We aren’t talking about all Anglicans in general. We are talking specifically about the TAC. Labelling them as “Protestant” (a label they apparently reject, btw) really has no bearing on the situation. We had previously labelled Chaldeans as “Nestorian” and Syrians as “Monophysite” without this proving to be an inherent bar to their recognition as Churches.
Shared faith is indeed the normal test for eligibility for communion. So far we agree. But the decision to make it so is a disciplinary, not a doctrinal one even if the test decided on is itself doctrinal. Just because doctrine is involved in a practice does not mean the practice is inherently doctrinal.
Let me demonstrate this with a mildly trivial but broadly analogous example. A bishop decides that he is going to reward good cathechism students at a parochial school with a fully funded school trip. He sets successful recitation of the Creed as the test. You will agree, I trust, that this test is implicitly a doctrinal one. Yet the decision to set this test and abide by the results is a disciplinary one.
The Catholic Church does extend communion in extremis to separated members of the Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome (albeit, this is not reciprocated by the Eastern Orthodox), but who are unable to receive communion from a priest of their own Churches. The communicants in this case clearly do not profess the whole Catholic faith. This, in and of itself, strongly suggests that the issue is a disciplinary one, unless you wish to suggest that the Holy Father is somehow guilty of apostasy.
This decision is tied to a doctrinal test in that it rests on the recognition on the validity of Eastern orders and on the shared understanding of the significance of the eucharist. But the decision to apply this particular test is “disciplinary”, not “doctrinal”, and the test itself does not extend to a requirement for full orthodoxy on the part of the recipient.
No Ecumenical Council has ever defined this practice as “a matter of faith”. As the practice has changed and evolved over the years, it would be difficult to argue that it is part of the Church’s unchanging Tradition. Like priestly celibacy, the use of azimes, or the use of girls’ choirs, it is a simply a disciplinary matter (albeit a very serious one). Disciplinary rules can be changed and modified by the Holy Father for the good of the Church.
There is an important distinction between the practice surrounding individual conversions (or even the conversion of whole parishes), and that associated with a reunion of Churches. If the negative argument rests entirely on a denial of the TAC’s status as a Church, then we should perhaps restrict the discussion to the validity of its orders and its doctrinal understanding of the sacraments.
Simply labelling the TAC broad brush as “Protestant” is not going to resolve anything, even if the label sticks. Quibbling over the Marian doctrines and papal infallibility would not be relevant to the issue at hand either, as belief in these doctrines is not normally considered a test of whether a denomination qualifies as a Church, else the separated Eastern Churches would not fully qualify either.
It is entirely understandable that some might feel slighted by having had to pass a different (and arguably more stringent) test as individual converts for access to communion. This should not blind us, however, to the reality that the Catholic Church allows for a different approach when faced with the opportunity for a full reunion of separated Churches. Individual converts have to face a more stringent test because their denominations of origin are not prepared to cross the Tiber into the Catholic faith as a body with them. If their original denominations had been more appropriately disposed, the test would have been the same as that applied to all the members of the Eastern Churches that have reunited as a body with Rome over the centuries.
Irenicist
