.

Forgiven

 

[TomUK]

Ps139s arguements maybe ecumenical, but they are wrong. The Church has already outlined in Apostolicae Curae that Anglican Hol;y Orders becuase of the removal of the Sacerdotal nature of the Priesthood makes them invalid already and that with the ordination of woman, any chance at "proving" Newman and Leo XIII "wrong" has gone out the window.

I take it you've not read the Anglican responce to Apostolicae Curae?

 

[Counter-Reformer]

I take it you've not read the Anglican responce to Apostolicae Curae?

The point of Apostilicae curae is that the Anglicans have removed the Sacerdotal nature of the Priesthood. Now unless you are willing to say that the Anglican response not only affirms that they dogmatically proclaim that the Sacerdotal nature of the priesthood is maintained, then therefore any response on other lines is a red herring.

 

[a_ntv]

For the Orthodox, there is no Sacrament outside of the Church. The Cup cannot be divided.

Do not confuse two different facts:

- the validity of the sacraments
- the share of sacraments

The share of sacraments is a further step, the requires not only the validity of the sacraments, but also the consience of a full unity

About the sharing sacraments, please consider that there are some agreements between different churches, like:
- between the Church of Antichia (EO) and the Melkite Church (CC)
- between the Church of Antichia (EO) and the Syrian Church (OO)
- between the Syrian Church (OO) and the Catholic Syrian Church (CC)
- between the Orthodox Assyrian Church of East and the Chaldean Church (CC)

And consider also that, ad instance, Orthodox Armenians recognize catholic apostolic succession.

More in general, even the Russian Orthodoxes recognizes the pope as 'bishop of Rome' and the Catholic Church as a 'schismatic church', that is realy a lot.

 

[TomUK]

The point of Apostilicae curae is that the Anglicans have removed the Sacerdotal nature of the Priesthood. Now unless you are willing to say that the Anglican response not only affirms that they dogmatically proclaim that the Sacerdotal nature of the priesthood is maintained, then therefore any response on other lines is a red herring.

Well the article shows that if the premises from Apostilicae Curae are accepted then not only are Anglican orders invalid but Roman Catholic ones are equally invalid.

 

[repentant]

So not allowing people to receive Christ is a sign of unity?

Read, (posted on another thread that linked to this one)


From the OCA website:

http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=107&SID=3

For Orthodox Christians, the Eucharist is a visible sign of unity; to receive the Eucharist in a community to which one does not belong is improper. If one does not accept all that the Church believes and teaches and worships, one cannot make a visible sign of unity with it. The Eucharist is the result of unity, notthe means by which unity is achieved. While many non-Orthodox see this as a sign that the Orthodox Church excludes non-Orthodox from the Eucharist, in reality the opposite is true. Because a non-Orthodox individual has chosen not to embrace all that Orthodox Christianity holds, the non-Orthodox individual makes it impossible for an Orthodox priest to offer him or her communion. It is not so much a matter of Orthodoxy excluding non-Orthodox as it is the non-Orthodox making it impossible for the Orthodox to offer the Eucharist.

Sometimes people argue, "But Father, I believe everything the Orthodox Church teaches." If this is indeed the case, then the question is not one of Eucharistic hospitality but, rather, "Then if you believe everything the Orthodox Church teaches, why haven't you become an Orthodox Christian?"

 

[TomUK]

I really like this bit.

The Eucharist is the result of unity, notthe means by which unity is achieved.

I disagree with with some of what you quoted but think that is an excellent point.

 

[a_ntv]

The point of Apostilicae curae is that the Anglicans have removed the Sacerdotal nature of the Priesthood. Now unless you are willing to say that the Anglican response not only affirms that they dogmatically proclaim that the Sacerdotal nature of the priesthood is maintained, then therefore any response on other lines is a red herring.

That is not completly correct.

Catholic standard positions on the ordinations was that that a bishop is a true bishop if:
1- who order him is a true bishop(s) (ok)
2- the rite is formally correct
3- the intention of the ordaining bishop(s) is to do what the Church believes

About the rite, the lack of some sentences in some anglican rite is quite weak: not only because the form of the sacrament changed a lot during the centuries, but also because the Church have the power to 'sanate' some missing in the form (a doctrine very similar to the orthodox idea of 'ecomony', even if more limited)

In fact the focal point of the Apostilicae curae was the missing of intention to do what the Church believes. But this is very dependent from the very bishops who performed the ordinations. We cannot read in the mind of them. But we can anyway rely on the word of the pope, and so consider such ordination invalid.

Orthodox add (as far as I know) two other conditions for the validity of the sacrament of the order:
4- the existance of a Church in which the ordination is done
5- the correct orthodoxy of the bishops consacteting and consacrated

The first condition is, IMO, really appropiate because the the Church is an essential part of the priesthood, that is not a proprerty of someone. (well..there are many single person, out-from-the church, that are ordained 'validally' as bishops..quite ridicolous)

The second condition is not really considered by catholic, because it do not marry well with the principle "ex opere operato", and because it is not easy to define the border of a correct orthodoxy.

But we know that know the most of episcopal, and also some lutheran, bishops can trace their ordination back to some catholic or orthodox bishops of the XIX - XX century, and so out from the Apostilicae curae. Are they properly ordained? who know. IMO Probably not, and because of mainly above point 5.

 

[repentant]

I really like this bit.



I disagree with with some of what you quoted but think that is an excellent point.

Well what do you disagree with?

 

[RedneckAnglican]

4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Ephesians 4:4-5...

 

[a_ntv]

...
Sometimes people argue, "But Father, I believe everything the Orthodox Church teaches." If this is indeed the case, then the question is not one of Eucharistic hospitality but, rather, "Then if you believe everything the Orthodox Church teaches, why haven't you become an Orthodox Christian?"...

This answer is a little bit dummy.

Ad instance, we (european western catholic) are from the very beginning under the see of Rome, that was founded by St Peter and St Paul.

So, why shall I go under the see of St Andrew (EO), or of St Mark (Coptic) ?

That is extremly against the will of the first councils.
Just in case we shall 'clean' a little bit our faith watching our orthodox brothers, as the Council Vatican II have already heavily done.

 

[Llauralin]

This answer is a little bit dummy.

While I agree with the sentement of explination that was extracted from, it's also a little bit misleading. If you believe all the same stuff, and want to become Orthodox, you still couldn't recieve for quite a long time, because it's not nearly as easy to become Orthodox as that makes it out to be.

Not that I'm complaining...

 

[Counter-Reformer]

Well the article shows that if the premises from Apostilicae Curae are accepted then not only are Anglican orders invalid but Roman Catholic ones are equally invalid.

But the lack of missing sentence in the ordination rite was not the focal point of the document as A_NTV pointed out clearly and what was missing from the Edwardian Ordeal was the intention to do what the Church believes. If that single sentence was the focal point, I would agree with you, however becuase it is not, the Anglican arguement becomes very weak.

 

[She]

RC's do not recognize the validity of AC sacraments per se because of a change in the wording of the rite of ordination by the AC that took place during the break from Rome. In the Edwardian ordinal, the AC rite of ordination does not specifically say that priests were being consecrated to celebrate the sacrifice of the mass. Therefore, the RC argued that they were not empowered to do so-- and thus AC apostolic succession (and consequently AC eucharist) would not be valid.

Now, on the other side of this, the current RC rites of ordination are now almost identical to the AC rite of ordination and do not include the specific mention of the sacrifice of the mass either (thanks to Vatican II).

Brilliant post. Thank you for pointing this out to us.