Anglo-Catholic Question.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Clairdelune_89
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Clairdelune_89

Guest
Hi everyone,

I have a friend who has joined the Anglo-Catholic church and attends Mass with me at the local Catholic Church. He recently sent me a message about how he would soon be confirmed in his church, and seemed to think it would be okay for him to take communion at the Catholic Church. I told him I didn’t think this would be possible, as the Anglo-Catholics aren’t in communion with Rome.(As far as I know). Is there any special rules for Anglo-Catholics that would permit them to take the Communion at a Catholic Church?

I’d really appreciate some help with this, if anyone knows.

Thanks,
Claire
 
Hi everyone,

I have a friend who has joined the Anglo-Catholic church and attends Mass with me at the local Catholic Church. He recently sent me a message about how he would soon be confirmed in his church, and seemed to think it would be okay for him to take communion at the Catholic Church. I told him I didn’t think this would be possible, as the Anglo-Catholics aren’t in communion with Rome.(As far as I know). Is there any special rules for Anglo-Catholics that would permit them to take the Communion at a Catholic Church?

I’d really appreciate some help with this, if anyone knows.

Thanks,
Claire
Hi Claire,

You are correct in telling your friend that he can not receive Communion in your church even after he is confirmed in the Anglo-Catholic Church. This is a very hard point for many of us non-Catholics to accept since most of us believe that it is by the Lord’s invitation that all baptized believers are welcome at His Table and who are we to deny them.

God Bless!
 
emeraldcoast, thanks for the answer 🙂
I really appreciate it.
 
Anglo-Catholics don’t exist. Either they are Catholic or they are Anglican. We cannot receive bread and wine in Anglican Communion, just like Anglicans cannot receive Eucharist in the CC. If they do so, the profane the Body and Blood of Jesus. Please make your friend aware of it. God bless.
 
Hi Claire,

You are correct in telling your friend that he can not receive Communion in your church even after he is confirmed in the Anglo-Catholic Church. This is a very hard point for many of us non-Catholics to accept since most of us believe that it is by the Lord’s invitation that all baptized believers are welcome at His Table and who are we to deny them.

God Bless!
Not to get off topic, but it is also a hard point for many of us Catholics that the Eastern Orthodox do not permit us to receive communion in their churches.
 
Not to promote sectarianism, but I don’t think anyone should worry about not being able to receive in different denominational ceremonies. Why bother? One belongs where one belongs.
 
Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut everyone. I told him he wasn’t able to take communion at a catholic church and he tried to argue that his church is part of the catholic communion except that they use an Anglican form of the mass that other Anglicans use who have come over to Rome. I’m very confused at this point… he claims his church is in communion with ours but it’s techinically an anglican church.

How should I handle this? He’s a very dear friend but I think he may be mislead. surely there are no such thing as Anglicans who are in communion with Rome?
 
Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut everyone. I told him he wasn’t able to take communion at a catholic church and he tried to argue that his church is part of the catholic communion except that they use an Anglican form of the mass that other Anglicans use who have come over to Rome. I’m very confused at this point… he claims his church is in communion with ours but it’s techinically an anglican church.

How should I handle this? He’s a very dear friend but I think he may be mislead. surely there are no such thing as Anglicans who are in communion with Rome?
Are you sure you have the facts right?

Perhaps he is in an Anglican Use parish established under the Pastoral Provision of His Holiness Pope John Paul II of blessed memory. In which case he would be right. :eek:

I think that there are seven of these in the USA.

If that is the case, this question should not be in the non-Catholic section. If that is not the case, well then forget what I just posted, he might be confused about the church he has joined. There are several Continuing Anglican churches and some of them identify very strongly with their Catholic tradition. You might recall the TAC has recently asked to be accepted into the Papal communion, so there are any number of possible scenarios here.

Ask your friend who his bishop is, that is the traditional ages old method of determining whom is in communion with whom. Then come back and post, or check it out with your local pastor.

Michael
 
Anglo-Catholics don’t exist. Either they are Catholic or they are Anglican. We cannot receive bread and wine in Anglican Communion, just like Anglicans cannot receive Eucharist in the CC. If they do so, the profane the Body and Blood of Jesus. Please make your friend aware of it. God bless.
Well, if one wants to get technical, all Anglicans should view themselves as ‘Anglo-Catholic’ since we affirm our belief in the Nicene Creed and, thus, in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The better term is probably High Church Anglican, although I use the term ‘Anglo-Catholic’ frequently to refer to members of the Anglican Communion who have that liturgical and theological affinity for the Roman Catholic Church and the Latin Rite.
Not to promote sectarianism, but I don’t think anyone should worry about not being able to receive in different denominational ceremonies. Why bother? One belongs where one belongs.
Well, the issue is what happens if there is not an Anglican/Episcopalian service where you are, but there is a Roman Catholic one. For example, I go to an Episcopal service at my University’s Episcopal Chapel House (Chapel of the Incarnation). During certainly holidays/breaks, the Chapel House is closed. The closest church outside that one that has valid Holy Orders and does a Holy Eucharist service is a Roman Catholic Church. Although there are other Episcopal churches in town, it would be a lot easier if I could just go to the Roman Catholic church (which I believe has valid Holy Orders and does Mass/Eucharist).
 
Hi Claire,

You are correct in telling your friend that he can not receive Communion in your church even after he is confirmed in the Anglo-Catholic Church. This is a very hard point for many of us non-Catholics to accept since most of us believe that it is by the Lord’s invitation that all baptized believers are welcome at His Table and who are we to deny them.

God Bless!
Emerald,
There is a longing for unity, or should be, in all Christians. Unity can be broken and reestablished. The longing or desire for unity does not in itself create unity, but provides the inspiration to resolve the differences that cause disunity.

The disruption of unity between Anglicans and Catholics was caused by political and theological disputes. There were many martyrs.

One of the disputed issues is Anglican orders. There are many arguments over the validity of Anglican orders that point to different historical evidence to make their claims. For Catohlics, Rome decides, Canterbury has no say. Given the disintegration happening now at Lambeth, thank God for that.

Nevertheless, you understand that in order to have a valid Eucharist there must be a validly ordained priest.

Since the Anglicans have ordained women and the Catholics say
no woman can be a priest, as defined by the late Pope John Paul II, it will be impossible for the Catholic Church to recognize the validity of Anglican orders, not from any historical basis, but based on current Anglican practice. There are women now who claim to be Catohlic priests. Rome says they have excommincated themsleves and their ordinations are not valid, because women can not be priests. It is impossible. So Rome says the Anglican’s have no ability to confect a valid Eucharist.

With that being the case, intercommunion is not possible.

The Anglican Church is in crisis with internal disputes on morals and practice. They do not know what they believe on some things such as women’s role in the Church and ordained minsitry, abortion, sexual morality, women bishops and practicing homosexual bishops and preists. Whatever positions are correct, this is a group in chaos. In addition to Orders being straghtened out before untiy can be restored and something as important as intercommunion established the Anglicans need to define their own moral positions and if they agree with Catholic doctrine then they can try to work out differences with Rome.

Right now Anglicanism appears to be a sinking ship. It is in total disarray and marching further toward the abyss of Anglican schism by some and abandonment of Anglicanism to reunite with Rome by others.

Rome fears schism. Schism has severe, painful and long lasting consequneces, but schism is also a consequence in itself.

An historically observable phenomenon integral to Protestantism is division. Protestant groups break into separate groups and we have denominationalism, many churches with disunity over doctrinal disputes. That can only continue to happen and it is painful to watch from the outside. I have good friends who over thrity years have been through several church splits. Rowan Willams is in agony now, squirming. There is nothing he can do to put this divided house back together. There is no compromise possible. There is also nothing Rome can do to help this tragedy we are witnessing. Out of the wreckage something will emerge.

God is on His throne. He cares about His Church and all souls. As these events unfold we can only pray for souls including those who seem to reject God’s revelation.
 
“Since the Anglicans have ordained women and the Catholics say
no woman can be a priest, as defined by the late Pope John Paul II, it will be impossible for the Catholic Church to recognize the validity of Anglican orders, not from any historical basis, but based on current Anglican practice. There are women now who claim to be Catohlic priests. Rome says they have excommincated themsleves and their ordinations are not valid, because women can not be priests. It is impossible. So Rome says the Anglican’s have no ability to confect a valid Eucharist.”

While I agree with a good deal in this post, it doesn’t follow that if some AnglIcan bishop, or bishops, attempted to ordain females (invalid matter for that sacrament), that Anglican orders generally would thus be invalid. Certainly, Apostolciae Curae requires a RC to make the assumption, ab initio, that Anglican orders are invalid, but if Anglican orders in general, in other respects were valid, an attempt to ordain a female would not render them generally invalid.

So it’s *Apostolicae Curae *that requires a RC to consider Anglican orders as generally invalid. Any subsequent Anglican attempt to ordain a female is meaningless, with respect to that judgement.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
 
“Since the Anglicans have ordained women and the Catholics say
no woman can be a priest, as defined by the late Pope John Paul II, it will be impossible for the Catholic Church to recognize the validity of Anglican orders, not from any historical basis, but based on current Anglican practice. There are women now who claim to be Catohlic priests. Rome says they have excommincated themsleves and their ordinations are not valid, because women can not be priests. It is impossible. So Rome says the Anglican’s have no ability to confect a valid Eucharist.”

While I agree with a good deal in this post, it doesn’t follow that if some AnglIcan bishop, or bishops, attempted to ordain females (invalid matter for that sacrament), that Anglican orders generally would thus be invalid. Certainly, Apostolciae Curae requires a RC to make the assumption, ab initio, that Anglican orders are invalid, but if Anglican orders in general, in other respects were valid, an attempt to ordain a female would not render them generally invalid.

So it’s *Apostolicae Curae *that requires a RC to consider Anglican orders as generally invalid. Any subsequent Anglican attempt to ordain a female is meaningless, with respect to that judgement.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
The Op asked about intercommunion, because her friend converting to Anglicanism claimed he could receive in at a Catholic Mass and she thought correctly that he can not. A subsequent poster confirmed that she was right, but lamented the fact that intercommunion is not permitted. The majority of people being ordained in the Anglican/Episcopal church today are women. That would make all of the sacraments performed by these psuedo priests invalid without question from a Catholic perspective.

It also makes unity which would require recognition of orders, or taking new vows, conditionally if there was any question about validity of Anglican orders, which is impossible. The Anglicans would need to renounce all their female priests and now bishops, Shorri, for example, who is the duly elected head of the Episcopal church. Her successor will probably be Robinson. They are off the deep end. I’ve spoken to Episcopal priests and they believe they are real priests along with the women who are ordained.

Intercommunion is not on the horizon. There are too many obstacles. Yet people like this new convert are told that they may receive in a Catohlic Mass, because they are Anglo-Catholic. This guy did not make this up. He was instructed.
 
Well, if one wants to get technical, all Anglicans should view themselves as ‘Anglo-Catholic’ since we affirm our belief in the Nicene Creed and, thus, in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The better term is probably High Church Anglican, although I use the term ‘Anglo-Catholic’ frequently to refer to members of the Anglican Communion who have that liturgical and theological affinity for the Roman Catholic Church and the Latin Rite.
Personally, I would call such Christian “catholic”, and I would call them “Anglo-Catholic”, but I wouldn’t call them “Catholic” (capital-C and without the “Anglo” modifier) because to me that means “Roman Catholic”.

Of course, if they want to call themselves “Catholic” … well it’s a free country. (A lot of people don’t like the Roman Catholic Church being called “the Catholic Church”, but I do it anyways. :o :cool: )
 
Well, if one wants to get technical, all Anglicans should view themselves as ‘Anglo-Catholic’ since we affirm our belief in the Nicene Creed and, thus, in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The better term is probably High Church Anglican, although I use the term ‘Anglo-Catholic’ frequently to refer to members of the Anglican Communion who have that liturgical and theological affinity for the Roman Catholic Church and the Latin Rite.
Most mainline Protestant denominations accept the Creed. Does that make them all Catholic? The term in the creed means universal and it is not capitalized as you wuold capitalize a name.
 
Most mainline Protestant denominations accept the Creed. Does that make them all Catholic? The term in the creed means universal and it is not capitalized as you wuold capitalize a name.
It is in the 1928 Book of Common Prayer.

GKC
 
The Op asked about intercommunion, because her friend converting to Anglicanism claimed he could receive in at a Catholic Mass and she thought correctly that he can not. A subsequent poster confirmed that she was right, but lamented the fact that intercommunion is not permitted. The majority of people being ordained in the Anglican/Episcopal church today are women. That would make all of the sacraments performed by these psuedo priests invalid without question from a Catholic perspective.

It also makes unity which would require recognition of orders, or taking new vows, conditionally if there was any question about validity of Anglican orders, which is impossible. The Anglicans would need to renounce all their female priests and now bishops, Shorri, for example, who is the duly elected head of the Episcopal church. Her successor will probably be Robinson. They are off the deep end. I’ve spoken to Episcopal priests and they believe they are real priests along with the women who are ordained.

Intercommunion is not on the horizon. There are too many obstacles. Yet people like this new convert are told that they may receive in a Catohlic Mass, because they are Anglo-Catholic. This guy did not make this up. He was instructed.
Not much here I disagree with. But many Episcopal priests are real priests (keep in mind that I’m Anglican, extremely well read in *Apostolicae Curae *and it’s history, and, as many Anglicans do, ignore it (though I do discuss it). OTOH, no female has been ordained at all, anywhere, no matter how many hands have been laid upon hairspray.

I agree that if the OP was referring to anyone not in communion with Rome (noting the exceptions for the Orthodox), then certainly there should be no intercommunion. I know of no Anglo-Catholic who doesn’t understand this, unless they were weirdly catechised. But I do wonder if it was an Anglican Use individual who was being discussed.

GKC
 
I agree that if the OP was referring to anyone not in communion with Rome (noting the exceptions for the Orthodox), then certainly there should be no intercommunion.
Actually there are 3 exceptions: Orthodox (both Eastern and Oriental), the Assyrian Church of the East, and the PNCC are all welcome to receive the sacraments in Roman Catholic Churches.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top