ANglicans believe in the real presense in the eucharist just like Catholics. They dont admit to transubstantiation. Its just left as a mystery that cant be explained.Do you have to believs in it to have a eucharist?
Anglicans will vary, on both your first 2 sentences.
No. Transubstantiation does not depend upon the belief of the one receiving. It depends on the valid ordination of the celebrant as well as the form of the ritual, the matter to be consecrated, and intent of the celebrant.
If the Eucharist is validly consecrated, then Jesus is present regardless of what the recipient believes. If not properly consecrated, then again, it does not matter what the receipient believes - Jesus is not present.
This is why Jesus is not actually present in Anglican and Lutheran communions. They believe otherwise, but 'tain’t so.
As to your last, so say all right thinking RCs. Or so they should say.
Hmm. I see how your response makes sense – “does the validity of the Eucharist depend on the belief of the priest in transubstantiation?” – but when I first read Mark’s post, I took it to mean, “does a person who wants to receive the Eucharist need to believe in transubstantiation?” That is, it seemed that Mark was asking whether an Anglican – who believes in the Real Presence, but not in transubstantiation – could receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church.
(The answer, of course, is ‘no’ – not on the basis of ‘transubstantiation’, per se, but on the basis of the belief in the Real Presence. I would ask what, exactly, an Anglican means by the “real presence of Christ in the Eucharist,” and suggest that, the differences found there (between Catholic and Anglican understandings of the real presence) are what make it impossible for Anglicans to be in Eucharistic Communion in the Catholic Church.)
And, if so, that would depend on which Anglican you are thinking of. Anglicans vary on that subject, as on others. Right up to Canon 1, Session XIII, of Trent. Which likely would figure into any possible application of Canon 844, exception 3.
Indeed so, though one Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is a bit more nuanced:
“I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper.”
Some Anglican priest have valid orders.They maybe ex Catholics, Orthodox or PNCC.Are their eucharist valid. They believe in the real presence but not transubstantiation.
Aah! So, you question is about the person consecrating the Eucharist!
A Catholic priest who leaves ministry loses his faculties (other than in exceptional cases, (i.e., Reconciliation for a person in danger of death)). So, a Catholic priest who has left the Church in order to serve in an Anglican community would not be able to validly consecrate the Eucharist in a public liturgical celebration. I can’t speak authoritatively, but I would expect that an Orthodox priest in a similar situation would not be able to consecrate the Eucharist in a context outside of the Divine Liturgy.
It’s my understanding that the Church considers the Eucharist consecrated in a PNCC liturgy to be valid; however, that speaks both to the priest and the liturgy, and not to the person of the priest by himself.
And they may or may not have valid orders, for a few other reasons. Like a lot of things, it can be complicated. The subject gets run through here, frequently.
And, assuming they do, they may confect a valid, though illicit, Eucharist, if a number of other sacramental factors are also valid. If the sacramental intent is to do what the Church does, in the sacrament, that is one such requirement.
And, as I said, you can certainly find Anglicans who affirm transubstantiation. Rather motley, those Anglicans, taken as a whole.
I think you will find that such a RC priest, validly ordained, and assuming all other necessary sacramental factors are equally valid, would confect a valid, though illicit sacrament.
Doesn’t the Catholic churchsay you are a priest forever. As I understand priests that leave the church are still priests they just shouldn’t practice it. If a priest go to an Anglican church or any other church that believes in the real presence his Eucharist would be valid but illicit.I may be wrong but that was I was told
And, AFAIK, you are correct.
The Anglicans (Church of England) believe in transubstantiation? I didn’t realize that. Who is it then that teaches consubstantiation? I don’t know the difference either.
What is the effect of an “illicit” Eucharist? Would it harm those taking the body and blood or just not be valid as in effect? This is a good question I think. Would the participants be receiving death?
I’m not Anglican/Episcopalian.
However, when I attended one of their services in the Diocese of South Carolina (before it separated itself from the national Episcopal Church) I was told that as long as I was a baptized Christian I could take communion and if not I could still go up to receive a blessing from the priest.
And some Anglicans hold to requiring confirmation by a bishop, in apostolic succession, to receive. Though my late rector used to say that the altar rail was no place for an inquisition.
And I would expect the idea of a blessing at the rail (cross your arms in a St. Andrew’s cross) would be more or less commonplace. But you know what they say about Anglicans.
I’m not the one to ask. But I suspect that knowingly receiving an illicit sacrament would not be considered a good idea, in some circles.
Anglicans in general (including the subset in the Church of England) believe a variety of things about the Eucharist, both as to real presence and as to transubstantiation. The best course is to ask one of them and see what answer you get. Motley, Anglicans are.
As to consubstantiation, there are folks here who seem to work the term into lots of posts, for better or worse. I defer to them.
Some Anglicans believe in transubstantiation but not like the RC. The CoE teaches that the bread and wine remain the accidents.The substance what makes bread bread and wine wine changes into the body and blood of Christ. Where the RC teaches that inside and outside of the elements changes. There are some Anglicans that don’t believe this. The CoE doesn’t demand the Belief of this doctrine like the RC does of their