Which Non-Catholic Churches Have Or Claim To Have the Eucharist?

I’m still curious, however, if a validly ordained Catholic priest who has left the Church and joined the Episcopal church in the U.S. is confecting the Eucharist or not. This is more than just a hypothetical, unfortunately, though names shall not be mentioned here.

Father Cutie is someone who comes to mind. I saw him on his TV program a while back. And what about the other sacraments?

It’s best not to mention names here as it is the policy of CAF not to speak about someone who is not here to defend themselves. (This is a wise and fair policy, I think.)

I could not speak with any authority on the subject. But I would guess that if all required sacramental aspects were valid (and form might be a problem) for confecting the Eucharist), then possibly such a priest would confect a valid, but certainly an illicit, sacrament.

GKC

I just want to chime in here, since the OP hasn’t yet received a complete answer to his/her original question.

Has What We Would Call “A Valid Eucharist”

  • the Catholic Church (Latin and Eastern churches) - obviously
  • Eastern Orthodox Church
  • Oriental Orthodox Church
  • Assyrian Church of the East
  • Ancient Church of the East
  • Polish National Catholic Church
  • SSPX and certain other suspended or schismatic traditionalist societies
  • Old Catholic Church - I think. Not sure about this one.
  • Possibly some Anglicans - No Magisterial verdict, but Catholic theology makes it possible ever since “the Dutch Touch”
  • Possibly some “National Catholic Churches”

**Claims **to Have What We Would Call “A Valid Eucharist”

  • the Catholic Church (Latin and Eastern churches) - obviously
  • Eastern Orthodox Church
  • Oriental Orthodox Church
  • Assyrian Church of the East
  • Ancient Church of the East
  • Polish National Catholic Church
  • SSPX and certain other suspended or schismatic traditionalist societies
  • Old Catholic Church - I think. Not sure about this one.
  • the Anglican Communion (except maybe the evangelical types? not sure)
  • (Some?) “National Catholic Churches”
  • All Lutherans that I’m aware of
  • Some rare evangelical and non-denominational communities - I have friends who go to a “Vineyard” community; they have communion every week and are open to the idea of the Real Presence

Bonus round: Conspicuous examples of those Christians who don’t claim to have what we would call “A Valid Eucharist”

  • Baptists
  • Most evangelical and non-denominational communities
  • Fundamentalist Protestants

Not sure about the Presbyterians, Methodists, and Pentecostals. I think none of them claims to have what we would call “a valid Eucharist,” but I await possible correction.

The Old Catholic Church and the Anglican Churches have women priests.

That doesn’t necessarily disqualify them categorically.

They may still have validly ordained priests who are men.

As I said, though, it’s an ambiguous case with those two.

I don’t think that the Roman Catholic Church would agree that the sacraments of the women priests are valid, except possibly for baptism and possibly matrimony? Even though they may have been ordained by valid bishops.

True. But I think the answer was as to the situation of Anglicans or others in such a case, in general, not as to whether the women were valid subjects for the sacrament of Orders.

GKC

Of course. That’s not what I mean.

The Sacraments offered by a supposed female priest would not be valid, because she’s not actually an ordained priest.

But if the bishop who attempted to ordain her is actually a validly consecrated bishop, then any baptized men (viri) he ordains would actually receive Holy Orders and become priests, as long as a valid form is observed.

The Holy See ruled that Anglican orders are invalid because apostolic succession was lost centuries ago. In other words, even if their ordination has valid form today (and the conclusion that it does is all but unavoidable), their ordinations still wouldn’t be valid since such ordinations were not carried out by a valid minister: the only one who can validly confer ordination on someone is a bishop.

But that ruling predates the Anglican Communion’s decision to sometimes bring in Polish National Catholic bishops and Old Catholic bishops as willing co-consecrators near the beginning of the last century. The Holy See regards the latter groups as having apostolic succession.

So it seems rather unavoidable to me that some Anglican communities are actual churches in the theological sense. How many? Well, that’s a mess and we may never know. And I agree that other monkey wrenches have been thrown into the matter, such as attempts to bestow sacerdotal ordination on women.

But I don’t see how, given our own Catholic premises, we can avoid the conclusion that there are some Anglican presbyters out there who actually have received Holy Orders validly.

In your hypothetical case, in addition to valid form, valid intent and valid matter would also be required. Valid form would require that the amended Edwardine Ordinal form (from 1662) be considered valid

The Dutch Touch became an active question, in 1932, after the 1931 Agreement of Bonn, for full intercommunion between the PCs/Utrecht, and the Anglicans. This was expanded with a similar agreement with the PNCC, in 1946. Both arrangements involved joint episcopal consecrations. What this all might mean is uncertain.

GKC

Presbyterians and Methodists believe in a spiritual presence but not a physical or corporeal presence.

Pentecostals believe that it is a memorial but also that it can be used as a means of grace whereby the believer is strengthened, forgiven, and even physically healed by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Female priests disagree.

I know. I don’t see how it couldn’t be.

The Philippine Independent Church has Apostolic Succession and a valid Eucharist (although, of course, Roman Catholics would deny this). www.ifi.ph

It is possible that Leo XIII, in Apostolicae Curae, could. It involves the concept of the nativa indoles ac spiritus of the Ordinal, and whether the 1662 changes would, in fact, “cure” it. Folks interpret Apostolicae Curae differently, on that point. An unambiguous interpretation of the point, from an authoritative Roman source, might clear the mists.

GKC

Why would Roman Catholics deny the validity of Eucharist and orders if they were valid? :shrug:

Indeed, why?

Maybe for any baptized men he ordained prior to attempting to ordain her… but wouldn’t have have excommunicated himself by trying to ordain her in the first place (due to invalid form)?

I know what you mean by your question but a more universal, catholic approach is best. Any assembly that remembers thru the elements the Lord’s sealing of the new covenant in thanksgiving is "eucharisting’’.

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