Valid Eucharist by Episcopal priest, formerly Catholic?


I don’t believe it has anything at all to do with the intent of a few, it is the intent of Mother Church and Her teachings on teh Sacraments.

Again, my opinion only and not aurguing with anyone.



I see what you are saying, I just am of the thought that if a person holds to the truth of the Eucharist then he would still be a Catholic Priest and not have left. It just seem illogical, the scenario you present.

This would be a good question for “Ask the Appologists”



And what does the Church teach for the validity of a Sacrament?

Proper form;
Proper matter;
Proper intention. And on this matter, again, the Church teaches that the minister must have the at least the intention, at least virtual, do what the Church does. That’s all. One is not required to intend what the Church intends. It is entirely possible for an Anglican minister to have this intention, especially if he never abandoned his faith in the Holy Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass.



I understand what you are saying…I will just have to agree to disagree. I say the consecration is invalid and ilicit…but again, my opinion only.:smiley:



So, I just learned something new this evening, I thought that I’d received my first Catholic Eucharist on 10 November 2007, but in fact I had received the Eucharist many years earlier, although unknowingly.

The priest concerned is someone I worked with and attended many of the Bible studies he led and it was clear that his heart and attitude remained Catholic. I thought I liked to attend the services he presided at because of his great sense of humour and down-to-earth preaching; perhaps my longing to be Catholic spirit knew something was different.



The same reasoning you’re using would also render non-Catholic baptisms invalid, and we know that the Church teaches otherwise. While I’m not an expert, it seems to me that an Anglican minister who was previously ordained to the priesthood still can validly, though not licitly confect the Eucharist, provided that he uses valid matter, correct form, and proper intent. I assure you from my experience in the Episcopal Church that there are a number of Anglican ministers who do indeed intend to exactly what the Church does in celebrating the Eucharist.



No not at all…the intent of the Church is the same in teh case of baptism, to bring the person into the family of God by removing orriginal sin and personal sin. Baptism is not in the same category.

And remember…I have repeatedly stated this is only my opinion. I very well may be wrong here.:shrug:

One must admit, this is a very interesting topic…



Thanks for the clarification. I always wondered why some groups that broke off, like the Polish national Catholic church, were still considered valid but the Anglicans were not. Now I know.



This could be problematic for any Church that does not follow the “Catholic formula” for consecration. If it is not exactly the same, then what is the priest’s intention? Is he confecting the Eucharist in the manner the Catholic Church requires which is contrary to the Church he belongs to, or his he using the invalid and illicit manner of the Church he now represents.



It’s a little more complicated than that. I think Brother Jay went into this in detail in one of the threads about the SSPX. I believe that most sacraments would be valid, though illicit, with proper form, matter, and intention. The exception would be confession, which also requires jurisdiction. Confession would therefore be invalid, excepting in an emergency.



You wrote “To my understanding, and I am no expert in this topic, once a person leaves the Church he no longer works within the intent of the Church which is necessary.” You’re saying that leaving the Church means that a minister no longer has the Church’s intent. That reasoning most certainly could apply to baptism as well, since it is necessary to intend to do what the Church does in baptism for validity of the sacrament. Since that is clearly not the case, given that the Church accepts baptisms done outside the Church, provided that their is correct form, valid matter, and proper intent, why would that not also apply to the Eucharist? It is certainly possible for an Anglican minister who was ordained a Catholic priest to intend to do exactly what the Catholic Church does in celebrating the Eucharist, as well as to use correct form and valid matter.

Also, given your reasoning, how is it the case that there are valid sacraments, including Eucharist, among the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian Church of the East, since they all left the Church in the past? Did their mere act of leaving communion with the Catholic Church amount to an abandonment of doing what the Church does when the Church celebrates the sacraments? Clearly not, since the Catholic Church teaches that all of their sacraments are valid.



Please don’t argue with me on a point in which I qualified as my opinion. I give, you win…:thumbsup:



And that’s just it. Again, it’s not necessary to even have the Church’s intent. One only needs to intend to do what the Church does, not intend what the Church intends.



You answered your own question with the last sentence.

Are the sacraments of the Catholic and Orthodox considered valid by the Latin Church? Yes.

How about the Episcopalian Church? No, with the exceptions of marriage and baptism.

That’s the starting point of the discussion.

FWIW, if the question was “formerly Catholic Bishop/Cardinal” that would entirely change the answer.



NO to both questions. The former Catholic priest would not be celebrating a Catholic Mass and the Episcopalians would not be receiving the Body and Blood of Christ and anyway they don’t believe in transubstantiation anyway so they should know that.



No you are correct. Anglican/High Episcopal/Low Episcopal etc. none of them can consecrate. They already know that since they deny transubstantiation anyway and that is why they are Protestants and we are Catholics. There is the BIG difference in a nutshell.



Some Episcopalians do believe in transubstantiation. Furthermore, a celebration of the Eucharist need not be a Catholic Mass in order to for the sacrament to be valid. The Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian Church all have a valid Eucharist, because they have valid Holy Orders. A Catholic priest who leaves the Church to become Episcopalian does not lose his priestly character, and does not lose the power to confect the Eucharist. If he celebrates the Eucharist using the correct form, valid matter, and the intent to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, then the Eucharist, thought not licit, is indeed valid.



thank you



When a Catholic priest is laicized and subsequently joins the Episcopalian or Anglican Church, isn’t he re-ordained, as an Episcopalian or Anglican priest? If that is the case, it seems to me that he would not be celebrating the Mass as a Catholic priest, and Eucharistic celebration would not be a valid one.



No, he would not be “re-ordained.” Furthermore, it would not matter if he were, since Holy Orders places an indelible mark on the soul. Once a man receives Holy Orders in the Catholic Church, he never ceases to be a priest. If a Catholic priests goes into schism and becomes and Anglican minister, as long as he uses valid matter, correct form, and has the intent to change bread and wine into the true body and blood of Christ (which is not at all uncommon among Anglican ministers, since a number of them actually believe in transubstantiation), all of the conditions for a valid sacrament have been satisfied. I fail to see why it would not be valid. It certainly would not be licit, but that’s a separate issue from validity.


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