Can a Roman Catholic attend 'Anglican Catholic' mass?

[GKC]

Only if the ordinand understood that he was to receive a sacrament. Only four sacraments require no correct understanding by the recipient for validity: Baptism, Confirmation/Chrismation, Eucharist, and Annointing. By contrast, Marriage, Holy Orders, and Reconciliation all do require intent from both the minister and the recipient(s).

For valid holy orders, the valid bishop must have valid intent to perform the sacrament of Ordination, and the ordinand must understand it to be a sacrament, be valid matter for ordination, be validly baptized and chrismated, and a valid form must be used for the ordination.

Since the Anglican Communion teaches that Ordination, confirmation, confession, and anointing are not sacraments but merely sacramentals, the Anglican forms are on their face invalid by lacking proper intent.

And unless the Ordaining Bishop is valid, uses a valid form, and intends valid ordination, his touch is just a touch; any one missing makes the whole invalid.

If the ordinand is not valid matter (unbaptized, invalidly baptized, not a male, does not consent to be ordained, does not believe it a sacrament), then it doesn’t matter what the bishop intended.

Forms do not possess intent. Intent inheres in an individual in a sacramental act.

The Anglican Communion teaches nothing on the matter (so to speak). The Articles are not normative or binding in any sense on any Anglican, save (in a legal sense) on ordinands of the Church of England (under the Parliamentary Subscription Act/1571). This erastian requirement is totally ignored in the CoE, and totally absent, outside the CoE.

Article XXV does not exclude 7 sacraments. It distinguishes that two that are Dominical, as established with visible form, by Our Lord.

In 1932, at the first co-consecration of Anglican and OC bishops, after the Agreement of Bonn, the OC Bishop of Haarlem made a lengthy speech and signed a lengthy explanation of what he was intending to do in the consecrations. His stated intent was, in brief, *facere qoud facit ecclesia * (see ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID/Fr. J.J. Hughes, Appendix II). The intent of those consecrated would be judged (logically; the point has never been commented on, AFAIK, by the RCC) as valid, absent something permitting a determinatio ex adiunctis, such as a positive statement to the contrary on the part of the Anglicans.

The judgment of Apostolicae Curae does not address the issue of sacrament, only that of form (in the Edwardine Ordinal) and intent.

All of which is not to say that the RCC does not judge Anglican orders null and void. It is certain that it does, officially. It is certain that any RC should affirm that. It is equally certain that Anglicans take a different view of it.

GKC

 

[PLAT]

Part of the confusion here is caused by the term “Anglo Catholic” or similar.

There is no such thing as “Anglo Catholic” as the term has been used on this thread.

Episcopaleans or Anglicans (in the conventional sense of the word) are not Catholic–they’re Anglican and do not have the Catholic faith (the whole faith). When “Anglo Catholic” is used to describe Anglicans who are “high church” for lack of a better or more descriptive term, first of all it causes confusion, and more importantly it is an untruth. If a person is an Anglican, that person is not a Catholic (see next paragraph).

The only way the term Anglo/Anglican Catholic can legitimately be used would be to describe a person (or community) who is actually Catholic–in complete communion with the local bishop, and the Successor of Peter, yet a member of one of the rare (less than 10) Catholic parishes who use the Anglican form. Yes, they are both fully-Catholic and Anglican at the same time.

So what it means is that real Anglican Catholics is the one that is connected to the Vatican, but use a different rite?

 

[BernadetteM]

So what it means is that real Anglican Catholics is the one that is connected to the Vatican, but use a different rite?

Yes, but their liturgy is not a rite, but a use. If you go to the website at Our Lady of the Atonement, TX you can view a video of the liturgy. Now that the Ordinariates are being established for Anglicans coming into the Church, a new liturgy will most likely be revised.

There will be Ordinariates in several countries and one should be erected in January in England. I assume that by Easter we will see several more erected. Once this happens there will be many more Anglican Use parishes/missions in different states.

God Bless

Bernadette

 

[Cirdan_XII]

Go to the parish office and see if the have a photo of the Pope on the wall

There was an Anglican priest who I once visited back in the 1980s, so long before anybody started talking about the Angican Ordinariate. He had a big photo of the pope in his living room. When I asked him about it he said that he prayed that the Anglican Church might come back to Rome. So the picture alone doesn’t prove anything.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

Episcopaleans or Anglicans (in the conventional sense of the word) are not Catholic–they’re Anglican and do not have the Catholic faith (the whole faith). When “Anglo Catholic” is used to describe Anglicans who are “high church” for lack of a better or more descriptive term, first of all it causes confusion, and more importantly it is an untruth. If a person is an Anglican, that person is not a Catholic (see next paragraph).

Aren’t you confusing Catholic with Roman Catholic?

Anglicans use the Nicean creed which affirms their belief in the “Catholic Church”. If they meant that term to mean the “Roman Catholic Church” then they would basically be saying that they don’t believe in their own church and that would make thier entire worship pointless.

 

[FrDavid96]

Aren’t you confusing Catholic with Roman Catholic?

Anglicans use the Nicean creed which affirms their belief in the “Catholic Church”. If they meant that term to mean the “Roman Catholic Church” then they would basically be saying that they don’t believe in their own church and that would make thier entire worship pointless.

No. On the contrary, I’m pointing-out the fallacy of the claim that a community which is not Catholic attempts to use the word “Catholic” to describe itself.

Catholic means the whole faith (the kath holos). It doesn’t mean “pick and choose as you please, and eliminate anything you don’t particularly like.”

The Catholic Church is that One Church which is in complete communion with the Successor of Peter.

The Anglican community chose to reject certain essential elements of the Catholic faith and in doing so ceased to be Catholic.

As I recall, the Nicene Creed (actually that of Nicaea and Constantinople) says “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic” not “two, one founded by Christ, and one founded by the future King Henry VIII…”

 

[Earl_Curtis]

I am Episcopalian with an ecumenical view. If a Roman Catholic were to visit an Episcopal church, I would guess that they would be warmly received and allowed, if their conscience permitted, to partake in the Eucharist. I understand that some Roman Catholics may not want to partake in the Eucharist, in which case, they may still go forward to where the Eucharist is being served and simply cross their hands across their chest, indicating they are requesting a blessing and not the Eucharist.
The Episcopalians have differing beliefs about the Eucharist but some believe as do Catholics in the real prescence of Christ. To all those Roman Catholics with an ecumenical view, I suggest visiting an Episcopal church next Sunday.

 

[Joan_M]

I am Episcopalian with an ecumenical view. If a Roman Catholic were to visit an Episcopal church, I would guess that they would be warmly received and allowed, if their conscience permitted, to partake in the Eucharist. I understand that some Roman Catholics may not want to partake in the Eucharist, in which case, they may still go forward to where the Eucharist is being served and simply cross their hands across their chest, indicating they are requesting a blessing and not the Eucharist.
The Episcopalians have differing beliefs about the Eucharist but some believe as do Catholics in the real prescence of Christ. To all those Roman Catholics with an ecumenical view, I suggest visiting an Episcopal church next Sunday.

It is ok for Roman Catholics to visit an Episcopal church, however, it is forbidden for them to receive communion there, since it is simply a piece of bread, no matter what any Episcopalian may believe. The Catholic would be committing a mortal sin to receive.

 

[elgar]

It is ok for Roman Catholics to visit an Episcopal church, however, it is forbidden for them to receive communion there, since it is simply a piece of bread, no matter what any Episcopalian may believe. The Catholic would be committing a mortal sin to receive.

Enlighten me. If the Catholic belief is that Anglican/Episcopal Eucharist is JUST bread and wine and nothing else, then what’s the big deal? Mortal sin–wow!

Another thing, with the Ordinariate now in place for Anglicans and their priests and bishops on fast track to either return to Rome or become Roman Catholics, many of the clergy will assume priestly roles depending on their experience and seminary training. By saying it’s only “bread and wine” seems a little judgemental and overly simplistic I think.

 

[terryobrien1980]

Answer is simple… You may always attend, but you may not always receive…

…actually, you may not receive, PERIOD. In fact, you may not even actively participate, because to do so is to give public witness that you think the Liturgy is legitimate.

You may “observe”, but no more.

 

[FrDavid96]

Enlighten me. If the Catholic belief is that Anglican/Episcopal Eucharist is JUST bread and wine and nothing else, then what’s the big deal? Mortal sin–wow!

It’s a big deal for Catholics to treat something which is not-Communion as if it were Communion. Knowing that it isn’t the Body of Christ, we cannot participate, no matter what the circumstances.

Another thing, with the Ordinariate now in place for Anglicans and their priests and bishops on fast track to either return to Rome or become Roman Catholics, many of the clergy will assume priestly roles depending on their experience and seminary training. By saying it’s only “bread and wine” seems a little judgemental and overly simplistic I think.

Yes. And once those Anglicans become Catholics, they will be ordained before they begin to celebrate Mass. Once they are ordained, there is no doubt that what they consecrate will indeed be the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[Aramis]

Enlighten me. If the Catholic belief is that Anglican/Episcopal Eucharist is JUST bread and wine and nothing else, then what’s the big deal? Mortal sin–wow!

Another thing, with the Ordinariate now in place for Anglicans and their priests and bishops on fast track to either return to Rome or become Roman Catholics, many of the clergy will assume priestly roles depending on their experience and seminary training. By saying it’s only “bread and wine” seems a little judgemental and overly simplistic I think.

Catholic teaching is not the the Anglican missal is invalid.

Catholic teaching is that Anglican ordination is invalid.

The Anglican mass is thus invalid only because it lacks a valid minister. That makes it sacrilege - a layman attempting to perform a mass. Aiding or participating in such is laetae sentencae excommunication…

 

[elgar]

Catholic teaching is not the the Anglican missal is invalid.

Catholic teaching is that Anglican ordination is invalid.

The Anglican mass is thus invalid only because it lacks a valid minister. That makes it sacrilege - a layman attempting to perform a mass. Aiding or participating in such is laetae sentencae excommunication…

That being the case, there are a lot of Catholics out there–my deceased parents included–who have excommunicated themselves. Sounds rather harsh to me. Yet, Pro-Choice CINO politicians going up and receiving Holy Communion every week get a pass. Doesn’t seem consistent or just.

 

[FrDavid96]

That being the case, there are a lot of Catholics out there–my deceased parents included–who have excommunicated themselves. Sounds rather harsh to me. Yet, Pro-Choice CINO politicians going up and receiving Holy Communion every week get a pass. Doesn’t seem consistent or just.

You’re trying to compare two entirely different situations.

The fact remains that what happens at an Anglican service is not Communion. It’s that simple. For that reason, no Catholic can take part in it. Catholics can be present as observers, but nothing more.

 

[elgar]

You’re trying to compare two entirely different situations.

The fact remains that what happens at an Anglican service is not Communion. It’s that simple. For that reason, no Catholic can take part in it. Catholics can be present as observers, but nothing more.

So what happens if a Catholic takes Communion in an Anglican church without knowing they are forbidden to do so? Are they still excommunicated since they took part in a “sacrelige” or would their ignorance of church teaching give them a pass this once?

This might sound snarky, but I’m trying to make sense of this situation since my Catholic parents partook in Lutheran Communion at our wedding 30 years ago. Most of the Catholic side also partook. The Presbyterians and Methodists present didn’t know what to do.

 

[FrDavid96]

So what happens if a Catholic takes Communion in an Anglican church without knowing they are forbidden to do so? Are they still excommunicated since they took part in a “sacrelige” or would their ignorance of church teaching give them a pass this once?

This might sound snarky, but I’m trying to make sense of this situation since my Catholic parents partook in Lutheran Communion at our wedding 30 years ago. Most of the Catholic side also partook. The Presbyterians and Methodists present didn’t know what to do.

First of all, any Catholic “should” know that they cannot receive the bread in that situation. Those who do unknowingly don’t commit a sin, unless they choose not-to-know. Those who do so after being taught that it isn’t Communion and they cannot partake would be sinning–but this gets a bit personal here (more than just a bit). If the minister made an announcement like “Catholics can receive here” then they’ve been lied-to, and they might not be culpable.

It’s like any other sin. There can always be “mitigating factors” that diminish the culpability of the person doing the act.

It just isn’t possible for anyone here to say, 30 years after the fact, that what your parents did was or was-not a sin. No one here can have all the facts–unless there’s something so obvious that would make it sinful, like if their own priest sat down with them and clearly explained to them beforehand “if you take part the bread at that service, it will be a sin.” I mean that only by way of example.

We can discuss the issue objectively, but when it comes down to whether or not an individual person in a given situation sinned, that’s just not something that can be determined by posts on a web forum.

 

[BernadetteM]

If some feel so strongly about open communion, why not be more disturbed with some Lutheran Synods who don’t allow anyone but a Lutheran in their own Synod to take communion. In some of these parishes you must speak to the Pastor first and prove you are part of the same church.

Also the Orthodox don’t allow anyone who is not Orthodox to receive either.

I don’t know the reason for Lutherans who take this stance, but just as the Catholic Church doesn’t allow non Catholics, except in some cases Orthodox to receive they have logical reasons for this. When Catholics receive they are affirming that the host is truely the Body of Christ and the wine is the Blood of Christ and if one truely believes that only the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church have Apostolic Succession and the power to change the bread and wine into His Body and Blood then in good faith they must be Catholic or Orthodox. The scriptures say if you take It unworthingly you are condemning yourself, so the Church is also protecting those not in communion with the Church.

It is difficult for some Anglicans who feel that their priests have Apostolic Succession and a valid sacrament, however today we see many Angllican Bishops, priests and laity who have accepted that there is only one Church and that is the Catholic Church. My parents had no interest in receiving communion in the Catholic Church, as Episcopalians they were content within their own community. Something has changed since they were alive within the Anglican Communion. Now Anglicans are questioning this practice when before they didn’t seem to be hurt by being denied the Sacrament. I do wonder why the change.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[Earl_Curtis]

It seems unfortunate that the Episcopal church and the Roman Catholic Church cannot see eye to eye on Communion but at least, to another subject, baptism is accepted by both sides.
Further, if Jesus allowed even Judas to partake of communion, I don’t understand why Protestants and Catholics cannot agree on communion.

 

[Earl_Curtis]

No. On the contrary, I’m pointing-out the fallacy of the claim that a community which is not Catholic attempts to use the word “Catholic” to describe itself.

Catholic means the whole faith (the kath holos). It doesn’t mean “pick and choose as you please, and eliminate anything you don’t particularly like.”

The Catholic Church is that One Church which is in complete communion with the Successor of Peter.

The Anglican community chose to reject certain essential elements of the Catholic faith and in doing so ceased to be Catholic.

As I recall, the Nicene Creed (actually that of Nicaea and Constantinople) says “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic” not “two, one founded by Christ, and one founded by the future King Henry VIII…”

The “Church universal” is the Episcopal understanding of the word catholic as we do affirm the Nicene Creed. The one universal Church goes across denominational walls to affirm Christ as Savior. Also, Non-Anglicans give King Henry VIII too much credit as the Reformation had already hit England before King Henry VIII converted to Protestant.

 

[FrDavid96]

It seems unfortunate that the Episcopal church and the Roman Catholic Church cannot see eye to eye on Communion but at least, to another subject, baptism is accepted by both sides.
Further, if Jesus allowed even Judas to partake of communion, I don’t understand why Protestants and Catholics cannot agree on communion.

It’s actually quite simple. What happens in an Episcopal service is not Communion. It is not the Body of Christ. It is outright impossible for a Catholic to receive Communion at an Anglican service, because there is no Communion to be received.