Consecration of the bread and wine in other faiths


In some protestant denominations they believe that when they have the Lord’s Supper that it is the body and blood of Christ (Episcopal, Methodist, etc.) I know that through Apostolic succession that this is able to happen in the RCC,especially with the Sacrament of Reconciliation but what I am wondering is, do you think God would not let the same thing happen for these other people that love God and want to serve Him just as much as we do??? I mean its God that changes the bread and wine to the Body and Blood of our Lord, not the priest, right??? Just reading about different denominations and thought I would ask, thanks!!!

 God bless

  1. In considering the Eucharist as the sacrament of ecclesial communion, there is one subject which, due to its importance, must not be overlooked: I am referring to the relationship of the Eucharist to ecumenical activity. …

Our longing for the goal of unity prompts us to turn to the Eucharist, which is the supreme sacrament of the unity of the People of God, in as much as it is the apt expression and the unsurpassable source of that unity.90 In the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice the Church prays that God, the Father of mercies, will grant his children the fullness of the Holy Spirit so that they may become one body and one spirit in Christ.91 In raising this prayer to the Father of lights, from whom comes every good endowment and every perfect gift (cf. Jas 1:17), the Church believes that she will be heard, for she prays in union with Christ her Head and Spouse, who takes up this plea of his Bride and joins it to that of his own redemptive sacrifice.

  1. Precisely because the Church’s unity, which the Eucharist brings about through the Lord’s sacrifice and by communion in his body and blood, absolutely requires full communion in the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance, it is not possible to celebrate together the same Eucharistic liturgy until those bonds are fully re-established. Any such concelebration would not be a valid means, and might well prove instead to be an obstacle, to the attainment of full communion, by weakening the sense of how far we remain from this goal and by introducing or exacerbating ambiguities with regard to one or another truth of the faith. The path towards full unity can only be undertaken in truth. In this area, the prohibitions of Church law leave no room for uncertainty,92 in fidelity to the moral norm laid down by the Second Vatican Council.93

I would like nonetheless to reaffirm what I said in my Encyclical Letter Ut Unum Sint after having acknowledged the impossibility of Eucharistic sharing: “And yet we do have a burning desire to join in celebrating the one Eucharist of the Lord, and this desire itself is already a common prayer of praise, a single supplication. Together we speak to the Father and increasingly we do so ‘with one heart’”.94

  1. While it is never legitimate to concelebrate in the absence of full communion, the same is not true with respect to the administration of the Eucharist under special circumstances, to individual persons belonging to Churches or Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church. In this case, in fact, the intention is to meet a grave spiritual need for the eternal salvation of an individual believer, not to bring about an intercommunion which remains impossible until the visible bonds of ecclesial communion are fully re-established.

This was the approach taken by the Second Vatican Council when it gave guidelines for responding to Eastern Christians separated in good faith from the Catholic Church, who spontaneously ask to receive the Eucharist from a Catholic minister and are properly disposed.95 This approach was then ratified by both Codes, which also consider – with necessary modifications – the case of other non-Eastern Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church.96

  1. In my Encyclical Ut Unum Sint I expressed my own appreciation of these norms, which make it possible to provide for the salvation of souls with proper discernment: “It is a source of joy to note that Catholic ministers are able, in certain particular cases, to administer the sacraments of the Eucharist, Penance and Anointing of the Sick to Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church but who greatly desire to receive these sacraments, freely request them and manifest the faith which the Catholic Church professes with regard to these sacraments. Conversely, in specific cases and in particular circumstances, Catholics too can request these same sacraments from ministers of Churches in which these sacraments are valid”.97

These conditions, from which no dispensation can be given, must be carefully respected, even though they deal with specific individual cases, because the denial of one or more truths of the faith regarding these sacraments and, among these, the truth regarding the need of the ministerial priesthood for their validity, renders the person asking improperly disposed to legitimately receiving them. And the opposite is also true: Catholics may not receive communion in those communities which lack a valid sacrament of Orders.98

The faithful observance of the body of norms established in this area 99 is a manifestation and, at the same time, a guarantee of our love for Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, for our brothers and sisters of different Christian confessions – who have a right to our witness to the truth – and for the cause itself of the promotion of unity.


I don’t think any Protestant believes in transubstantiation in the same way as the Catholic Church does.
As for who changes the bread, it is indeed God, but He works through His designate here on earth, ie, the priest.
Also, recall that St. Paul warns that those who partake of the Body and Blood unworthily drink damnation on themselves.
Points 1 and 2 show why Protestants do not have a valid Eucharist, and point 3 shows why it is more loving for God to not effect the sacrament for them.


It is God that changes the Bread and wine into His Body and Blood through a validly Ordained priest “in persona Christi”. Without a validly Ordained priest nothing happens to the Bread and Wine, it remains just common bread and wine.

Christ invites everyone to come to His Eucharistic Sacrifice. He gives everyone the opportunity to “dress” properly in the white garment of Baptism, and to wash before being seated through Reconciliation. But many do not accept the invitation (Protestants who refuse to consider the Catholic faith), many show up dirty, in torn rags (unrepenent sinners).


I am an Anglican priest and an historian. Maybe I can help move this discussion along a bit. The 16th century reformer Martin Luther rejected Thomas Aquinas’ Aristotelian understanding of transubstatiation in favour of what he called consubstantiation. Luther believed, as Lutherans still do, that Our Lord is physically present in the Eucharist. he taught, unlike Aquinas, that the substance of bread and wine still remain while The Lord is present in them.

The French reformer Jean Calvin taught that the eucharist is memorial only. He wrote that Jesus could not be present in the bread and wine because he now sits at the right hand of the Father.

The English reformers took yet another approach. They stated that the Body and Blood of the Lord, “are corporally present” in the Eucharist by grace and the miraculous action of the Lord offering himself to the faithful. However, they took the position that the mechanism, transubstatiation, or consubstantiation was unknowable.

The document on the eucharist published by The Anglican-Roman Catholic Joint Commission comes to the conclusion that Anglicans and Roman Catholics are in substantial agreement on the doctrine of the real presence and there are no barriers in this area to reunification.

Pax et bonum Fr Don OPA


While, apart from Luther, all the Reformers denied a Real Objective Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, some of them will be found to affirm a “real presence”, and to use what appears to be very realistic language that could be interpreted in a Catholic sense, but what they all deny emphatically is an objective presence, that is to say that bread and wine actually become the true Body and Blood of Christ after the consecration, and differ from ordinary bread and wine in their substance.

It is necessary to have a clear idea of the meaning of substance within the context of Catholic Eucharistic theology if the incompatibility of Catholic and Protestant teaching is to be properly understood. The terms substantial change or substantial presence convey the Catholic teaching more precisely than the term real presence. We know that Our Lord is present whenever two or three are gathered in his name. This presence is definitely real, but it is definitely not substantial. The word substance, substantia in Latin, was taken over by the scholastic theologians from the philosophy of Aristotle.

It is sometimes argued that the term should no longer be used since many of the scientific views held by Aristotle and the scholastics have been proved untenable by modern scientists. But the sense in which the term is used in Eucharistic theology transcends any particular theory of science or philosophy. Substantia refers to the permanent underlying reality of anything that exists, which makes it what it is and not something else.

What matters for a Catholic is not to understand how transubstantiation takes place, but to believe that it does, and to believe it because, as St. Thomas Aquinas explains: “Nothing can be more true than the word of Truth itself.”


You don’t say anything that I disagree with. I have no difficulty with substantive presence. It discribes Anglican faith and practise as well. For example the ablutions following the Eucharist, the use of tabernacles and pyxs all point to substantial change. Again the ARCIC document on the Eucharist has a great treatment of the Anglican position which is substantially in agreement that of the RCC. Fraternal greetings FR Don OPA



Any individual Episcopalian, Anglo-catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, etc. can believe exactly what Catholics believe in regards to the Blessed Sacrament, but, as Bro. Rich pointed out, due to the fact that their orders are invalid, they have no one to confect the Sacrament. Validily ordained priests and bishops do not exist in any of these ecclesial communions.



thanks for the clarification!!! even though you know you’re right in your faith, it still helps to know why!!:slight_smile: Thanks again and feel free to sontinue the conversation!!!

   God bless....


The only difference which was the point of original post is that there is only common bread in the tabernacle of an Anglican church.


The only difference which was the point of original post is that there is only common bread in the tabernacle of an Anglican church.


That is clearly the position of the Roman Catholic Church. As the ARCIC documents make clear Anglicans and Romans believe the same things about the eucharist and eucharistic presence. The rub, of course, is the validity of Anglican Orders. If, as Rome teaches Anglican Orders are void then , notwithstanding the fact that Anglicans believe Chriat is present in the Reserved Sacrament it remains only bread.

I once believ ed in my lifetime the A nglican Communion would aquire some sort of Uniate staus with Rome. I no longer think it will happen in my lifetime. John Paul II was a great friend of Canterbury. He visited twice and I have a framed photo in my office of the Pontiff kneeling in prayer beside the Archbishop of Canterbury. He also performed two acts that warmed the heart of Anglo-Catholics, befuddled most evangelical Anglicans and was unreported in RC circles. While visiting in England John Paul II placed a pallium on the Archbishop of Canterbury. Once while the Archbishop was in Rome John Paul placed an episcopal ring on his finger. Pope John Paul also accepted the former Anglican Bishop of London, Greame Leonard into the Roman Catholic priesthood without re-ordination. He also approved an Anglican Rite for the use in the RC church by former Anglican clergy who had swam the Tiber

All of the above made those of us who prayed for it hope that somnething big was in the offing. Then Anglicans blew it all. Women priests and bishops, then the ordination of proclaimed homosexuals, and now the blessing, in the American and Canadian churches, of same sex relationships. The Americans and Canadians are facing threats from the rest of the communion of expulsion. It will take a generation for all this to shake down and no one will want to deal with us ecumenically with a ten foot pole. Still I continue to pray that we all might be one. in Christ Jesu Fr Don OPA


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit