Catholics receiving communion in protestant churches

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rosalinda
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rosalinda

Guest
A fellow parishionner after the Divine Liturgy this morning was telling me when he vacations if he can’t find a Catholic church he will attend an Episcopal one where he receives communion. I told him he shouldn’t be receiving communion there as he is only receiving bread and wine not the real body and blood of Our Lord as their priests do not have a valid ordination in order to confect the Eucharist.

As I brought up the issue of apostolic succession he wanted to know if bishops who joined the church of England when they swore loyalty to King Henry still had the power to say Mass. My impression is their orders were valid so they could still confect the Eucharist during their lifetimes but as schismatics after one generation there were no more valid orders. I’m no historian so this is all a little distant for me. After the defection of all those priests and bishops were the parishionners of the new church of England still receiving the Eucharist? Did the people really understand they weren’t Catholic anymore?

I would appreciate some clarification so that I will have some answers for the next time I see this fellow parishionner.

BTW, a Catholic priest seemed to think it was fine for him to invite an Anglican priest to concelebrate the Mass with him and he didn’t accept my argument about apostolic succession either but I expect that would be another thread.
 
Rosalinda,

I think it was Pope Leo XIII who settled the question once and for all that Anglicans (Episcopalians) do NOT have apostolic succession. However, that’s just my recollection—I’m sure there’s someone here with more information.

Anyway, I believe you’re correct. But why would the Catholic priest have the Anglican concelebrate the Mass with him? I have heard of such things being done at weddings, when one of the couple is Anglican, but not otherwise.

Your priest is wrong----maybe he was taught some garbage at seminary (not an unknown occurrence), or perhaps he’s let his own thoughts about ecumenism overide what the Church teaches.
 
You should tell your friend that he should not even go to a Anglican Church while on vacation. Tell him to go to an Orthodox church.
 
40.png
Rosalinda:
A fellow parishionner after the Divine Liturgy this morning was telling me when he vacations if he can’t find a Catholic church he will attend an Episcopal one where he receives communion. I told him he shouldn’t be receiving communion there as he is only receiving bread and wine not the real body and blood of Our Lord as their priests do not have a valid ordination in order to confect the Eucharist.

As I brought up the issue of apostolic succession he wanted to know if bishops who joined the church of England when they swore loyalty to King Henry still had the power to say Mass. My impression is their orders were valid so they could still confect the Eucharist during their lifetimes but as schismatics after one generation there were no more valid orders. I’m no historian so this is all a little distant for me. After the defection of all those priests and bishops were the parishionners of the new church of England still receiving the Eucharist? Did the people really understand they weren’t Catholic anymore?

I would appreciate some clarification so that I will have some answers for the next time I see this fellow parishionner.

BTW, a Catholic priest seemed to think it was fine for him to invite an Anglican priest to concelebrate the Mass with him and he didn’t accept my argument about apostolic succession either but I expect that would be another thread.
Click to expand...
No a Catholic may not in any circumstances receive fake “sacraments” in separated Christian communities. In addition to the loss of mandate to Ordain to the episcopacy. They also changed the wording or “Form” of the Sacrament of Ordination. Essentially rendering the Sacrament “Null and Utterly Void” to quote Pope Leo XIII. They no longer Ordained to offer sacrifice. Essentially rendering their “Intent” no longer the intent of the Catholic Church.
 
Sherlock, to clarify the Catholic parish priest was routinely inviting the Anglican to concelebrate at daily Masses, not weddings. The priest in question had a lot of issues particularly with church authority.

Now back to our topic, I have been doing a little research into the archives of THIS ROCK and found one article by Robert Ian Williams, “The Trouble with Anglo-Catholicism” which answers my questions in part.

“Though the Church of England after the schism with Rome over Henry’s divorce still kept the Catholic sacramental system, radical Protestantism was introduced during the reign of Edward VI. Thomas Cranmer and Edward Seymour, appointed by Henry VIII to positions of power, upon Henry’s death worked openly to introduce the beliefs of the German Reformers. The holy sacrifice of the Mass was replaced by a vernacular communion service that denied transubstantiation and the eucharistic sacrifice.”

"The Cranmerian reform was militantly anti-sacerdotal. Altars were desecrated and replaced by wooden tables. The English Reformation was iconoclastic (in contrast to the Lutheran), and until the nineteenth century English Protestantism balked even at the image of the cross --never mind the crucifix. Cranmer formulated a rite of ordination that lost the apostolic succession for Anglicanism although it retained the titles of bishop, priest, and deacon.

From the beginning the Catholic Church rejected Anglican orders. (This rejection had nothing to do with the fable that a consecration of the first Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury had taken place in The Nag’s Head, a London pub.) The Catholic Church solemnly pronounced the invalidity of Anglican orders in 1896."

The author, Robert Ian Williams continued to outline how the Oxford movement brought about the return to the modern resemblance in the liturgy we see today between Catholic and Anglican (Episcopal) churches.

(The article in its entirety can be found in the Sept. 2001 issue of THIS ROCK online. To find it return to the home page of Catholic Answers and click on 2001 of This Rock in the upper left column below the icon of Mother and Child.)
 
40.png
SummaTheo:
You should tell your friend that he should not even go to a Anglican Church while on vacation. Tell him to go to an Orthodox church.
Click to expand...
no one yet has given me a reason why this is ok. why do the orthodox have valid sacraments if their bishops are also schismatics? they broke from the One church (although they say it’s the other way around) so why didn’t their ordinations die out also. i haven’t heard a good explanation of this yet.
 
40.png
bengal_fan:
no one yet has given me a reason why this is ok. why do the orthodox have valid sacraments if their bishops are also schismatics? they broke from the One church (although they say it’s the other way around) so why didn’t their ordinations die out also. i haven’t heard a good explanation of this yet.
Click to expand...
A Catholic can go to an Orthodox Church, but she can’t receive Communion. At most, she’ll get a portion of “blessed bread”, I think they call it.
 
Rosalinda: BTW, a Catholic priest seemed to think it was fine for him to invite an Anglican priest to concelebrate the Mass with him and he didn’t accept my argument about apostolic succession either but I expect that would be another thread. . . .and. . . ] to clarify the Catholic parish priest was routinely inviting the Anglican to concelebrate at daily Masses, not weddings.
Click to expand...
This is serious stuff if he did it. It would bear referral to the diocesan bishop for his initial examination, and could “go to Rome.”. This may present the situation described in Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela:

“Art. 2 §1. The delicts against the sanctity of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice and Sacrament reserved for examination by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are: . . . 3 the prohibited concelebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice in can. 908 of the Code of Canon Law and in can. 702 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, spoken of in can. 1365 of the Code of Canon Law and in can. 1440 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, with ministers of ecclesial communities, which do not have apostolic succession or do not acknowledge the sacramental dignity of priestly ordination.” (John Paul II, apostolic letter, given motu proprio, Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela, by which are promulgated the Norms on more grave delicts reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [Unofficial USCCB Translation of the Latin Text published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Volume XCIII, n. 11, November 5, 2001])

Canon 908: “Catholic priests are forbidden (vetitum est) to concelebrate the Eucharist with priests or ministers of Churches or ecclesial communities which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church.”

Canon 1365: “A person guilty of prohibited participation in sacred rites (communicatio in sacris) is to be punished with a just penalty.”
bengal_fan: no one yet has given me a reason why this is ok. why do the orthodox have valid sacraments if their bishops are also schismatics? they broke from the One church (although they say it’s the other way around) so why didn’t their ordinations die out also. i haven’t heard a good explanation of this yet.
Click to expand...
The reasoning goes like this in part. Unlike the Anglicans, the Orthodox were not considered to have abandoned the doctrine of eucharist as sacrifice. Since Anglicans had rejected this, their ordinations lacked the proper intention to enact the sacrament validly. This was correctly explained in the earlier post of Bro. Rich SFO (“They no longer Ordained to offer sacrifice. Essentially rendering their “Intent” no longer the intent of the Catholic Church.”) Moreover, unlike the Orthodox, the Anglicans are also understood to have rejected the sacramental dignity of priestly ordination.

Thus it is considered that the Anglican Church had fallen into not only schism but also heresy at the time.

Certainly a Latin Catholic, not prohibited by law to receive the Eucharist, may receive it in any Eastern Catholic Church and vice versa (canon 923).

Canon 844 §2 describes the conditions under which a Catholic may receive otherwise. "Whenever necessity requires or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid. "

The Eastern Orthodox come to mind of course, since the source of this paragraph is to be found in the Decree on the Eastern Churches (Orientalium Ecclesiarum), no 27. There may be also be particular norms related to this is a given diocese (c. 844 §5). As well, the Eastern Orthodox may properly object to a Catholic in union with the Roman Church receiving Eucharist since it is a sign of ecclesial communion as well. If the conditions of canon 844 are present (if, since the person who is inclined to seek out an Episcopal church if he can’t find a Catholic one shows some indifference or error here), the Orthodox priest should be approached.
 
As I have been unsuccessful in locating the encyclical online by Pope Leo XIII either at the Vatican website or at EWTN I found a hardcopy of it published in 1949. Anyone who has Internet search skills may be interested to know these particulars but I will attempt to give the gist of it.

APOSTOLICAE CURAE, encyclical letter by Pope Leo XIII on Anglican Orders. September 13, 1896.

The encyclical was written because a controversy had sprung up in the late 1800’s as to whether the Sacred Orders conferred according to the Edwardine rite were valid. Pope Leo wanted to settle the matter once and for all and leave no shadow of a doubt. Nevertheless, there are still a lot of confused Catholics today. “Apostolicae Curae” went into the history of the controversy at the time of Queen Mary and Pope Julius III in 1555.

Pope Paul IV issued his Bull “Praeclara carissisimi” on June 20, 1555 in which he ordered: “Those who have been promoted to Ecclesiastical Orders…by any one but by a bishop validly and lawfully ordained are bound to receive those Orders again.” In order to clarify further which bishops could be considered validly and lawfully ordained in October of the same year he issued further letters stating: “We, wishing to remove the doubt… declare that only those bishops and archbishops who were not ordained and consecrated in the form of the Church cannot be said to have been validly and lawfully ordained.” In other words, Paul IV did not recognize the Edwardian rite.

For three centuries the Anglican ordinations were considered null and void and the practice was to reordain men according to the Catholic rite. Pope Leo cited the principle that “Custom is the best interpreter of law.” The decision remained clear that the attempted sacrament of ordination according to the Edwardian rite was invalid for reasons of “defect or form and intention”. Cases were studied of those who even had to receive the sacrament of confirmation again at the time of their ordination in the Catholic Church.

The words in the first form of Episcopal consecration, “Receive the Holy Ghost,” were perceived by the Anglicans themselves to be inadequate so a century later the words “for the office and work of a priest” were added. By that time, “the hierarchy had become extinct, there remained no power of ordaining.” As the Sacred Order of the Priesthood and its chief purpose of consecrating and offering the sacrifice of the body and blood of the Lord was jettisoned with the adoption of the Edwardine rite it was determined to be corrupt. Every trace of the Catholic understanding of sacrifice had been deliberately removed and struck out by the Reformers.

For these reasons, Pope Leo upheld the decrees of his predecessors and pronounced “that Ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been and are absolutely null and utterly void.” Strong, unequivocal language which he decreed “shall not be liable at any time to be impugned or objected to by reason of fault or any other defect whatsoever”.

Peter has spoken; there is no room for argument. The matter has been settled. Now if someone could find that online so copies could be distributed for my prayergroup and fellow parishionners I would be deeply grateful.
 
FYI - the encyclical of Pope Leo XIII referred to by Rosalinda is available on Papal Encyclicals Online.

This marvellous site has encyclicals, in English, from the thirteenth century on!

Here is the URL for the referenced encyclical about Anglican Orders:

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm
 
Catholics should never recieve communion in protestant churches. Depending on why it is done it could easily be a mortal sin (it would not be a sin for your friend because he didn’t know better).
 
40.png
Rosalinda:
As I have been unsuccessful in locating the encyclical online by Pope Leo XIII either at the Vatican website or at EWTN I found a hardcopy of it published in 1949. Anyone who has Internet search skills may be interested to know these particulars but I will attempt to give the gist of it.

APOSTOLICAE CURAE, encyclical letter by Pope Leo XIII on Anglican Orders. September 13, 1896.

The encyclical was written because a controversy had sprung up in the late 1800’s as to whether the Sacred Orders conferred according to the Edwardine rite were valid. Pope Leo wanted to settle the matter once and for all and leave no shadow of a doubt. Nevertheless, there are still a lot of confused Catholics today. “Apostolicae Curae” went into the history of the controversy at the time of Queen Mary and Pope Julius III in 1555.

Pope Paul IV issued his Bull “Praeclara carissisimi” on June 20, 1555 in which he ordered: “Those who have been promoted to Ecclesiastical Orders…by any one but by a bishop validly and lawfully ordained are bound to receive those Orders again.” In order to clarify further which bishops could be considered validly and lawfully ordained in October of the same year he issued further letters stating: “We, wishing to remove the doubt… declare that only those bishops and archbishops who were not ordained and consecrated in the form of the Church cannot be said to have been validly and lawfully ordained.” In other words, Paul IV did not recognize the Edwardian rite.

For three centuries the Anglican ordinations were considered null and void and the practice was to reordain men according to the Catholic rite. Pope Leo cited the principle that “Custom is the best interpreter of law.” The decision remained clear that the attempted sacrament of ordination according to the Edwardian rite was invalid for reasons of “defect or form and intention”. Cases were studied of those who even had to receive the sacrament of confirmation again at the time of their ordination in the Catholic Church.

The words in the first form of Episcopal consecration, “Receive the Holy Ghost,” were perceived by the Anglicans themselves to be inadequate so a century later the words “for the office and work of a priest” were added. By that time, “the hierarchy had become extinct, there remained no power of ordaining.” As the Sacred Order of the Priesthood and its chief purpose of consecrating and offering the sacrifice of the body and blood of the Lord was jettisoned with the adoption of the Edwardine rite it was determined to be corrupt. Every trace of the Catholic understanding of sacrifice had been deliberately removed and struck out by the Reformers.

For these reasons, Pope Leo upheld the decrees of his predecessors and pronounced “that Ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been and are absolutely null and utterly void.” Strong, unequivocal language which he decreed “shall not be liable at any time to be impugned or objected to by reason of fault or any other defect whatsoever”.

Peter has spoken; there is no room for argument. The matter has been settled. Now if someone could find that online so copies could be distributed for my prayergroup and fellow parishionners I would be deeply grateful.
Click to expand...
you can find an account of this at the New Advent site. Just type in Apostolicae Curae at search. Also the encyclical itself in English at www.newadvent.org/library/docs_le13ac.htm
 
In addition to the theological/apostolic succession/validity of the Eucharist, there is a very practical ecumenical reason not to recieve their Communion. (my emphasis is the bolded remarks).

CCC 1398
The Eucharist and the unity of Christians. Before the greatness of this mystery St. Augustine exclaims, "O sacrament of devotion! O sign of unity! O bond of charity!"237 The more painful the experience of the divisions in the Church which break the common participation in the table of the Lord, the more urgent are our prayers to the Lord that the time of complete unity among all who believe in him may return.

my comment: First, to recieve their communion pretends that the divisions don’t exist. Second, it doesn’t do the people in separation any spiritual good to somehow believe that division doesn’t matter. Third, together, these facts will prolong the division among Christians.

1399
The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. “These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all—by apostolic succession—the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.” A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged."238

1400
**Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders."239 It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. ** However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory."240

1401
When, in the Ordinary’s judgment, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who ask for them of their own will, provided they give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required dispositions.241

P.S. Holding the Catholic fath regarding these sacraments means that they believe that the Eucharist is the Real Presence of our Lord validly consecrated by His legitimate Priest. If they believe this, why aren’t they Catholic?

P.S.S. Possess the required dispositions means they have no grave sins etc. on their soul. Pretty hard to have unless they have been to Confession or the Priest had just giving them Last Rites and the Eucharist given them is Viaticum (Last Sacraments before one dies) but I’ll leave that to someone smarter than me to imagine the other scenarios.
 
In my ignorant younger days I thought it was OK to take share their “communion” with them, because we all agreed that
  1. We had all given our lives to Jesus Christ, and
  2. Their bread-and-grape-juice “communion” was just a symbol; it was not and could never be the true Body and Blood.
I’m older now. I’ve read the instruction which forbids Catholics to share in pseudo-communions with other Christians who have separated themselves from the fullness of truth. For as long as I can remember, this instruction was printed in the missalette. One day I actually read it. Duh.
 
Thanks to everyone for their (name removed by moderator)ut and assistance. I found the online copy from Pope Leo and have printed it. New Advent is a great site.
 
Does anybody know the Pope’s official stance on this? Should Catholics take “communion” when at another church? I would like to know!!! As I have some pastor relatives, and I’m often visiting there on a Sunday, I need to know the proper thing to do. Thanks so much!
 
Nan S:
In my ignorant younger days I thought it was OK to take share their “communion” with them, because we all agreed that
  1. We had all given our lives to Jesus Christ, and
  2. Their bread-and-grape-juice “communion” was just a symbol; it was not and could never be the true Body and Blood.
I’m older now. I’ve read the instruction which forbids Catholics to share in pseudo-communions with other Christians who have separated themselves from the fullness of truth. For as long as I can remember, this instruction was printed in the missalette. One day I actually read it. Duh.
Click to expand...
Please someone, point this out to me!!! Just like Nan, I’m confused like she was, as I’m a baby Catholic still.
 
40.png
Sherlock:
Rosalinda,

I think it was Pope Leo XIII who settled the question once and for all that Anglicans (Episcopalians) do NOT have apostolic succession. However, that’s just my recollection—I’m sure there’s someone here with more information.

Anyway, I believe you’re correct. But why would the Catholic priest have the Anglican concelebrate the Mass with him? I have heard of such things being done at weddings, when one of the couple is Anglican, but not otherwise.

Your priest is wrong----maybe he was taught some garbage at seminary (not an unknown occurrence), or perhaps he’s let his own thoughts about ecumenism overide what the Church teaches.
Click to expand...
Funny --before I became a Catholic, we attended an Episcopal church. I met with the priest once to ask him some questions, one being do Episcopalians believe in the True Presence in the Eucharist. He responded “yes, by all means”. This is a lie isn’t it? I think he said it to appease me so I wouldn’t leave his church, don’t you? Doesn’t it say in the Book of Common Prayer that the real presence in the Eucharist is vulgar or something like that? I think so. Does anybody know where specifically it might be stated likewise in the Presbyterian book concerning the Eucharist? Do they deny the real presence or just talk about communion as a “symbol”.??? Anyone know?
 
40.png
sparkle:
Please someone, point this out to me!!! Just like Nan, I’m confused like she was, as I’m a baby Catholic still.
Click to expand...
From the Catechism (which is the position of the Magisterium and the Pope), it is clear that we are not to recieve communion in another religion (Orthodox churches and a few others detailed in teh front of most missalettes at Church).

1400
Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, “have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders.” It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, “when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory.”
 
40.png
sparkle:
Does anybody know the Pope’s official stance on this? Should Catholics take “communion” when at another church? I would like to know!!! As I have some pastor relatives, and I’m often visiting there on a Sunday, I need to know the proper thing to do. Thanks so much!
Click to expand...
NO! Just wanted to make sure it was clear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top