 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 21st, 2007 10:48 pm |
|
I was listening to Catholic Answers Live this evening. The host was Jimmy Akin and the guest was Bishop Salvatori Cordlionni (sp?), a Canon Lawyer. A caller had a question about a Catholic priest who left the Catholic Church and became an Episcopalian. The caller said that this former Catholic priest was saying the same words to consecrate the bread and wine during Communion. She asked if the bread and wine were actually validly changed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ and if the Eucharist in this Episcopalian liturgy was valid. The canon lawyer said that "yes," the Eucharist was valid and that the bread and wine were actually turned into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The caller then asked if the Episcopalian congregation was actually receiving the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus in the Eucharist. The canon lawyer said "yes" and he referred to the scripture that says "He is a priest forever after the order of Melchizadek."
I am very troubled by this answer. How can Episcopalians, who are not actually Catholic and have broken away from the C.C. be receiving a valid Eucharist? And if this is indeed the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ that they are receiving, then aren't they taking it unworthily, especially if they are not going to Confession or Penance beforehand? So does this mean that these Episcopalians can go to this ex-Catholic priest for Penance and Confession as well and be absolved of their sins? If that is the case, what would be the point in them actually becoming Catholic since they could receive all the benefits of being Catholic without having to convert to the Catholic faith?
Please help me out here. Thanks.
Darlene
Edited to improve formatting.Last edited on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 03:05 pm by
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 21st, 2007 10:53 pm |
|
One more question. Isn't this priest looked at as someone who is seriously endangering his soul because he is turning away from the Catholic faith and embracing Protestantism? How can his holy orders still be valid? Isn't someone like this, who truly knew and understood the Catholic faith and then turned away and is now a priest in Protestant denomination, considered as misleading those in his flock?
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
Credo Catholic
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Greenville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 1268 |
| First Name: | Marsha | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 22nd, 2007 12:00 am |
|
| When I first decided to investigate other churches besides the baptist, I visited an Episcopalian church a couple of times. I received Holy Communion there, not having a clue what it was really about. We went up to an altar rail and knelt, held out our hands and the host was placed in our hands. Then the chalice was brought around and everyone received the Precious Blood. In the course of the homily the pastor mentioned that he was a former Roman Catholic priest. At the time, that didn't mean as much to me as it does now. But there was absolutely no mention of receiving worthily. I later heard a discussion about this on catholic radio. I believe one of the speakers was Jonette Benkovic. It was said that it's possible that the consecration made by a former Catholic priest in an Episcopalian church could be valid according to his belief and intention. I took that to mean that if he believes it is the true body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, then the consecration is valid. Now that I understand a little more about the mass, this is confusing to me, too. First I'm having a hard time with any priest leaving the RCC when we need them so badly. This particular priest I saw had subsequently married and had a family. Second, by turning away from the authority of the Pope, does that make the consecration valid but illicit? Whatever the answer, attending there only a couple of times introduced me to liturgical worship and I have not turned back since. Only moved to the front!
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5080 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 22nd, 2007 12:54 pm |
|
Sacraments place a mark on a person that can never be removed. All of the sacraments that can only be received once are indelible: Baptism, Confirmation, Matrimony, and Holy Orders.
Baptism and Confirmation, as sacraments of initiation, bring a person into the faith. Once Catholic, always Catholic. Even if a person renounces the faith and becomes a heretic or apostate, that person is still Catholic. If he or she returns to the faith he or she is not baptized or confirmed again.
Matrimony may be received only once. However, since the sacrament is in a sense shared by two people, the death of one permits the sacrament to be received again. But that is the only circumstance in which an indelible sacrament may be received again.
Holy Orders makes a man "a priest forever" even if he is laicized or leaves the faith. He is still a priest, and will die a priest. If he does not have the proper faculties (authority) from his bishop, he may still consecrate the Eucharist but he does so at the risk of his soul. His action is illicit but still valid. Those who knowingly receive the illicit sacrament are also guilty of a serious sin.
So in the given example, yes, the priest may consecrate the Eucharist if he uses the right words and has the right intent, but his action is illicit and sinful.
A Catholic who knowingly receives this illicit Eucharist is also guilty of a sin. Those of another faith may be protected by invincible ignorance since they generally do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The same is true of a non-Catholic who receives communion in a Catholic church. If, however, they understand their actions, they are guilty of sin.
(Holy Orders may actually be received three times, but at different levels: deacon, priest, and bishop. It is not a repitition of the sacrament, but different levels of fullness. A priest who leaves the faith and returns is not ordained again; a priest who is validly ordained in another faith such as an Orthodox priest is not ordained again.)
Think of it this way. A married man who leaves his wife and cohabitates with another woman is still married but committing sin. His action does not invalidate his marriage. A priest remains a priest, even if he leaves the faith.
(One final point: A priest who has been laicized or has left the faith may still validly hear confession and grant absolution if the penitent is in danger of death. And of course, a laicized or apostate priest, like any other person, may baptize a person in danger of death.)
So even though we use the terms, there really is no such thing as an "ex-priest" or "former priest", just like there is no such thing as an ex-Catholic.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Daffodil
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 78 |
| First Name: | Daffodil | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | not attending church, New Age, Episcopalian, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 24th, 2007 06:00 pm |
|
| So does this mean that I have received the Real Presence and just did not know it? I used to attend an Episcopal Church where the priest was a self-acclaimed ex-Catholic priest. I reached the point of believing in the Real Presence while attending both that and the Catholic Church. This was before my conscience would not allow me to take communion there anymore (or to attend, for that matter). Have I received the Real Presence? (my heart soars at the thought) I stopped receiving at the Episcopal church once you or another forum member here told me it would be mortal sin to do so knowingly.
____________________
My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior....
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5080 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 25th, 2007 12:44 am |
|
Daffodil wrote: So does this mean that I have received the Real Presence and just did not know it? It's not likely.
There are three parts to any sacrament: matter, intent, and form.
Matter refers to the physical element of the sacrament. Intent is the intention of the minister, and form represents the valid liturgy.
In the case of the Eucharist, the Church defines "matter" as bread made only from wheat flour and water, and wine that contains only naturally fermented grape juice. Every Anglican/Episcopal recipe I've ever seen for communion bread contains baking powder, salt, and honey, making it invalid matter for a Latin Rite priest.
Intent means that the priest must intend exactly what the Church intends when he consecrates the Eucharist. If the priest truly accepted what the Church believes, he would not have left the Church, and he certainly would not make the standard announcement that all baptized Christians are welcomed to receive.
Form is the liturgical action of words and motions authorized by the Church. Using the Anglican liturgy, even if the words of consecration from the Catholic mass are used, is not valid. Even using the approved Anglican Use would not be sufficient, as that is a special liturgy that requires specific permission to be valid.
So while it is possible that a laicized priest can celebrate a valid (but illicit) mass, it is doubtful that even a validly ordained Catholic priest can consecrate the sacrament validly in another ecclesial community.
Last edited on Tue Sep 25th, 2007 12:47 am by CajunRick
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Esther
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Kansas City, Kansas USA |
| Posts: | 144 |
| First Name: | Esther | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist to Roman Catholic 11/26/06 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 25th, 2007 09:45 am |
|
CajunRick wrote: In the case of the Eucharist, the Church defines "matter" as bread made only from wheat flour and water, and wine that contains only naturally fermented grape juice. Every Anglican/Episcopal recipe I've ever seen for communion bread contains baking powder, salt, and honey, making it invalid matter for a Latin Rite priest.
I've been to a couple Masses where the type of bread used was not just wheat and water. I thought I had talked about this is a post a long time ago and was told this was a valid (but illicit) Mass. Did I misunderstand, were those Masses invalid?
|
|
|
Daffodil
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 78 |
| First Name: | Daffodil | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | not attending church, New Age, Episcopalian, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 25th, 2007 10:32 am |
|
Intent means that the priest must intend exactly what the Church intends when he consecrates the Eucharist. If the priest truly accepted what the Church believes, he would not have left the Church, and he certainly would not make the standard announcement that all baptized Christians are welcomed to receive.
Rick, does this mean that if a Catholic priest within a Catholic Church is led astray and begins to believe in cosubstantiation, or that it is only a symbol..........that it will not become the Real Presence in his own Catholic Church?
____________________
My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior....
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5080 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 25th, 2007 11:34 am |
|
Esther wrote: CajunRick wrote: In the case of the Eucharist, the Church defines "matter" as bread made only from wheat flour and water, and wine that contains only naturally fermented grape juice. Every Anglican/Episcopal recipe I've ever seen for communion bread contains baking powder, salt, and honey, making it invalid matter for a Latin Rite priest.
I've been to a couple Masses where the type of bread used was not just wheat and water. I thought I had talked about this is a post a long time ago and was told this was a valid (but illicit) Mass. Did I misunderstand, were those Masses invalid?
Technically no, as long as the matter used was proper for one of the rites of the Catholic Church. I am not an expert so I couldn't say specifically what would change the matter from illicit to invalid, but I suspect using a sandwich loaf from the supermarket would probably do the trick because of the preservatives. I know using any flour other than wheat would move it from the illicit column to the invalid column, but I'm not qualified to judge the individual ingredients.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5080 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 25th, 2007 11:39 am |
|
Daffodil wrote: Intent means that the priest must intend exactly what the Church intends when he consecrates the Eucharist. If the priest truly accepted what the Church believes, he would not have left the Church, and he certainly would not make the standard announcement that all baptized Christians are welcomed to receive.
Rick, does this mean that if a Catholic priest within a Catholic Church is led astray and begins to believe in cosubstantiation, or that it is only a symbol..........that it will not become the Real Presence in his own Catholic Church?
Again, I am not enough of an expert to say when the line would be crossed, but I would think that if a priest somehow truly begins to misunderstand the nature of the Eucharist so profoundly, that the consecration may well become invalid.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Current time is 04:09 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
