I know the Orthodox do, as well as the Eastern Catholic Churches/Rites. But what others do ?
The Eastern Catholics are in full communion with Rome. You can fulfill your Sunday obligation at any of their rites.
The Assyrian Church of the East. Outside of the Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church, no one else has the Eucharist. The SSPX might.
All Orthodox churches do indeed have the Eucharist, but they are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome…yet.
Thanks, but I suppose I worded the question wrong.
What Protestant denominations have/claim to have the Eucharist ?
The Anglicans (especially High-Church Anglicans - the so-called “Anglo-Catholics”) claim to have the Eucharist, though they do not. No Protestant denomination truly has the Eucharist, even if they claim that they do.
Relatively few Protestants use the term Eucharist, but many/most Protestant churches have some form of communion.
Lutheran Churches do not claim Transubstantiation, which is mainly a Catholic doctrine. They do claim that the elements have the actual presence of Jesus, but don’t actually become physically Jesus’ body and blood.
All ministers who use valid form, matter and intent, and who have received holy orders validly confect the Eucharist. The former things are presumably present in the services of mainline denominations, so the deciding factor really comes down to the validity of holy orders. On the whole, most Protestant ministers do not have valid holy orders, so they do not “have the real presence” as you put it. However, there are probably some who do. Anglicanism is an especially complicated field in that regard. So it could conceivably be the case that in two Protestant services that take place in the same building and denomination, there is a valid sacrament at one service and not at the other. It comes down to the minister.
I wouldn’t use the expression “become physically Jesus’ body and blood” to describe transubstantiation to non-Catholics. That definitely would confuse most non-Catholics (and probably Catholics too). According to the meaning of the word “physical” as I have only heard it used in English, would, if anything, seem to be saying that the accidents change, which is precisely what transubstantiation denies.
What if a Catholic priest leaves the Church to go to the Episcopal church? Does he confect the Eucharist?
All other things being equal, yes. From the Council of Trent: “If any one saith, that, by sacred ordination, the Holy Ghost is not given; and that vainly therefore do the bishops say, Receive ye the Holy Ghost; or, that a character is not imprinted by that ordination; or, that he who has once been a priest, can again become a layman let him be anathema.”
That was my question also. And I thought that there were some priests or clergy who were ordained by Old Catholic bishops.
I thought that the Old Catholics and the Polish National Catholics also have valid sacraments.
In this regard and from the RCC standpoint, Anglicanism is a possibly complicated case, yes.
And here arises the complicating issue of a valid sacrament, and one both valid and licit.
Actually,we claim that the elements are the body and blood of Christ, in accordance with Christ’s own testimony, “This is my body”, “this is my blood”.
Isn’t it the fact that an Anglican priest still must subscribe to the 39 Articles the reason that the RCC feels that they cannot validly confect the Eucharist? Specifically the PNCC believes in transubstantiation, but those they ordained cannot, as they must subscribe to the Articles?
No. In two respects.
The articles are not normative for Anglicans generally, but only (in a technical sense that has not been enforceable for many years) for clergy of the Church of England, IAW a Parliamentary Act dating to 1571). Anglicans are (generally) free to adopt any attitude toward the Articles (and, in particular, Article XXVIII, which you are thinking of) that they may chose. They are not a form of Anglican confession.
The reason the RCC feels that Anglicans generally cannot confect the sacrament of the Eucharist validly arises from the judgement stated in the Apostolic letter Apostolicae curae, issued by Leo XIII in 1896, which involves a judgement of defective form and intent, with respect to the transmission of the sacrament of Holy Orders, at a particular point in Anglican history, which (in the RCC view) resulted in Anglicans losing apostolic succession. Which, again in the view of the RCC, means that, among other things, Anglicans cannot validly confect the sacrament of the Eucharist.
That is a complicated, lengthy and sad story, which I have probably posted on more often than any other topic here, over the past 10+ years.
I was listening to a radio program that featured 2 former Anglican priests, and 1 former Episcopalian priest, that are now all current RC priests. An Anglican priest (I believe) emailed and said they have valid orders from the PNCC. All three priests said no, and that it was because of the 39 Articles in relationship to transubstantiation. I thought that maybe Anglican priests had to take an oath to uphold the Articles. (Truly all I know about Anglicanism is from you).
Whether the Dutch Touch infused valid episcopal lines into Anglicanism, post 1932, is an open question. But the 3 priests (assuming they said that the Articles were the reason Anglican orders are not considered valid by the RCC, or that the Articles somehow preclude a belief in transubstantiation in Anglicanism, generally), are wrong. The Articles are not binding, or normative, for Anglicans, generally, save, as I mentioned, in a theoretical sense with respect to the clergy of the Church of England, in accordance with the Parliamentary Act of Subscription of 1571.