Anglicans could receive Roman Catholic communion, Archbishop suggests

[wllmjoseph]

As I’ve posted oft, during my long and storied career here, if you want to know what Anglicans believe on a given subject, it is best to ask one. The answer likely will vary. You certainly will find Anglicans who affirm the Real presence in the Eucharist, and those who further accept transubstantiation as the explication of how this comes about. And you will find those who don’t. Asking is useful.

There are certainly Anglicans whose Eucharistic theology would permit reception under Canon 844, in theory. That this is likely to become something normalized, I seriously doubt. Times and things being what they are.

Thank you! That is precisely my point. I had the impression that there were some Anglicans that believed in the real presence on Jesus’ body and blood in the Eucharist and that for Anglicans it was just a symbol. Nothing more. Please correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that the official doctrine on the Anglican Church is the Eucharist is a symbol and that they do not believe in the Transubstantiation.

I for one would not be comfortable with Anglicans being able to receive Roman Catholic Communion when within the Anglican community there are different beliefs on the Eucharist and especially when the official Anglican doctrine is that the Eucharist is a symbol and does not contain the real presence.

 

[Rosebud77]

Thank you! That is precisely my point. I had the impression that there were some Anglicans that believed in the real presence on Jesus’ body and blood in the Eucharist and that for Anglicans it was just a symbol. Nothing more. Please correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that the official doctrine on the Anglican Church is the Eucharist is a symbol and that they do not believe in the Transubstantiation.

I for one would not be comfortable with Anglicans being able to receive Roman Catholic Communion when within the Anglican community there are different beliefs on the Eucharist and especially when the official Anglican doctrine is that the Eucharist is a symbol and does not contain the real presence.

Am never sure why that would matter?

 

[GKC]

Thank you! That is precisely my point. I had the impression that there were some Anglicans that believed in the real presence on Jesus’ body and blood in the Eucharist and that for Anglicans it was just a symbol. Nothing more. Please correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that the official doctrine on the Anglican Church is the Eucharist is a symbol and that they do not believe in the Transubstantiation.

I for one would not be comfortable with Anglicans being able to receive Roman Catholic Communion when within the Anglican community there are different beliefs on the Eucharist and especially when the official Anglican doctrine is that the Eucharist is a symbol and does not contain the real presence.

There is no Anglican Church, without some further distinction. There are Anglican Churches, 38 of which are members of the Anglican Communion. There are Anglican Churches that are not members of the Communion. And what is considered doctrine in each varies: they are auto-cephalic. One would need to inquire, of a given Anglican, what he/she believes of the sacrament. As I noted, under Canon 844, the judgement is individual, and assumes both proper disposition and Catholic faith with respect to the sacraments concerned. One would have no problem finding such Anglicans. But one would have a problem making an all encompassing judgement on all Anglicans, in that respect.

 

[Padres1969]

Thank you! That is precisely my point. I had the impression that there were some Anglicans that believed in the real presence on Jesus’ body and blood in the Eucharist and that for Anglicans it was just a symbol. Nothing more. Please correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that the official doctrine on the Anglican Church is the Eucharist is a symbol and that they do not believe in the Transubstantiation.

I for one would not be comfortable with Anglicans being able to receive Roman Catholic Communion when within the Anglican community there are different beliefs on the Eucharist and especially when the official Anglican doctrine is that the Eucharist is a symbol and does not contain the real presence.

Actually the vast majority of Anglicans believe in some form of Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Most do not merely see it as a symbol. Indeed as GKC says you’d have to check with each Anglican Church for their view on the matter. But the US branch of the Anglican Communion, the Episcopal Church, expressly professes Real Presence. Though no claim is made to the mechanism of that presence like Transubstantiation.

 

[wllmjoseph]

Rosebud77:
Am never sure why that would matter?

It would matter in that if all Anglican’s are able to receive communion at a Catholic Mass but the Anglican Communion is not clear of the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist or if the member of Anglican church does not believe in the real presence then they should receive the Eucharist.

 

[wllmjoseph]

There is no Anglican Church, without some further distinction. There are Anglican Churches, 38 of which are members of the Anglican Communion. There are Anglican Churches that are not members of the Communion. And what is considered doctrine in each varies: they are auto-cephalic. One would need to inquire, of a given Anglican, what he/she believes of the sacrament. As I noted, under Canon 844, the judgement is individual, and assumes both proper disposition and Catholic faith with respect to the sacraments concerned. One would have no problem finding such Anglicans. But one would have a problem making an all encompassing judgement on all Anglicans, in that respect.

Point taken, The reason that I had a different understanding was that in January 2016 the Episcopal Church was suspended from full participation in the Anglican Communion. If a member of the Christian Orthodox Church attends a Catholic service they are able to receive the Eucharist and they should be. They belong to a communion that recognizes the real presence. I do have some concerns that this issue of allowing Anglicans to receive communion at a Catholic Mass or service could potentially become a slippery slope. I agree with your point that

QUOTE=GKC;14110118]One would have no problem finding such Anglicans. But one would have a problem making an all encompassing judgement on all Anglicans, in that respect.

Allowing all Anglicans to receive the Eucharist at a Catholic Mass or service would be problematic in that the Anglican Church is very diverse in it’s belief’s and this would mean allowing individuals who do not believe in the real presence to receive the Eucharist and that is wrong. That being said a point can be made that there are some baptized Catholics who receive the Eucharist each week but they do not believe in the real presence.

 

[Padres1969]

Point taken, The reason that I had a different understanding was that in January 2016 the Episcopal Church was suspended from full participation in the Anglican Communion. If a member of the Christian Orthodox Church attends a Catholic service they are able to receive the Eucharist and they should be. They belong to a communion that recognizes the real presence. I do have some concerns that this issue of allowing Anglicans to receive communion at a Catholic Mass or service could potentially become a slippery slope. I agree with your point that

=GKC;14110118]One would have no problem finding such Anglicans. But one would have a problem making an all encompassing judgement on all Anglicans, in that respect.

So too do Anglicans.

Even if held to Article 28, which most Anglican Churches to some extent or another are not anymore, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not denied by Anglicans.

As for the ECUSA’s “suspension”, it has been greatly overstated by the media. The ECUSA’s “suspension” was really only from the Anglican Consultative Council and Ecumenical bodies. However it was not “suspended” from the Communion or anything like that.

 

[Picky_Picky]

So too do Anglicans.

Even if held to Article 28, which most Anglican Churches to some extent or another are not anymore, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not denied by Anglicans.

As for the ECUSA’s “suspension”, it has been greatly overstated by the media. The ECUSA’s “suspension” was really only from the Anglican Consultative Council and Ecumenical bodies. However it was not “suspended” from the Communion or anything like that.

I may very well be confused — I often am — but I don’t think ECUSA was suspended from the Anglican Consultative Council.

 

[Padres1969]

I may very well be confused — I often am — but I don’t think ECUSA was suspended from the Anglican Consultative Council.

Strictly speaking, true. However they can’t vote in the council nor be members of the standing committee for 3 years. It’s a de facto suspension from full participation in the council.

anglican.ink/article/primates-suspend-episcopal-church-full-participation-anglican-communion

 

[wllmjoseph]

I may very well be confused — I often am — but I don’t think ECUSA was suspended from the Anglican Consultative Council.

Here is the article from January in 2016 when the Episcopal Church was suspended from full participating in Anglican communion.

religionnews.com/2016/01/14/episcopal-church-suspended-anglican-communion/

The Anglican Communion is progressive in their theology yet even the Anglican Communion found it necessary to suspend the Episcopal Church from full participation in Anglican communion.

 

[Padres1969]

Here is the article from January in 2016 when the Episcopal Church was suspended from full participating in Anglican communion.

religionnews.com/2016/01/14/episcopal-church-suspended-anglican-communion/

The Anglican Communion is progressive in their theology yet even the Anglican Communion found it necessary to suspend the Episcopal Church from full participation in Anglican communion.

Again, the ECUSA was not suspended from full participation in the Anglican Communion. Only a few executive bodies. Only a Lambeth Conference can suspend a member of the Communion from full participation in the communion itself. It may be a matter of semantics, but semantics are actually important.

Not that any of this has anything to do with the topic. Which to me is a nice idea by this RCC bishop, but not likely to ever happen. The Church of England already has some fundamental differences with the Catholic Church, not the least of which is women clergy. And as has been pointed out, there are many other member churches in the communion that are even more “liberal” in our theology than the CofE.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Here is the article from January in 2016 when the Episcopal Church was suspended from full participating in Anglican communion.

religionnews.com/2016/01/14/episcopal-church-suspended-anglican-communion/

The Anglican Communion is progressive in their theology yet even the Anglican Communion found it necessary to suspend the Episcopal Church from full participation in Anglican communion.

Your report is, I think, on the Primates’ Meeting, not the ACC, and it is, you note, worded as a suspension of “full participation” — and that rests on a disputed view of the powers of the primates. At any rate, I shall gather up what remains of my memory and plonk it on the assertion that ECUSA has not been suspended from the Communion.

 

[wllmjoseph]

So too do Anglicans.

Even if held to Article 28, which most Anglican Churches to some extent or another are not anymore, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not denied by Anglicans.

As for the ECUSA’s “suspension”, it has been greatly overstated by the media. The ECUSA’s “suspension” was really only from the Anglican Consultative Council and Ecumenical bodies. However it was not “suspended” from the Communion or anything like that.

Padres1969,
Let me say that just as Orthodox Christians are able to receive the Eucharist at a Catholic Mass or service I believe that should also apply to other Christians who recognize the Eucharist as a sacrament containing the real presence of Jesus Christ. It was my understanding from History that when the Anglican church broke off from the Roman Catholic Church that at one point the Eucharist was declared a symbol and not to have the real presence of Jesus. King Henry VIII believed in the real presence after he made the break with Rome. In fact the only real difference that he wanted their to be with the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church was papal authority. After all it was King Henry VIII who wrote Refutation to the 95 Thesis. What I thought in college that there were groups within the Anglican church that wanted to make more of a break with the Catholic Church and that the Anglican doctrine on the Eucharist was that it was a symbol. If I am mistaken I do apologize.

 

[Vico]

Where do you get your info? Protestants still aren’t allowed to. Read canon law on this.

For reference, CIC Canon 844.4, the conditions are:

• danger of death, or, other grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishop
• cannot approach a minister of his or her own community
• asks on his or her own for it,
• manifests Catholic faith in the sacraments
• properly disposed.

CIC Canon 844 (also see CCEO Can. 671)

1. Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments to Catholic members of the Christian faithful only and, likewise, the latter may licitly receive the sacraments only from Catholic ministers with due regard for parts 2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and can. 861, part 2.
2. Whenever necessity requires or genuine spiritual advantage suggests, and provided that the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, it is lawful for the faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid.
3. Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned.
4. If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians who do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed.
5. For the cases in parts 2, 3, and 4, neither the diocesan bishop nor the conference of bishops is to enact general norms except after consultation with at least the local competent authority of the interested non- Catholic Church or community.

 

[twf]

My biggest issue with this would be sacramental absolution. Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, and other Christian Churches with valid apostolic succession / sacraments may receive Catholic communion, with the approval of their own Church, if they are properly disposed. What does it mean to be properly disposed? First and foremost, one has been absolved of any grave sins through the sacrament of penance. From a Catholic perspective, the Eastern / Oriental Churches do validly administer this sacrament; Anglicans, on the other hand, do not. If Anglicans were invited to receive, they would be able to receive without making a good confession…thus the bar for Anglicans to receive communion in the Catholic Church would be lower than it is for practicing Catholics. This hardly seems right.

 

[Padres1969]

Padres1969,
Let me say that just as Orthodox Christians are able to receive the Eucharist at a Catholic Mass or service I believe that should also apply to other Christians who recognize the Eucharist as a sacrament containing the real presence of Jesus Christ. It was my understanding from History that when the Anglican church broke off from the Roman Catholic Church that at one point the Eucharist was declared a symbol and not to have the real presence of Jesus. King Henry VIII believed in the real presence after he made the break with Rome. In fact the only real difference that he wanted their to be with the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church was papal authority. After all it was King Henry VIII who wrote Refutation to the 95 Thesis. What I thought in college that there were groups within the Anglican church that wanted to make more of a break with the Catholic Church and that the Anglican doctrine on the Eucharist was that it was a symbol. If I am mistaken I do apologize.

No worries. Anglican theology can be a little hazy so it’s not surprising that a non-Anglican would not quite understand it. The full text of the relevant article, Article 28 is as follows, keeping in mind that the Articles are not considered authoritative by many Anglican churches today.

XVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper.

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among
themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s
death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and
spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the
Supper, is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about,
lifted up, or worshipped.

You’ll note it’s not particularly fond of the concept of transubstantiation, as Catholics believe. But it also specifically references that we are partaking in the body and blood and it is more than just symbolic as you’d find in say a Baptist church.

 

[wllmjoseph]

My biggest issue with this would be sacramental absolution. Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, and other Christian Churches with valid apostolic succession / sacraments may receive Catholic communion, with the approval of their own Church, if they are properly disposed. What does it mean to be properly disposed? First and foremost, one has been absolved of any grave sins through the sacrament of penance. From a Catholic perspective, the Eastern / Oriental Churches do validly administer this sacrament; Anglicans, on the other hand, do not. If Anglicans were invited to receive, they would be able to receive without making a good confession…thus the bar for Anglicans to receive communion in the Catholic Church would be lower than it is for practicing Catholics. This hardly seems right.

Point well made. There are some Catholics who receive the Eucharist in the state of mortal sin in that they do not believe in the real presence or they have committed a mortal sin and have not gone to confession. I do understand you point though. If someone in another church has committed a mortal sin and there is no sacrament of confession in their church or they are not able to avail themselves of the sacrament in another church then they should not take the Eucharist. Thank you!

 

[GKC]

Point well made. There are some Catholics who receive the Eucharist in the state of mortal sin in that they do not believe in the real presence or they have committed a mortal sin and have not gone to confession. I do understand you point though. If someone in another church has committed a mortal sin and there is no sacrament of confession in their church or they are not able to avail themselves of the sacrament in another church then they should not take the Eucharist. Thank you!

However, see Canon 844, para. 4, above.

 

[GKC]

Padres1969,
Let me say that just as Orthodox Christians are able to receive the Eucharist at a Catholic Mass or service I believe that should also apply to other Christians who recognize the Eucharist as a sacrament containing the real presence of Jesus Christ. It was my understanding from History that when the Anglican church broke off from the Roman Catholic Church that at one point the Eucharist was declared a symbol and not to have the real presence of Jesus. King Henry VIII believed in the real presence after he made the break with Rome. In fact the only real difference that he wanted their to be with the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church was papal authority. After all it was King Henry VIII who wrote Refutation to the 95 Thesis. What I thought in college that there were groups within the Anglican church that wanted to make more of a break with the Catholic Church and that the Anglican doctrine on the Eucharist was that it was a symbol. If I am mistaken I do apologize.

Henry is usually credited with the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum, which I think you are referencing. He likely did write at least a portion of it, the rest was by committee.

 

[wllmjoseph]

Henry is usually credited with the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum, which I think you are referencing. He likely did write at least a portion of it, the rest was by committee.

I majored in History with a minor in English Literature from Nassau Community College and Hofstra University. What I was though, I don’t know that it was entirely accurate as that Henry VII was the second son. His older brother Stewart was supposed to be King and Henry VIII was groomed to eventually be the Arch Bishop of Canterbury. Stewart died of Tuberculosis and Henry VIII would than ascend to the throne. The professor thought us that it was the education the Henry VII received in preparation to be the Arch Bishop of Canterbury that prepared him to write Assertio Septem Sacramentorum.

I spoke with a priest from Manchester, England when he was visiting Charlotte, NC last summer. He believed that it was St. Thomas Moore who wrote Assertio Septem Sacramentorum. I do believe that it can be said the it was Henry VIII’s intent that the only thing separating the Church of England from the Roman Catholic Church was the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.