Anglicans could receive Roman Catholic communion, Archbishop suggests

  • Thread starter Thread starter ComplineSanFran
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GKC said:
However, see Canon 844, para. 4, above.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it only applies under grave circumstances. A Catholic may likewise receive for grave reasons, without sacramental confession… But to make this the norm, for Catholics or non-Catholics would, I think, undermine our entire theology of confession. The Church recognizes that sin can be absolved outside of the sacrament (by making a perfect act of contrition), but that the sacrament is the ordinary way of receiving forgiveness is a matter of doctrine not mere discipline.
 
wllmjoseph said:
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.
Click to expand...
Arthur, rather than Stewart, I think.
 
wllmjoseph said:
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.
Click to expand...
Papal jurisdiction, rather than papal infallibility, probably.
 
GKC said:
However, see Canon 844, para. 4, above.
Click to expand...
That is a very good point. Canon 844; paragraph 4 states
  1. 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.
Let us say that the danger of death is not present but rather someone who is Anglican is visiting with friends who are Catholic and attends Mass with them. It is my understanding that the Anglican friend would not be able to receive Communion is the Catholic Church because they belong to a church that does not recognize the Sacrament of Confession? Is that correct? Thank you!
 
wllmjoseph said:
Let us say that the danger of death is not present but rather someone who is Anglican is visiting with friends who are Catholic and attends Mass with them. It is my understanding that the Anglican friend would not be able to receive Communion is the Catholic Church because they belong to a church that does not recognize the Sacrament of Confession? Is that correct? Thank you!
Click to expand...
Not sure recognition of the sacrament of confession is the key: after all, which Anglican churches deny the sacrament of confession?
 
Picky_Picky said:
Not sure recognition of the sacrament of confession is the key: after all, which Anglican churches deny the sacrament of confession?
Click to expand...
Given the motley nature of the breed, maybe you could find some, but it is not the norm. To use a word in a stretched sense.
 
wllmjoseph said:
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.
Click to expand...
Henry VIII was the second son, of Henry Tudor (Henry VII), yes. Henry VII’s older son, Hank’s older brother, was the heir apparent (Arthur, he was) until his death. Henry might have gone to Cantuar, but that was not to be. He got the throne.

More is the most prominent name associated with the Assertio, but not the only one. History is murky, on many points.

Henry was not so much concerned with papal infallibility as in the concept of universal ordinary authority.
 
wllmjoseph said:
That is a very good point. Canon 844; paragraph 4 states
Click to expand...
  1. 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.
Let us say that the danger of death is not present but rather someone who is Anglican is visiting with friends who are Catholic and attends Mass with them. It is my understanding that the Anglican friend would not be able to receive Communion is the Catholic Church because they belong to a church that does not recognize the Sacrament of Confession? Is that correct? Thank you!

Not necessarily, in my understanding. Canon 844 is not proposing a walk-in, walk-up sort of situation. Consider the “properly disposed” concept. This would be a recognition of the nature of the sacrament, and a state of grace. That is, it seems to presuppose a confession/absolution as a part of reception, and that, it would seem, would mean a priest with valid orders, in Rome’s eyes. Reconciliation is one of the 3 sacraments Canon 844 addresses.
 
twf said:
Yes, but it only applies under grave circumstances. A Catholic may likewise receive for grave reasons, without sacramental confession… But to make this the norm, for Catholics or non-Catholics would, I think, undermine our entire theology of confession. The Church recognizes that sin can be absolved outside of the sacrament (by making a perfect act of contrition), but that the sacrament is the ordinary way of receiving forgiveness is a matter of doctrine not mere discipline.
Click to expand...
And I’m not suggesting it would be the norm; quite the contrary.
 
Picky_Picky said:
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.
Click to expand...
True.
 
GKC said:
Henry VIII was the second son, of Henry Tudor (Henry VII), yes. Henry VII’s older son, Hank’s older brother, was the heir apparent (Arthur, he was) until his death. Henry might have gone to Cantuar, but that was not to be. He got the throne.

More is the most prominent name associated with the Assertio, but not the only one. History is murky, on many points.

Henry was not so much concerned with papal infallibility as in the concept of universal ordinary authority.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I am inclined to believe that Henry VIII did have some involvement in writing the Assertio. As you indicated Henry’s one sticking point was the concept of universal ordinary authority.
 
wllmjoseph said:
Agreed. I am inclined to believe that Henry VIII did have some involvement in writing the Assertio. As you indicated Henry’s one sticking point was the concept of universal ordinary authority.
Click to expand...
Henry’s concern was a little broader than the theological concept of authority. It was a part of an ongoing tussle between the Throne and Rome, going back at least as far as the First Statute of Westminster, as to relative power within the kingdom. Politics and theology were tightly intertwined in the day and caused a lot of to-ing and fro-ing and Parliamentary/Royal Acts and decrees. It all came to a head with Henry. Who was the perfect storm.

Henry is usually credited with the first chapter of the* Assertio*, and some bits and pieces.
 
Do Anglicans recognize artificial contraception, divorce, gay lifestyle activity, SS marriage, and female ordination, as mortal sins?
 
wllmjoseph said:
That is a very good point. Canon 844; paragraph 4 states
Click to expand...
  1. 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.
Let us say that the danger of death is not present but rather someone who is Anglican is visiting with friends who are Catholic and attends Mass with them. It is my understanding that the Anglican friend would not be able to receive Communion is the Catholic Church because they belong to a church that does not recognize the Sacrament of Confession? Is that correct? Thank you!

I believe, but am not 100% sure on this, that you have to meet ALL of the criteria of that Canon to be able to receive the Eucharist without being a Catholic. In other words, in order for a non-Catholic to receive the Eucharist, you must (taking the Canon from the post above):
Code: 
be in danger of death, or, other grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishop
AND
Code: 
cannot approach a minister of his or her own community
AND
Code: 
ask on his or her own for it,
AND
Code: 
manifest Catholic faith in the sacraments
AND
Code: 
be properly disposed.
It’s not just one or two things from the list, you must meet ALL of the criteria. So in your example, no they would not be able to receive since there is no danger of death and it is certainly not a “grave circumstance”. This is how I have understood it, but someone please correct me if I am wrong. It’s not meant for non-Catholics just to be able to receive as they please, it’s meant for truly extraordinary circumstances. I would imagine that the cases where this canon would actually apply would be very few and far between. The only cases where I could imagine it applying to a protestant non in communion with the Catholic Church would be perhaps someone who is in danger of death but was in the process of converting, or someone who was a former Catholic and left the faith for some reason. But maybe there are other examples that I am not thinking of.
 
Picky_Picky said:
Not sure recognition of the sacrament of confession is the key: after all, which Anglican churches deny the sacrament of confession?
Click to expand...
It is my understanding that Catholics, Eastern Rite Catholics and Orthodox Christians are able to receive the Eucharist in that they can be properly disposed to through the Sacrament of Confession. Why would it be different for Anglicans or Lutherans? If an Anglican or Lutheran is in a state of mortal sin how do they receive the Eucharist without being absolved of their mortal sin in the Sacrament of Reconciliation?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top