The sacraments celebrated by priests of the SSPX are of course "valid" rather than "licit", the exact opposite of what you suggest in Notebook (The Tablet, 5 September).
When a laicised or irregularly ordained Catholic priest presides at a Eucharist, then this is illicit, against the rules, but not invalid. It is a proper Eucharist.
When a Protestant minister presides at a celebration with bread and wine in memory of Jesus's open table fellowship, then it is invalid.
These clericalist categories bemuse me. Whoever heard of an invalid birthday party or an invalid dinner? Could it ever be 'invalid' to feed an illegal immigrant even if margarine was used instead of butter, British wine served rather than claret or a woman did it rather than a man?
The Reverand Professor Tom O'Loughlin in his latest book Eucharist - origins and contemporary understandings makes some pertinent points and I look forward to it being reviewed in The Tablet.
There are complex issues here and simplistic vocabulary does them no justice.
Simon Bryden-Brook, London SW1
Loading ...
