Anglicans could receive Roman Catholic communion, Archbishop suggests

[GKC]

The news report had been discussed in a thread about the same time earlier this year.

Many would agree that the celebrating priest was making a mistake in giving Communion t0 the Lutheran Bishop while others faulted the Bishop for receiving.

The fact remains canon 844 won’t allow it.

Yes, there is a flurry of ecumenical activities at top level between the Lutheran and Catholic Church. The joint celebration to commemorate Luther’s five hundred years anniversary perhaps enhance our relationship even more.

We look forwards for a full communion so that we can receive Communion together. So until then.

Though Canon 844, esp. Exception 4, outlines the conditions/circumstances when such might be authorized.

 

[steido01]

LutheranScholar:
What of this?

What of it? It was clearly a mistake, only happening because of an unfortunate cultural misunderstanding. Both sides of admitted so. It is not the norm.

Interesting to note that although Lutherans do not have a canon law (at least, not as Catholics do), most would be in agreement with Canon 844.

 

[Reuben_J]

Though Canon 844, esp. Exception 4, outlines the conditions/circumstances when such might be authorized.

Yes, I was saying that but probably it was not very clear.

I was saying non-Catholics are not to receive Communion in the Catholic Church except in special circumstances. The non-admission to non-Catholics into receiving Holy Communion has not changed with exception of the caveat of course, regardless of the personal statement of the Catholic Bishops or the ecumenical effort to make it happens.

Needless to say, this may be repeating public knowledge regarding this issue, it nevertheless an important one for Catholics considering the importance of the Eucharist to them.

Not many comments here though on suggestion how the Communion can be shared with non-Catholics. The Catholic position is quite clear in that recipients (non-Catholic denominations/churches) of Communion should be in communion with the Bishop of Rome otherwise the only way they can receive will be through the special circumstances as outlined in canon 844.

 

[GKC]

Yes, I was saying that but probably it was not very clear.

I was saying non-Catholics are not to receive Communion in the Catholic Church except in special circumstances. The non-admission to non-Catholics into receiving Holy Communion has not changed with exception of the caveat of course, regardless of the personal statement of the Catholic Bishops or the ecumenical effort to make it happens.

Needless to say, this may be repeating public knowledge regarding this issue, it nevertheless an important one for Catholics considering the importance of the Eucharist to them.

Not many comments here though on suggestion how the Communion can be shared with non-Catholics. The Catholic position is quite clear in that recipients (non-Catholic denominations/churches) of Communion should be in communion with the Bishop of Rome otherwise the only way they can receive will be through the special circumstances as outlined in canon 844.

Agreed.

 

[LutheranScholar]

What of it? It was clearly a mistake, only happening because of an unfortunate cultural misunderstanding. Both sides of admitted so. It is not the norm.

Interesting to note that although Lutherans do not have a canon law (at least, not as Catholics do), most would be in agreement with Canon 844.

Quite right and perfectly understandable.

 

[Peter_J]

Tomdstone, I don’t want to sound like a stuffy Catholic (or worse, a stuck-up Catholic) but as a point of reference are you well-versed on the distinction we make between “material sin” and “formal sin” (and, by extension, between “grave matter” and “mortal sin”)?

 

[Peter_J]

Since Canon 844 includes the sacrament of Reconciliation as available, under para 4, I would assume that would be a part of receiving the sacrament of the Eucharist.

I hope of course that no RC priest would tell an Anglican “I’ll admit you to communion, but not to confession/absolution”, so I agree with you in that regard.

But I can see how there could be an issue. Specifically, the Anglican might say “I’m already in a state of grace through the Sacrament of Reconcialition” but the RC priest require that he/she confess again and receive absolution from him, Anglican orders being presumed invalid.

 

[Tomdstone]

Tomdstone, I don’t want to sound like a stuffy Catholic (or worse, a stuck-up Catholic) but as a point of reference are you well-versed on the distinction we make between “material sin” and “formal sin” (and, by extension, between “grave matter” and “mortal sin”)?

Are Roman Catholic married couples guilty of any formal sin if they truly believe that it is OK for them to practice artificial birth control because they just can’t afford to have any more children and other religions will allow ABC in these conditions? And they have never heard any sermons from the priest about how they will go to hell if they use ABC?

 

[Peter_J]

Are Roman Catholic married couples guilty of any formal sin if they truly believe that it is OK for them to practice artificial birth control because they just can’t afford to have any more children and other religions will allow ABC in these conditions? And they have never heard any sermons from the priest about how they will go to hell if they use ABC?

There’s no mortal sin if they don’t know that what they are doing is wrong.

 

[GKC]

I hope of course that no RC priest would tell an Anglican “I’ll admit you to communion, but not to confession/absolution”, so I agree with you in that regard.

But I can see how there could be an issue. Specifically, the Anglican might say “I’m already in a state of grace through the Sacrament of Reconcialition” but the RC priest require that he/she confess again and receive absolution from him, Anglican orders being presumed invalid.

Same thought has occurred to me. Me, I’d not have a problem following the rules.

 

[Tomdstone]

There’s no mortal sin if they don’t know that what they are doing is wrong.

Well, I guess that is why we are hearing about things we don’t want to hear about. I thought that people had a responsibility to learn and find out whether what they were doing was right or wrong.

 

[Peter_J]

I thought that people had a responsibility to learn and find out whether what they were doing was right or wrong.

We Cs believe that as well.