An Anglican Question of Communion

[gmcbroom]

Hi all,
I have a question for the Anglicans here. I know the its not exactly looked on favorably for Catholics to receive communion at an Anglican church because not all of the sacraments are accepted( if they were they’d be Catholic not Anglican). The Catholic faith has 7 and the Anglican Communion has 2. However, I was wondering what about the flip side. From the Anglicans standpoint do you feel that they that the Catholic communion would meet your requirements? I realize its a strange question however, I’m curious. I know that most of the Catholic churches I went too before finding the one I felt the most at home at; had small to medium congregations thus the priest would probably say they couldn’t. However, in other parishes where there are literally hundreds or thousands of people I could see it happen. So, whats the Anglican take on this?
Gurney,GKC, thoughts?

 

[Contarini]

Hi all,
I have a question for the Anglicans here. I know the its not exactly looked on favorably for Catholics to receive communion at an Anglican church because not all of the sacraments are accepted( if they were they’d be Catholic not Anglican). The Catholic faith has 7 and the Anglican Communion has 2. However, I was wondering what about the flip side. From the Anglicans standpoint do you feel that they that the Catholic communion would meet your requirements? I realize its a strange question however, I’m curious. I know that most of the Catholic churches I went too before finding the one I felt the most at home at; had small to medium congregations thus the priest would probably say they couldn’t. However, in other parishes where there are literally hundreds or thousands of people I could see it happen. So, whats the Anglican take on this?
Gurney,GKC, thoughts?

The Episcopal Church welcomes all baptized Christians who regularly receive communion in their own congregations to receive with us. (In all honesty, you can find quite a few priests who issue a broader invitation that does not require baptism. But the official position is as I have stated it.) Catholics and Orthodox, furthermore, can be received as members of the Episcopal Church without being confirmed, since you are already confirmed/chrismated within apostolic succession. So from our perspective the prohibition of intercommunion on your side is unnecessary and unfortunate. I believe that this is the common stance throughout the Anglican Communion, though it’s possible that some provinces uphold the stricter, more old-fashioned policy of restricting communion to those confirmed by a bishop.

Edwin

 

[CMatt25]

gmcbroom, I’m not Anglican but are you asking if an Anglican would feel comfortable receiving Communion in the RCC? I’m guessing since they believe in a physical RP, the body and blood of Christ present, just guessing here, but that if they were made welcome, then some would be. I didn’t realize though Anglicans didn’t have 7 sacraments. I know a good bit about them but perhaps I’m wrong that they do.

 

[Nine_Two]

As a former Anglican, yes, Anglicans believe that the eucharist as served by Catholics is a true eucharist.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

Hi all,
I have a question for the Anglicans here. I know the its not exactly looked on favorably for Catholics to receive communion at an Anglican church because not all of the sacraments are accepted( if they were they’d be Catholic not Anglican). The Catholic faith has 7 and the Anglican Communion has 2. However, I was wondering what about the flip side. From the Anglicans standpoint do you feel that they that the Catholic communion would meet your requirements? I realize its a strange question however, I’m curious. I know that most of the Catholic churches I went too before finding the one I felt the most at home at; had small to medium congregations thus the priest would probably say they couldn’t. However, in other parishes where there are literally hundreds or thousands of people I could see it happen. So, whats the Anglican take on this?
Gurney,GKC, thoughts?

Many Anglicans, myself included, accept all seven sacraments, and we take them very seriously. The greater of the seven are obviously baptism and the eucharist. Of course, the Roman Catholic eucharist meets our requirements, as Roman Catholic priests have proper ordination, as do our priests (lets not quibble on this here). I have taken communion in a RC church with the priest having full knowledge that I was Episcopalian. I would not communicate under other circumstances in a Roman church.

As Edwin, above, said, there are some priests in the Episcopal Church whose attitude is that Christ does not exclude from his table, so all in invited to receive. This goes against scripture, so, as radically open as it is, I do not support it. In San Francisco, at Grace Cathedral, there can be 2,000 worshipers at 11:00 on Sunday. Great care is taken that the host be properly received and consummed, especially the bread, as some people take it away for black masses.

Because the Roman church as strict limits on who may communicate, it is inevitable that the honor system must apply. I don’t take communion in an RC church, and neither should those with unconfessed sins, or other impediments to reception.

 

[gmcbroom]

So then because the Catholic church and Orthodox have apostolic succession you could atleast from your standpoint receive communion from them without breaking some Anglican precept or other? That is if the Catholic church didn’t object to giving it? I’m not trying to sound accusing. Trust be told I’m just curious.
The Anglican church or Episcapalian church here in the US was actually one of the churches I considered joining before I embraced Catholism. The funny thing is I still like that church. I just couldn’t get past ordination of women, or gay clergy. What can I say I have alot to learn.

 

[1ke]

I have a question for the Anglicans here. I know the its not exactly looked on favorably for Catholics to receive communion at an Anglican church

If by *not exactly looked favorably upon *you mean *prohibited *then you would be correct.

because not all of the sacraments are accepted

No, this is not accurate. Catholics may not receive communion in the Anglican churches for two reasons (a) because Canon Law specifies that Catholic only receive lawfully from a Catholic minister or from a Church with valid Orders and Sacraments in extraordinary circumstances (such as danger of death) and (b) because Anglican Orders and sacraments are not valid.

The Catholic faith has 7 and the Anglican Communion has 2.

From the Catholic perspective, the Anglican churches have 2 valid sacraments: baptism and marriage.

 

[GKC]

Hi all,
I have a question for the Anglicans here. I know the its not exactly looked on favorably for Catholics to receive communion at an Anglican church because not all of the sacraments are accepted( if they were they’d be Catholic not Anglican). The Catholic faith has 7 and the Anglican Communion has 2. However, I was wondering what about the flip side. From the Anglicans standpoint do you feel that they that the Catholic communion would meet your requirements? I realize its a strange question however, I’m curious. I know that most of the Catholic churches I went too before finding the one I felt the most at home at; had small to medium congregations thus the priest would probably say they couldn’t. However, in other parishes where there are literally hundreds or thousands of people I could see it happen. So, whats the Anglican take on this?
Gurney,GKC, thoughts?

I concur with most of the responses here. As an Anglo-Catholic, I recognize seven sacraments, and I certainly recognize the RCC as possessing valid orders, hence validly confected sacraments, where those require valid orders. But I might not be seeing the question correctly. I would never attempt to receive, in any ordinary circumstances, at a RC Mass. It is not proper.

One minor point of distinction. Anglicans of my sort welcome all baptized Christians, confirmed by a bishop in apostolic succession (or desirous of being so confirmed; little bit of history there), to receive. Others are expected either to kneel at the rail for a blessing, or refrain from coming forward. But as my late, lamented rector used to say, anyone (not known to him) who was at the rail and seemed to know what is going on, would be communicated. He wouldn’t, he said, conduct an inquisition at the rail.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Echoing what several folks here have said, many Anglo-Catholics especially believe in seven sacraments. As an Anglican I found the worship more reverent, intimate, kneeling for communion instead of standing, the wording far lovelier than the Catholic liturgy verbage, the after-Mass coffee hour was fun and great for fellowship, sermons generally better, and middle-of-the week “Wonderful Wednesday” was always great. My wife and I also loved the child care having a 4, 3, and 2 year old, wowzers, it’s a challenge to listen and be prayerful at Mass! I miss the pastoral care of my old rector, a great guy, though more on the evangelical end of the spectrum (a JI Packer fan, bigtime!).

I was never into the idea of *Apostolicae Curae *that Anglican orders were invalid or that their sacraments didn’t convey grace. I always felt that their orders were relevent and valid and that their sacraments were valid and meaningful for me. With the Dutch Touch it only hammered that home for me.

Another thing I miss about my old Anglican parish was Lent. The way they did Holy Thursday (Maundy Thursday in Anglicanism) brought people to tears, even my dad. He still speaks of that Maundy Thursday dismantling of the altars and the chapel. It’s powerful. And the entire Lent was better IMO…

I think it’s tough to go from Anglicanism to Catholicism. It’s been brutally hard for me. I have gone back to Anglicanism since my reversion to the Catholic Church. Sometimes it’s like a siren’s song…I know it’s a disfunctional bunch but it’s like Tom Petty. The guy’s voice is goofy but lovable! At my Catholic parish things are far more anonymous. People don’t miss most folks if they’re gone because there’s 7,000 people versus the 350 of Anglican here. You’ll get a visit from a deacon in the hospital, never your priest like my old Anglican parish. Less fellowship, less buy-in, and less pastoral care. Not an easy transition for me. I went back in 2002 and still feel mixed feelings about it. Long story…I digress!

Not sure if that answers your question. If not, IM me and I’d love to have the conversation with you about it all! God bless to the OP!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

My experience, and this is only my experience, is that most Anglicans do allow any baptized Christian to take Holy Communion. Sometimes they’re a little too lenient. I remember we had this goofball at St. Paul’s and he bragged about being a Unitarian Universalist and what he said bordered on paganism yet he always took communion…and then of course the court jester guy, wow, begging to be denied communion for sanity reasons! lol

One minor point of distinction. Anglicans of my sort welcome all baptized Christians, confirmed by a bishop in apostolic succession (or desirous of being so confirmed; little bit of history there), to receive. Others are expected either to kneel at the rail for a blessing, or refrain from coming forward. But as my late, lamented rector used to say, anyone (not known to him) who was at the rail and seemed to know what is going on, would be communicated. He wouldn’t, he said, conduct an inquisition at the rail.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[Pilgrimage]

I just couldn’t get past ordination of women, or gay clergy. What can I say I have alot to learn.

If you believe that the Spiritual body of Christ is one sex or the other then any priest would be wasting their time having a single woman in their church. Why feed them in this life at all or bother about what happens to their soul as they would be no part of Christ?

Aside from which every time you bow before or ask Mary to intercede you are giving her a greater power over your soul than Jesus. If she were to ask you to take a meal with her would you feel honored to have done so?

Consider it Philosophically too, there is plenty of evidence that Jesus had to become a champion of woman’s rights, this is because they were culturally suppressed. Therefore using men to become His disciples was quite simply a strategy for the salvation and greater empowerment of all people, not just men alone.

Had he walked around with women then gossip would have endangered His purpose and his disciples may have been distracted, or even jealous. This is not an issue today as His servants are simply a vessel for His Holy Spirit, regardless of their sex.

If all men feel as you do then His mission would have been pointless because he came to set the captives free, this includes culturally oppressed women!

God uses whom He choses to do His work, He always has done, whether they are male or female.

Homosexuality is a different issue though because for the love of Christ anyone can give up sex, but they cannot give up their gender.

If we had a third word for something that was neither female or male, I think that you’d find it used in the Bible instead of He, but we don’t. However, the Ruach (breath of God) is famine.

As you take communion think of the breath of God breathing over you. In fact this is my prayer for you, to receive His breath breathed over you so that you know the invisible nature of God; not as a man or woman , but as God, a pure Holiness and Light that is neither man or woman.

God bless

 

[Pilgrimage]

If by *not exactly looked favorably upon *you mean *prohibited *then you would be correct.

No, this is not accurate. Catholics may not receive communion in the Anglican churches for two reasons (a) because Canon Law specifies that Catholic only receive lawfully from a Catholic minister or from a Church with valid Orders and Sacraments in extraordinary circumstances (such as danger of death) and (b) because Anglican Orders and sacraments are not valid.

From the Catholic perspective, the Anglican churches have 2 valid sacraments: baptism and marriage.

Jesus came to free us from the religious laws of man!

With respect to everyone, it’s ridiculous to even consider healing in the Anglican church as invalid as someone is either healed or not, and if it’s happened in the name of Christ then what else could it be?

If baptism is valid in the Anglican Church, then so too must be confirmation as it is a verbal affirmation of faith. As time and again the Holy Spirit falls on people as they kneel and take Communion what are they receiving, because the profound change in those who do points towards something very holy entering their life indeed! The fruits of The Holy Spirit are evident on those who have received Him.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say be healed, but become a Catholic first; take bread and wine, but become a Catholic first; get married but become a Catholic first; be baptised, but become a Catholic first and so on…

Jesus does say that no greater love has a man than to lay down his life for his his friends and that we are His friend if we do as He commands. His 2nd greatest commandment is to love our neighbours…this love, as Jesus showed, extended even to the tax collectors who were the hated people. Are Anglican’s even less than the tax collector that Jesus would not call them down from the tree? I think not! Jesus is quite clear that He is more than prepared to come into our home and eat at our tables too.( Luke 19:1-10)

Remember that all the law and the prophets hang on the 2 greatest commandments and the disciple Jesus loved simply followed Jesus, despite the fact he’d eaten at the same table as the other disciples.

God bless

 

[sbrueck]

Echoing what several folks here have said, many Anglo-Catholics especially believe in seven sacraments. As an Anglican I found the worship more reverent, intimate, kneeling for communion instead of standing, the wording far lovelier than the Catholic liturgy verbage, the after-Mass coffee hour was fun and great for fellowship, sermons generally better, and middle-of-the week “Wonderful Wednesday” was always great. My wife and I also loved the child care having a 4, 3, and 2 year old, wowzers, it’s a challenge to listen and be prayerful at Mass! I miss the pastoral care of my old rector, a great guy, though more on the evangelical end of the spectrum (a JI Packer fan, bigtime!).

I was never into the idea of *Apostolicae Curae *that Anglican orders were invalid or that their sacraments didn’t convey grace. I always felt that their orders were relevent and valid and that their sacraments were valid and meaningful for me. With the Dutch Touch it only hammered that home for me.

Another thing I miss about my old Anglican parish was Lent. The way they did Holy Thursday (Maundy Thursday in Anglicanism) brought people to tears, even my dad. He still speaks of that Maundy Thursday dismantling of the altars and the chapel. It’s powerful. And the entire Lent was better IMO…

I think it’s tough to go from Anglicanism to Catholicism. It’s been brutally hard for me. I have gone back to Anglicanism since my reversion to the Catholic Church. Sometimes it’s like a siren’s song…I know it’s a disfunctional bunch but it’s like Tom Petty. The guy’s voice is goofy but lovable! At my Catholic parish things are far more anonymous. People don’t miss most folks if they’re gone because there’s 7,000 people versus the 350 of Anglican here. You’ll get a visit from a deacon in the hospital, never your priest like my old Anglican parish. Less fellowship, less buy-in, and less pastoral care. Not an easy transition for me. I went back in 2002 and still feel mixed feelings about it. Long story…I digress!

Not sure if that answers your question. If not, IM me and I’d love to have the conversation with you about it all! God bless to the OP!

 

[1ke]

Jesus came to free us from the religious laws of man!

This is not why God became man.

With respect to everyone, it’s ridiculous to even consider healing in the Anglican church as invalid

It is not ridiculous at all.

as someone is either healed or not, and if it’s happened in the name of Christ then what else could it be?

Huh?

If baptism is valid in the Anglican Church, then so too must be confirmation as it is a verbal affirmation of faith.

This is an incorrect understanding of the Sacrament of Confirmation. It is the Bishop who confirms, not the candidate. Valid confirmation requires valid Holy Order, which the Anglican Communion lacks-- from the Catholic point of view. A person confirmed by an Anglican minister is no more confirmed than if I confirmed them, that is, not at all.

As time and again the Holy Spirit falls on people as they kneel and take Communion what are they receiving, because the profound change in those who do points towards something very holy entering their life indeed! The fruits of The Holy Spirit are evident on those who have received Him.

We do in fact receive grace when we receive valid sacraments. Anglicans do not have a valid Eucharist. That does not mean that grace does not operate within them, as the Holy Spirit dwells within all who are baptized.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say be healed, but become a Catholic first; take bread and wine, but become a Catholic first; get married but become a Catholic first; be baptised, but become a Catholic first and so on…

I disagree. But that is another thread entirely. This is about the Eucharist and validity thereof.

Jesus does say that no greater love has a man than to lay down his life for his his friends and that we are His friend if we do as He commands. His 2nd greatest commandment is to love our neighbours…this love, as Jesus showed, extended even to the tax collectors who were the hated people. Are Anglican’s even less than the tax collector that Jesus would not call them down from the tree? I think not! Jesus is quite clear that He is more than prepared to come into our home and eat at our tables too.( Luke 19:1-10)

God loves everyone. And, yes, God calls the Anglicans to a relationship with Him. However, that does not change the fact that they lack valid sacraments other than baptism and marriage.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

This is not why God became man.

It is not ridiculous at all.

Huh?

This is an incorrect understanding of the Sacrament of Confirmation. It is the Bishop who confirms, not the candidate. Valid confirmation requires valid Holy Order, which the Anglican Communion lacks-- from the Catholic point of view. A person confirmed by an Anglican minister is no more confirmed than if I confirmed them, that is, not at all.

We do in fact receive grace when we receive valid sacraments. Anglicans do not have a valid Eucharist. That does not mean that grace does not operate within them, as the Holy Spirit dwells within all who are baptized.

I disagree. But that is another thread entirely. This is about the Eucharist and validity thereof.

God loves everyone. And, yes, God calls the Anglicans to a relationship with Him. However, that does not change the fact that they lack valid sacraments other than baptism and marriage.

You should note that whatever the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, because the Anglican Communion is in communion with the Old Catholic Church, valid orders by Roman Catholic Standards exist in many Bishops of the Anglican Communion.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I agree with much of what you say but I must say that the validity of Anglican orders that you keep claiming mostly comes from Apostolicae Curae, a papal bull in the late
1800’s from Pope Leo XIII. Even if Leo were correct in his assessment at that time, most Anglican priests these days have lines stemming from consecrations with the Old Catholic Church usually referred to as the “Dutch Touch.” I’d read about this if I were you. These consecrations, by Catholic definition, would supply these Anglican clergymen with valid (but illicit by Catholic standards) orders and thus valid (but again illicit) sacraments. So to think that Anglicans have empty bread and wine and sacraments with no grace might be valid up to the 1800’s but the Dutch Touch mitigates a lot of this thinking.

This is not why God became man.

It is not ridiculous at all.

Huh?

This is an incorrect understanding of the Sacrament of Confirmation. It is the Bishop who confirms, not the candidate. Valid confirmation requires valid Holy Order, which the Anglican Communion lacks-- from the Catholic point of view. A person confirmed by an Anglican minister is no more confirmed than if I confirmed them, that is, not at all.

We do in fact receive grace when we receive valid sacraments. Anglicans do not have a valid Eucharist. That does not mean that grace does not operate within them, as the Holy Spirit dwells within all who are baptized.

I disagree. But that is another thread entirely. This is about the Eucharist and validity thereof.

God loves everyone. And, yes, God calls the Anglicans to a relationship with Him. However, that does not change the fact that they lack valid sacraments other than baptism and marriage.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I agree that excessive triumphalism isn’t healthy at all. However, the term “Catholic” didn’t exist in scripture. It means “universal” and it was used by the Early Church Fathers. Jesus would have no reason to use the word as it hadn’t come into existence yet. And it is implicit in Scripture and common sense that Christ expects us to be baptized and join His Church as well as forgive and love our neighbors. He expects us to walk and chew gum. Jesus isn’t such a simpleton that He thinks we can only do one or the other. Jesus builds a visible Church on Peter, he asks Peter to feed His sheep, he mentions the Church several times, and the epistles make it clear that Christians are an organized, organic, real entity and baptism and communion are paramount. With that, naturally, comes living out the Gospel life.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say be healed, but become a Catholic first; take bread and wine, but become a Catholic first; get married but become a Catholic first; be baptised, but become a Catholic first and so on…

Jesus does say that no greater love has a man than to lay down his life for his his friends and that we are His friend if we do as He commands. His 2nd greatest commandment is to love our neighbours…this love, as Jesus showed, extended even to the tax collectors who were the hated people. Are Anglican’s even less than the tax collector that Jesus would not call them down from the tree? I think not! Jesus is quite clear that He is more than prepared to come into our home and eat at our tables too.( Luke 19:1-10)

Remember that all the law and the prophets hang on the 2 greatest commandments and the disciple Jesus loved simply followed Jesus, despite the fact he’d eaten at the same table as the other disciples.

God bless

 

[CMatt25]

I’ve never attended but an Episcopal church near me has one service where the communicants pass the bread and wine to each other. But is it the norm for Episcopalians to kneel at the altar rail?

 

[GKC]

I’ve never attended but an Episcopal church near me has one service where the communicants pass the bread and wine to each other. But is it the norm for Episcopalians to kneel at the altar rail?

Yes.

Keeping in mind that “norm” is an elastic concept in Anglicanism.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

“Norm” is to “Anglicanism” as “Pres. Carter” was to “low interest rates”
“Dogma” is to “Anglicanism” as “William Shatner” is to “Lawrence Olivier” and “Sir Ralph Richardson”
I thought I’d put Anglicanism into an SAT format lol

Yes.

Keeping in mind that “norm” is an elastic concept in Anglicanism.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus