Are these things true?

[yinekka]

I was told today, by someone who should know, that Anglicans (Episcopalians) can be given permission to receive Holy Communion as long as they profess a belief in the Real Presence. When I asked where this was in Canon Law I was told it was kept quiet so as not to cause scandal.!!

My son was told , by a priest, that in an emergency e.g. wedding or funeral it is ok to receive Holy Communion when not in the state of grace as long as you make an act of contrition and resolve to go to confession as soon as possible. I have asked this question before and was directed to the CCC but that is in principal, what about in practise?

On another discussion board the ‘internal forum solution’ was mentioned as ‘the best kept Catholic secret’! Aparently this gives divorced/not anulled and remarried Catholics permission to receive Holy Communion providing it is kept quiet. I am not talking about the legitimate application of the ‘Internal Forum Solution’ but a covert application. That this is being done was confirmed by another member of the discussion board who had been on the marriage tribunal in another state. When I asked him to produce documents he stated that principals and practise are different!!

What is going on here? Do we have a church within the Church who is making up new rules and we Faithful are just the mugs who are white knuckled trying to follow the Magisterium?

 

[chimakuni]

Unless a person is in full commmunion with the Church, he or she may not receive communion. Full communion - meeting Sunday obligation, going to reconciliation at least once a year, receiving the Eucharist once a year, having been prepared for the sacraments of the Church…etc.

The Anglican church teaches that the Eucharist is an anthema. That is written in the back of their book of Common Prayer. The priest is trying to be politically correct which is sad.

 

[Mjohn1453]

I was told today, by someone who should know, that Anglicans (Episcopalians) can be given permission to receive Holy Communion as long as they profess a belief in the Real Presence. When I asked where this was in Canon Law I was told it was kept quiet so as not to cause scandal.!!

Its not in canon law, which is why they couldn’t produce it. Though they are right that that attitude causes scandal, at the very least.

My son was told , by a priest, that in an emergency e.g. wedding or funeral it is ok to receive Holy Communion when not in the state of grace as long as you make an act of contrition and resolve to go to confession as soon as possible. I have asked this question before and was directed to the CCC but that is in principal, what about in practise?

It is not ok to receive the Eucharist in an unworthy state. This is expressed quiet clearly in scripture and in many places of Church teachings. Anyways a wedding is hardly a surprise occassion. They should at the very least prepare their souls for this great moment of their lives. Plus there should be a priest around to confess to if the need arises. As for a funeral, there is no obligation to receive the Eucharist at a funeral, nor is there at a wedding.

On another discussion board the ‘internal forum solution’ was mentioned as ‘the best kept Catholic secret’! Aparently this gives divorced/not anulled and remarried Catholics permission to receive Holy Communion providing it is kept quiet.

This is contrary to Catholic teaching and has been spoken out against by countless bishops. They are living in a persistant state of mortal sin in this case, and should abstain from the Eucharist.

I am not talking about the legitimate application of the ‘Internal Forum Solution’ but a covert application. That this is being done was confirmed by another member of the discussion board who had been on the marriage tribunal in another state. When I asked him to produce documents he stated that principals and practise are different!!

Then that person needs to be reported to the bishop.

What is going on here? Do we have a church within the Church who is making up new rules and we Faithful are just the mugs who are white knuckled trying to follow the Magisterium?

There are a lot of very faithful priests, bishops, and laity out there, you just seem to have run into a large group of people who are nominally Catholic only.

 

[kepha1]

I agree with everything MJohn said, but I would add:

This is contrary to Catholic teaching and has been spoken out against by countless bishops. They are living in a persistant state of mortal sin in this case, and should abstain from the Eucharist.

This statement is correct as it applies to those who have re-married without an anullment (outside the Church), but civil divorce or separation is not a sin, as sometimes it is necessary as a last resort for protection from physical or emotional abuse. If there is no re-marriage, these suffering individuals are in need of a supportive community, and most importantly the graces available from the sacraments in order to bear these as crosses.

I think it is a good thing to feel socially uncomfortable when it comes to NOT receiving Holy Communion, due to an unworthy state. It should motivate a person to get their act together.

The Catholic Church is not a social club.

kepha

 

[JGC]

yinekka:

I was told today, by someone who should know, that Anglicans (Episcopalians) can be given permission to receive Holy Communion as long as they profess a belief in the Real Presence. When I asked where this was in Canon Law I was told it was kept quiet so as not to cause scandal.!!

Anglicans, and indeed other Christians can recieve communion under limited circumstances. Firstly they must have a Catholic understanding of the sacrament (real presence). They must be properly disposed (state of grace) They must be in a position where it is not possible to approach the priest or minister of their own church.

I was in this position myself as I was in the process of being recieved into full communion from Anglicanism, obviously had the Catholic understanding, was in a state of grace and was in the US funnily enough nowhere near an episcopal church. So I could recieve legitimately.

Its obviously far from the norm for all three of the above to apply, esp pt 1 as if you have a Catholic understanding why are you not Catholic? (unless you are Orthodox)

The other reasonably common senario I can think of is an Orthodox person away on holiday in a remote region,they could quite legitimately ask for communion although whether they would want to and most of their bishops would frown on this!

 

[bengal_fan]

JGC:

The other reasonably common senario I can think of is an Orthodox person away on holiday in a remote region,they could quite legitimately ask for communion although whether they would want to and most of their bishops would frown on this!

i thought an orthodox could always receive communion in a catholic church under any circumstances (doesn’t have to be in a remote place), but a catholic may not receive in an orthodox church (according to their rules).

 

[Catholic2003]

Here is the canon law on this:

Can. 844 §1 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to catholic members of Christ’s faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from catholic ministers, except as provided in §§2, 3 and 4 of this canon and in can. 861 §2.

§2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§3 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the eastern Churches not in full communion with the catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed. The same applies to members of other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid eastern Churches so far as the sacraments are concerned.

§4 If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgement of the diocesan Bishop or of the Episcopal Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other christians not in full communion with the catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.

§5 In respect of the cases dealt with in §§2, 3 and 4, the diocesan Bishop or the Episcopal Conference is not to issue general norms except after consultation with the competent authority, at least at the local level, of the non-catholic Church or community concerned.

Section §3 applies to Eastern Orthodox receiving our sacraments; section §4 applies to Protestants receiving our sacraments.

 

[kage_ar]

Funny, I’ve never seen a wedding or a funeral as an emergency…

 

[Drlit]

“One Bread, One Body” does not refer to weddings and funerals as “emergencies.” It says “times of spiritual need”, and INCLUDES weddings and funerals, the purpose being so that half the church is not excluded in the case of mixed marriages and so that bereaved family members are not excluded in the case of a funeral.

The Internal Forum Solution is a sign that the Catholic Church is developing a warmer heart, sad that it is not applied in an official way. Some diocese do embrace the option (specifically the Diocese of Lexington Kentucky, which has a policy and procedure for this “Good Conscience Solution” on their webpage.

 

[jonnyws]

I was told today, by someone who should know, that Anglicans (Episcopalians) can be given permission to receive Holy Communion as long as they profess a belief in the Real Presence. When I asked where this was in Canon Law I was told it was kept quiet so as not to cause scandal.!!

I’ve been told this by a priest as well. I imidientally went to another priest that I know a lot better who told me that this is a LIE and that some liberals (particularly in England) are manipulating the fact that the Church allows Anglicans to communicate when they are in a foren country and unable to attend an Anglican service only if they profess a belief in the real presence.

I personally think that this is still to soft and gives the wrong message to Anglicans, their sacraments are invalid and if we communicate them when they are in Catholic countries they will not understand this. The most loving thing to do is to refuse them, not because they don’t love the Lord and believe in the Eucharist but because they insist on loving a piece of bread as if it is the Lord most of the time.

 

[Drlit]

I may be wrong, and forgive me if I am, but in my experience it seems to me that Episcopalians offer the same consecration, Eucharistic Prayer and believe the Eucharist has the same meaning as the Catholic Church. I was at a wedding recently, the communion distributors said, “The Body of Christ” and “The Blood of Christ, the cup of Salvation.” I thought that was pretty cool actually. The Episcopal priest showed more care and dignity with the unconsumed sacrament and the chalice than many Catholic priests I’ve known.

I know the Catholic Church thinks of Episcopalian sacraments as invalid sacraments because they are separated from the “True Church.” But it should be mentioned that the Orthodox Churches also believe that Roman Catholic Sacraments are invalid for the same reason. If you know your church history, they probably have a pretty good point.

 

[lak611]

I may be wrong, and forgive me if I am, but in my experience it seems to me that Episcopalians offer the same consecration, Eucharistic Prayer and believe the Eucharist has the same meaning as the Catholic Church. I was at a wedding recently, the communion distributors said, “The Body of Christ” and “The Blood of Christ, the cup of Salvation.” I thought that was pretty cool actually. The Episcopal priest showed more care and dignity with the unconsumed sacrament and the chalice than many Catholic priests I’ve known.

I know the Catholic Church thinks of Episcopalian sacraments as invalid sacraments because they are separated from the “True Church.” But it should be mentioned that the Orthodox Churches also believe that Roman Catholic Sacraments are invalid for the same reason. If you know your church history, they probably have a pretty good point.

The Anglicans changed the formula for ordination under Edward VI. As a result, their apostolic succession was broken. Therefore, since they are not priests, they cannot confect the Eucharist. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The Pope goes on to state how the Anglican Ordinal had been adapted to the errors of the Reformers, so that thus vitiated it could not be used to confer valid orders, nor could it later be purged of this original defect, chiefly because the words used in it had a meaning entirely different from what would be required to confer the Sacrament. The force of this argument, which is clear to Anglicans themselves, may be applied also to the prayer “Almighty God, Giver of all good things” at the beginning of the rite. Not only is the proper form for the sacrament lacking in the Anglican Ordinal; the intention is also lacking. Although the Church does not judge what is in the mind of the minister, she must pass judgment on what appears in the external rite. Now to confer a sacrament one must have the intention of doing what the Church intends. If a rite be so changed that it is no longer acknowledged by the Church as valid, it is clear that it cannot be administered with the proper intention. He concludes by explaining how carefully and how prudently this matter has been examined by the Apostolic See, how those who examined it with him were agreed that the question had already been settled, but that it might be reconsidered and decided in the light of the latest controversies over the question. He then declares that ordinations conducted with the Anglican rite are null and void, and implores those who are not of the Church and who seek orders to return to the one sheepfold of Christ, where they will find the true aids for salvation. He also invites those who are the ministers of religion in their various congregations to be reconciled to the Church, assuring them of his sympathy in their spiritual struggles, and of the joy of all the faithful when so earnest and so disinterested men as they are embrace the faith. The Bull concludes with the usual declaration of the authority of this Apostolic letter. (See ANGLICAN ORDERS).

 

[chris_molter]

But it should be mentioned that the Orthodox Churches also believe that Roman Catholic Sacraments are invalid for the same reason. If you know your church history, they probably have a pretty good point.

It really has more to do with the validity of the orders than the separation of the churches involved. Also, I’d hesitate to think the only reason why we think the Orthodox don’t have a pretty good point (or good enough to justify separation from the See of Rome) is that none of us know our church history

 

[Drlit]

I am SO very sorry! I didn’t mean to suggest that was the ONLY reason. Just that it is a matter of perspective. Anglican Communion and ordinations are considered not valid in the CATHOLIC view because of man-made laws and human perspective. By the same token, the Orthodox churches see ROMAN CATHOLIC communion and orders as Less-than-valid for the same reasons.

I didn’t mean to suggest that you (y’all) don’t know your Church history. Perhaps a better way to put it would have been “a quick review of church history.” For example the See of Rome was only one among FIVE SEES. When Rome established itself as the center of the Catholic Church on Earth, the Sees of Antioch and of Constantinople did not agree. The See of Utrecht, who was already officially independent, didn’t much care.

Antioch and Constantiople were the birthplaces of the orthodox veins of the Catholic faith, and Utrecht, being historically independent, continued in their independence to form The Polish National Catholic Church, The Old Catholic Church and a group of Independent Catholic Churches, all of whom trace their Apostalic Succession through the Bishop of Utrecht.

And by the way, as I understand it, the Old Catholics and Polish National Catholic Churches have a partial intercommunion with the Roman Catholic Church and full intercommunion with the Anglican Church, so there are established historical bridges between the Anglican and the Roman Catholic Churches anyway.

 

[Digitonomy]

When Rome established itself as the center of the Catholic Church on Earth, the Sees of Antioch and of Constantinople did not agree. The See of Utrecht, who was already officially independent, didn’t much care.

What date are you referring to when Rome “established itself” and when the See of Utrecht was already officially independent?

 

[Drlit]

Okay, well, first of all, let’s understand that I am a Catholic and have no wish or need to defend the following. My only statement was that the Catholic Church considers Anglican orders and eucharist invalid, and the orthodox church view ROMAN order and eucharist in somewhat the same way. I suggested, “A quick reading of church history would explain why they may think so.” Here’s the best I could do without retyping large sections from Comparative Religion Texts.

"Orthodoxy dates from the establishment of the Church on the first Pentacost. Many apostles went forth to establish churches, but of course St. Paul was the most dynamic among them. He founded Churches in Asia Minor, Greece and finally in Rome.

After Constantine in the fourth Century, the Church was made up of FIVE self-governing Diocese: Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Constantinople and Rome, whose bishop was considered PRIMUS INTER PARES or first among EQUALS. These diocese cooperated as one faith until the Schism of 1054 when Rome separated from the other four. The eastern Churches remained united as the EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH.

Pope Eugene III, in 1145 A.D. granted the Cathedral Chapter of Utrecht the right to elect successors to the See of Utrecht in times of vacancy. The fourth Council of the Laterian confirmed this privilege in 1215. The autonomous character of the Catholic Church in the Netherlands was further demonstrated in 1520 when a second grant by Pope Leo X, conceded to Philip of Burgundy, 57th Bishop of Utrecht, that neither he nor his successors, nor any of their clergy or laity, should ever have his cause evoked to any external tribunal."

 

[Digitonomy]

That sound more correct. I didn’t think the autonomy of the See of Utrecht predated any credible date for the first claims of Roman primacy.

 

[Drlit]

You’re right. I can’t speak for the Old Catholics or the Polish National Catholic Church but as I understand them, they would say that the Bishop of Utrecht ALWAYS had autonomy and it was not until the Schism of 1054 that they had need to have it documented.

Anyway, I try to respect our separated brethren. Even though some of them are very, very different. For example there is an Old Catholic Church Parish in Minneapolis that does its Mass in Aramaic and one that uses the pre-Vatican high altar and communion rail but has a statue of Buddha on the altar. I can’t get with that!!!

for the curious:
americanchurch.org/mn.htm
stfrancisliberalcatholicchurch.org/MplsStarAndTribuneArticle98.htm