Anglicans & The Blessed Sacrament

[Adeodatus]

Ellenita, is your avatar St Thomas Aquinas with the Holy Spirit as a dove whispering inspiration in his ear?

The Catholic Church recognises the true apostolic succession and valid sacraments of 3 groups of Churches:

1. The Eastern Orthodox who have some connection with the Patriarch of Constantinople (Greek Orthodox, Russian, Romanian etc); out of communion with us since 1054, made worse by Crusaders sacking Constantinople in 13th century.

2. The four Oriental Orthodox Churches---Syrian, Armenian, Coptic and Ethiopian; out of communion with us since the Council of Chalcedon, AD 451.

3. The Assyrian Church, a.k.a. Church of the East, out of communion with us since Council of Ephesus, AD 431.

The Anglicans officially recognise only 2 sacraments in their 39 Articles: baptism and the Eucharist.

Catholics think Anglicans have 2 valid sacraments also, but we think they're baptism and matrimony. When a baptised adult Anglican becomes Catholic we give them the sacrament of Confirmation and don't conditionally baptise them unless there are serious doubts about their original baptism.

Although we believe Anglicans don't have valid orders, there is a problem now when you have ex-Catholic priests serving as Anglican ministers and saying Mass. Their ordination is unimpaired, even though they've become schismatic and defected from the Church. So their sacraments are presumably valid although hideously illicit. It certainly makes for a real mess!

When I go into an Anglican church I bow my head to the crucifix or cross, because it is Our Lord's cross after all, but I don't genuflect to their tabernacles. I just don't know if their tabernacles are genuine repositories of the sacred Body of Our Lord or just really expensive and outlandish bread-bins. It's usually the latter!!!

[Ellenita]

OK, so now I want to know the difference between valid and illicit in terms of what might be recognised by the church! Is there any official punitive action on anyone who is considered illicit, for example, are they excommunicated?

Blazer, thanks for the offer of contacting your friend who is ex CEC. I'm not really interested in that particualr denomination, I was just intriqued by their claims to valid apostolic succession and how that fitted into my understanding with the position the church has taken with the Anglican church and I can see the difference from what people have posted here.

I don't want to get confused by reading the beliefs from different denominations at the moment - my heart is heading rapidly towards the Catholic church, but my brain and body are taking alittle bit longer to catch up!

is your avatar St Thomas Aquinas

Yes. Dust has it on the site and I hope that I haven't upset anyone by using it if they already were! I read on a site about saints from a link in one of the threads here that St Thomas Aquinas is the saint for academics, so I'm really hoping if he gets a moment he'll kindly put in a word with the big guy for me - I need all the help I can get at the moment! :D

[p0lar_bear]

Ellenita,

Illicit is a legal term. It means that the act, in this case the sacrament, was not performed in accordance with the law. This can refer to some fairly minor things or major ones. Invalid means that the sacrament never took place, only the semblance of the sacrament.

There are certain elements that are required for a sacrament. For Baptism, that is pure water, the triune formula ("I baptize you in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"), and intent. There are other elements provided for in law, but not required for validity. While, for validity, anyone can baptize, the law provides that the priest is the primary or ordinary minister of Baptism. If a priest, for whatever reason, lets the godparent or someone else baptize the child, the Baptism is illicit (against the law), but not invalid (i.e. the person is still baptized). If, on the other hand, the priest baptized the person, but in the name of the "creator, the redeemer, and the sanctifier" or in the name of Jesus alone, the triune formula is lacking, and therefore the Baptism is invalid.

Consecration of the Eucharist requires wheat bread and grape wine, a priest, and the words of consecration. If a priest consecrates the Eucharist without having the Liturgy of the Word, it is illicit, but still valid. If a priest changes the words of consecration, it can become invalid (depends on the changes). If a priest says the words of consecration over pizza and coke, no sacrament takes place.

[cmotherofpirl]

excellent answer

[nikkan_hanil]

I'm afraid they are inDouche kidding themselves.

That's one of the scariest thoughts that will ever attack you in you're religion. <_<

Edited November 18, 2003 by nikkan_hanil

[Anna]

That was a wonderful explanation.

Thank you, P0lar_Bear/

God Bless.

[Ellenita]

Polar Bear, thank you so much. :D That is such a clear explanation of the difference.

I am very relieved to hear that pizza and coke cannot ever be consecrated for the Eucharist. It was a very alarming thought, along with a number of other equally offensive combinations, when the possibility was raised in other threads in relation to protestant attitudes towards communion! (Although I must say that the communion I have taken in different protestant denominations in the past has always been bread and in some churches, such as the Baptist church, grape juice. In the Anglican church it has always been bread and wine)

OK, can I exacerbate everybody reading this thread with yet one more question?

If a priest knowingly carries out illicit actions such as the example Polar Bear gives of allowing the godparents to baptise rather than himself doing it, what is the come back, if any, on the priest?

[PedroX]

Its late, so I'm not going to look this up in the Catechism, but Scripture is very clear regarding the consequences of false teaching, especially as regards a child. Christ said it was better to tie a millstone around your neck and jump in a lake than to lead a child astray. That is what would happen with an invalid Baptism. (also the probable penalty for molesters)

I wanted to say thank you (to Ellenita) for the wonderful and respectful way in which you have engaged us. May God bless you for your gentle spirit. And, may He reward you in your search for truth.

peace...

[p0lar_bear]

Ellenita

If a priest knowingly carries out illicit actions such as the example Polar Bear gives of allowing the godparents to baptise rather than himself doing it, what is the come back, if any, on the priest?

The short answer is, it depends.

The local bishop (or superior if he is a religious) has the authority to deal with these situations, so the repercussions or disciplinary action is up to his discernment. A variety of factors will likely be taken into consideration in each case. A major factor is why the priest did it. Was it a mistake, were there extraordinary circumstances, was he trying to express a theology contrary to Catholic thought, was he trying to express something within Catholic thought but in a wrong way, etc., etc.? Also, it would depend on what he actually did. Was it something gravely illicit (like consecrating the bread alone without consecrating the wine), or was it something less significant (like allowing liturgical dance (in the western world)), or something minor? Finally, the priest’s response to correction will make a difference. If he is defiant, the bishop would be more likely to take action than if he were apologetic.

[Ellenita]

PedroX, thank you so much for your lovely encouragement - I really appreciate it.

Polar Bear, yet another clear explanation! So my interpretation of this is that a bishop would admonish in a sort of pastoral care kind of way in the first instance, but then more punitive action might occur if the priest continued with the illicit action.

All priests answer to a bishop or superior if he is in a religious order right? Is there ever a case when a priest could appeal direct to the pope, say if he felt he was right in his actions and his bishop was wrong to admonish him? Is the hierarchy sacrosanct?

[cmotherofpirl]

PedroX, thank you so much for your lovely encouragement - I really appreciate it.

Polar Bear, yet another clear explanation! So my interpretation of this is that a bishop would admonish in a sort of pastoral care kind of way in the first instance, but then more punitive action might occur if the priest continued with the illicit action.

All priests answer to a bishop or superior if he is in a religious order right? Is there ever a case when a priest could appeal direct to the pope, say if he felt he was right in his actions and his bishop was wrong to admonish him? Is the hierarchy sacrosanct?

Something like that actually happened here. A priest was removed with cause by the Bishop. the priest appealed and was reinstated, and the Bishop appealed to Rome, and the priesat was defrocked.

Of course we must go thru channels, but we all have the right of appeal all the way to the Pope.

[p0lar_bear]

Ellenita,

All priests answer to a bishop or superior if he is in a religious order right? Is there ever a case when a priest could appeal direct to the pope, say if he felt he was right in his actions and his bishop was wrong to admonish him? Is the hierarchy sacrosanct?

Every priest has a superior who has the authority to remove him from ministry. However, if the priest feels that this has been done unjustly, he does have the right to appeal. The appeal would not go directly to the Holy Father. The priest if the appeal reached the Vatican, it would be directed to the appropriate Vatican Congregation, Pontifical Office, etc. Most likely, there would be an appeal made to the Congregation of Clergy, but if the matter involved, for example, the liturgy, an appeal would probably also be made to the Congregation for Divine Worship.

While the hierachy is not so "sacrosanct" that appeals cannot be made, the Church follows the principle of subsidiarity. This means that matters are dealt with at the lowest level possible. In addition, problems should only be discussed with persons who can be part of the solution (i.e. they should not be discussed from the pulpit, in the news, or in any other such forum).

[Ellenita]

This means that matters are dealt with at the lowest level possible. In addition problems should only be discussed with persons who can be part of the solution. (ie. They should not be discussed from the pulpit, in the news, or in any other such forum)

Is this the principle that was applied to the child abuse cases which led to press accusations of a 'cover up' or would it only be in matters of doctrine rather than behaviour?

I presume that all the different congregations you mentioned would be under the ultimate authority of the pope and that he could directly intervene at any time, especially if he thought the decision being made by a particualr congregation was wrong.