Protestantism and a valid Eucharist

[runningdude]

What effect does a validly consecrated Eucharist have on a Protestant congregation (in the case of a validly ordained priest celebrating using a valid, if deficient rite)?

[YoungTradCath]

Are you asking if the Eucharist "works" on them?

[promethius]

Originally Posted by runningdude

What effect does a validly consecrated Eucharist have on a Protestant congregation (in the case of a validly ordained priest celebrating using a valid, if deficient rite)?

I would have a hard time believing that said defected priest had the proper intent to "do what the Church does", without which the sacrament does not take place... however, that is my totally unqualified opinion in that regard.

[YoungTradCath]

Originally Posted by promethius

I would have a hard time believing that said defected priest had the proper intent to "do what the Church does", without which the sacrament does not take place... however, that is my totally unqualified opinion in that regard.

Then what if someone steals the Eucharist out of a tabernacle and then distributes it to Protestants? While slightly fantastical, it is possible. Does the Eucharist grant them grace? Or does it do nothing?

I think this is an interesting question, because if we say it doesn't grant them grace, then isn't that the same as saying the Eucharist isn't effective on its own?

[jimrob]

It's not a magic trick that can only be performed if you are in the right club and use the right words. The Eucharist is a gift from Jesus Christ who commanded us to do it in commemoration of him. The Catholic and Orthodox communions restrict the Act of Consecration to an ordained priesthood and have set rites that attach to it. That is a church rule rather than a revealed truth. We regard both the Catholic and Orthodox forms of the Eucharist as valid. The Armenian, Anglican and Coptic communions have a similar rule, but we do not regard their orders or Eucharist as valid. That doesn't necessarily mean we believe is the Real Absence when it comes to Armenian, Anglican and Coptic versions of the Eucharist.

A Catholic priest who defects to another denomination is no longer regarded as being a priest and the Church does not recognise the validity of any Eucharistic ritual he may perform. Again, that doesn't necessarily mean that we believe that he does not have the ability to follow Jesus's command - we just disown what he does.

[YoungTradCath]

Originally Posted by jimrob

It's not a magic trick that can only be performed if you are in the right club and use the right words. The Eucharist is a gift from Jesus Christ who commanded us to do it in commemoration of him. The Catholic and Orthodox communions restrict the Act of Consecration to an ordained priesthood and have set rites that attach to it. That is a church rule rather than a revealed truth. We regard both the Catholic and Orthodox forms of the Eucharist as valid. The Armenian, Anglican and Coptic communions have a similar rule, but we do not regard their orders or Eucharist as valid. That doesn't necessarily mean we believe is the Real Absence when it comes to Armenian, Anglican and Coptic versions of the Eucharist.

A Catholic priest who defects to another denomination is no longer regarded as being a priest and the Church does not recognise the validity of any Eucharistic ritual he may perform. Again, that doesn't necessarily mean that we believe that he does not have the ability to follow Jesus's command - we just disown what he does.

Small correction: the ability to confect the sacrament is, indeed, a truth and not a Church rule.

[Friar David, O.Carm]

Originally Posted by YoungTradCath

Then what if someone steals the Eucharist out of a tabernacle and then distributes it to Protestants? While slightly fantastical, it is possible. Does the Eucharist grant them grace? Or does it do nothing?

I think this is an interesting question, because if we say it doesn't grant them grace, then isn't that the same as saying the Eucharist isn't effective on its own?

I think two questions must be asked. Are the individuals in question in the proper state to receive the Eucharist and then are they open to receiving the grace conferred by the Eucharist.

While the Eucharist does grant grace we must be open to receiving it.

At least that is my opinion.

[chevalier]

Originally Posted by jimrob

It's not a magic trick that can only be performed if you are in the right club and use the right words. The Eucharist is a gift from Jesus Christ who commanded us to do it in commemoration of him. The Catholic and Orthodox communions restrict the Act of Consecration to an ordained priesthood and have set rites that attach to it. That is a church rule rather than a revealed truth. We regard both the Catholic and Orthodox forms of the Eucharist as valid. The Armenian, Anglican and Coptic communions have a similar rule, but we do not regard their orders or Eucharist as valid. That doesn't necessarily mean we believe is the Real Absence when it comes to Armenian, Anglican and Coptic versions of the Eucharist.

A Catholic priest who defects to another denomination is no longer regarded as being a priest and the Church does not recognise the validity of any Eucharistic ritual he may perform. Again, that doesn't necessarily mean that we believe that he does not have the ability to follow Jesus's command - we just disown what he does.

Actually, the priesthood is of divine institution and no one else can consecrate the Eucharist, this isn't just a rule like clerical celibacy is, for example. As for the Armenian and Coptic Churches, we generally recognise the validity of holy orders in Eastern Orthodox Churches, as well as consecration of the Eucharist. A Catholic priest is a priest forever and never loses the powers of his ordination. If he turned Protestant but managed to intend what the Church does where required, he would be doing it validly, although possibly illicitly.

[Fone Bone 2001]

Originally Posted by jimrob

We regard both the Catholic and Orthodox forms of the Eucharist as valid. The Armenian, Anglican and Coptic communions have a similar rule, but we do not regard their orders or Eucharist as valid.

I'm pretty sure the Catholic position is that the Coptic and Armenian churches do in fact have valid Orders and Eucharist. The Armenian Apostolic Church and the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria are part of Oriental Orthodoxy, whose Sacraments are - from our Catholic perspective - as valid and true as those of the eastern Orthodox.

Originally Posted by jimrob

A Catholic priest who defects to another denomination is no longer regarded as being a priest and the Church does not recognise the validity of any Eucharistic ritual he may perform.

I think this is false. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states (emphasis mine):

"As in the case of Baptism and Confirmation this share in Christ's office is granted once for all. The sacrament of Holy Orders, like the other two, confers an indelible spiritual character and cannot be repeated or conferred temporarily.

"It is true that someone validly ordained can, for grave reasons, be discharged from the obligations and functions linked to ordination, or can be forbidden to exercise them; but he cannot become a layman again in the strict sense, because the character imprinted by ordination is for ever. The vocation and mission received on the day of his ordination mark him permanently." - CCC 1582-1583

[promethius]

Originally Posted by YoungTradCath

Then what if someone steals the Eucharist out of a tabernacle and then distributes it to Protestants? While slightly fantastical, it is possible. Does the Eucharist grant them grace? Or does it do nothing?

I think this is an interesting question, because if we say it doesn't grant them grace, then isn't that the same as saying the Eucharist isn't effective on its own?

The question comes down to whether or not they are properly disposed to receiving it... if they affirm what it is, are in a state of grace, and are in communion with the church such that their participation is a great Amen to the truth of Christ revealed in His church, then sure, it confers grace... but... why are they STEALING the Eucharist if they believe thus, and wouldn't such theft render them NOT in a state of grace?

And if they AREN'T disposed to receive, then no, they do not receive grace, but rather eat and drink condemnation onto themselves as the scriptures say.

[runningdude]

Originally Posted by YoungTradCath

Are you asking if the Eucharist "works" on them?

Well I guess, I'm asking what kind of "work" it does...

Specifically, I'm more interested in a Catholic (or Orthodox) priest who joins a "high church" Anglican or Lutheran community that simulates the sacraments of Holy Orders and the Eucharist.

If these protestants believed their simulated sacraments were we valid, what effect might the true Eucharist have on each individual, or the community at large. Might they subtly notice a difference? Would they receive grace or eat or drink judgement on themselves.

The idea of steeling consecrated Hosts adds a whole other layer of sin that I think clouds the issue. However, might the validly ordained priest's celebration of the Eucharist outside of a proper apostolic church be a form of stealing?

[Luvtosew]

If these protestants believed their simulated sacraments were we valid, what effect might the true Eucharist have on each individual, or the community at large. Might they subtly notice a difference? Would they receive grace or eat or drink judgement on themselves.

this is just my opinion but if a Lutheran is in a state of grace, I think it works on him, its the preson receiving it I would think.