Do Anglicans receive communion in churches without apostolic succession?

Status
Not open for further replies.
HomeschoolDad

HomeschoolDad

Moderator
Staff member
Would Anglicans be open to receiving communion in a Christian church that does not have apostolic succession as they understand it? And if they did, how would they reconcile their own faith — which, if I am understanding traditional Anglican teaching correctly, admits of a real presence (even if they don’t call it that) — with receiving a symbolic or memorial “Lord’s Supper”, such as you might receive in a Presbyterian or Baptist church? Or would they say “I can’t receive in a church like that, because it’s not a valid sacrament”?

I’m interested in comparing their belief with ours, as I know what a faithful Catholic would do — they would not receive from any priest or minister who did not have valid orders in apostolic succession — but I’m not clear as to what Anglicans would do. I am also aware that different Anglicans think and do different things.

And am I correct in understanding that Anglicans are perfectly all right with receiving Roman Catholic Eucharist (even though they’re not supposed to)? I knew of an Anglican who boasted that he would receive communion every time he ever had occasion to go to Roman Catholic Mass.
 
Last edited:
I think a faithful Episcopalian would not. FWIW, my dear wife is Catholic, and I received the Eucharist at our convalidation. It was offered to me by the officiating priest, who happened to be my brother in law. I didn’t have a problem with that.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
Would Anglicans be open to receiving communion in a Christian church that does not have apostolic succession as they understand it? And if they did, how would they reconcile their own faith — which, if I am understanding traditional Anglican teaching correctly, admits of a real presence (even if they don’t call it that) — with receiving a symbolic or memorial “Lord’s Supper”, such as you might receive in a Presbyterian or Baptist church? Or would they say “I can’t receive in a church like that, because it’s not a valid sacrament”?
Click to expand...
Some low church/evangelical Anglicans would say that Apostolic Succession is useful for maintaining church order but not necessary for validity of sacraments. And Presbyterians don’t believe in memorialism. They believe in a spiritual presence–which is also the same view that some Anglicans would have as well.
 
It is a contradiction in terms to speak of “churches” without apostolic succession. Those are called ecclesial communities.
 
Nearly every question starting with ‘,Do Anglicans’ can be answered with ‘some do, some don’t’. Lower Church Anglicans’ often do not consider Apostolic Succession, if they consider it at all, to be either necessary or even important and might have a theology of the Eucharist similar to an evangelical non-demom, while high Churchers might be much closer to the Catholic position. Some will not receive in a church of their own denomination if a woman priest has presided because they do not believe she is validly ordained
 
Historically several English Reformers and Divines were happy to receive Holy Communion in continental Protestant churches when abroad. As has already been pointed out, lack of Episcopacy was/is not necessarily seen as an issue for some.

In the Church of England I’m not aware of any specific prohibition against receiving in other churches. It’s left to the individual’s conscience.

In my village we have a close relationship with the Methodist congregation. I’m happy to attend ecumenical services but would not receive HC at the Methodist Chapel although some of my fellow Anglicans do on occasion. I have a high view of the Episcopacy and the Blessed Sacrament although I’m not Anglo-Catholic but Laudian in the 17th century High Church tradition.

Not all Anglicans would be happy to receive Holy Communion in a Roman Catholic Church. I suspect that many members of the Conservative Evangelical wing of the CofE probably wouldn’t.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
I am also aware that different Anglicans think and do different things.
Click to expand...
I think you have answered your own question. Historically, the Church of England took care to avoid over-precise definitions, as a precaution against splits and defections.
 
You mentioned the problem in answering your question in your question: There is a wide diversity of belief within the 40+ Anglican churches. I know that there are churches in the Church of England (my main experience with Anglicans) that are happy to give communion to anybody who is in good standing with their own Christian church. I think the implication of that is Anglicans will be happy to receive communion at any other Christian church.
 
It depends, of course, on the Anglicans you are thinking of. As has been noted above. Or as has been noted by me, over the past 15 years or so posting on the board. Some Anglicans will receive communion anywhere, from anyone. Some will administer the Eucharist to anyone. Some will only do so, in either case, when the sacramental minister is validly ordained, via apostolic succession, and the sacrament validly confected. And only admit recipients who are validly baptized and confirmed, by a bishop in apostolic succession.

The more …opened minded… of these positions will likely be concentrated in the Anglican Communion, and not in the Anglican Continuum.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
And am I correct in understanding that Anglicans are perfectly all right with receiving Roman Catholic Eucharist (even though they’re not supposed to)? I knew of an Anglican who boasted that he would receive communion every time he ever had occasion to go to Roman Catholic Mass.
Click to expand...
I know Anglicans who would be perfectly all right with receiving in a RC Mass. I would myself. If I wasn’t aware of the formal RC position on such a thing. But some RCs would offer the invite, and some Anglicans would accept, I have no doubt.

I’ve attended a number of RC Masses. I would never, even if invited, have gone forward to receive.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
Would Anglicans be open to receiving communion in a Christian church that does not have apostolic succession as they understand it?
Click to expand...
In my corner of the woods, there is an admitted practice of reciprocal eucharistic hospitality between Anglicans and Reformed churches (as well as between Anglicans and Old Catholics).

As far as I’m aware, this practice is founded on the Lambeth Quadrilateral – union is regarded as possible, from an Anglican point of view, with churches who:
  1. Accept Scripture as the rule of faith
  2. Accept the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds as authoritative formulations of the faith
  3. Have at least the sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist, and are faithful, when they celebrate them, to Jesus’ words of institution
  4. Have an episcopate.
The 4th point was the most contentious one with the Reformed tradition, but the majority of European Reformed churches do have a form of episcopate, even if it is exercised in a collegial rather than in an individual way.
 
Last edited:
ltwin said:
Some low church/evangelical Anglicans would say that Apostolic Succession is useful for maintaining church order but not necessary for validity of sacraments.
Click to expand...
This cuts to the core of what I was asking in the first place. Thank you.
ltwin said:
And Presbyterians don’t believe in memorialism. They believe in a spiritual presence–which is also the same view that some Anglicans would have as well.
Click to expand...
I did not realize this. I thought they must have a “symbolic only” interpretation as do Baptists. I do know, and was surprised to learn, that Methodists, at least some of them, believe in a “real presence”, though they don’t seek to define it.

Not to be crude, but I have to think that the litmus test of belief in “real presence” would rest in the answer to this question: “but what do you do with the leftovers?”.
Anesti33 said:
It is a contradiction in terms to speak of “churches” without apostolic succession. Those are called ecclesial communities.
Click to expand...
I use the term “church” as a courtesy, and in keeping with commonly understood linguistic practice in modern English. If I go around saying “ecclesial community” and refuse to call them “churches”, sooner or later I am going to alienate somebody, and I thought the whole idea of ecumenism was to build bridges and not walls. There wouldn’t be one Protestant in a hundred thousand, who would hear that, and would say “you know, that Catholic guy is right, we can’t be ‘churches’, because we’re not in apostolic succession, so we’d better become Catholics ourselves”. That is also why I refer to Anglican priests as “Father” — it’s just a courtesy, and again, bridges not walls.
 
I believe it was AP. Herbert who said the Cof E was the best bargain because you can believe what you like and you don’t have to pa
 
HomeschoolDad said:
Not to be crude, but I have to think that the litmus test of belief in “real presence” would rest in the answer to this question: “but what do you do with the leftovers?”.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, no. Some Protestant denominations do believe in a form of Real Presence, but also believe that it is only actualized as long as the community which celebrates the Eucharist is present – in other words, once the service has ended, the species cease to be the Body and Blood.
HomeschoolDad said:
I use the term “church” as a courtesy, and in keeping with commonly understood linguistic practice in modern English. If I go around saying “ecclesial community” and refuse to call them “churches”, sooner or later I am going to alienate somebody, and I thought the whole idea of ecumenism was to build bridges and not walls. There wouldn’t be one Protestant in a hundred thousand, who would hear that, and would say “you know, that Catholic guy is right, we can’t be ‘churches’, because we’re not in apostolic succession, so we’d better become Catholics ourselves”. That is also why I refer to Anglican priests as “Father” — it’s just a courtesy, and again, bridges not walls.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this ! I have to say, as a Reformed minister (and a woman at that), I have never encountered anything but respect from Catholic clergy, and it did play a part in my faith journey.
 
OddBird said:
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
Not to be crude, but I have to think that the litmus test of belief in “real presence” would rest in the answer to this question: “but what do you do with the leftovers?”.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, no. Some Protestant denominations do believe in a form of Real Presence, but also believe that it is only actualized as long as the community which celebrates the Eucharist is present – in other words, once the service has ended, the species cease to be the Body and Blood.
Click to expand...
OK, I see what you are saying. Is this kind of like what Luther said about the real presence being like putting metal into the fire until it glows red? (Still, though, I have heard that at least some Lutherans reserve the sacrament and treat it with the necessary reverence.)
 
HomeschoolDad said:
Is this kind of like what Luther said about the real presence being like putting metal into the fire until it glows red?
Click to expand...
From what I remember (maybe wrongly), Luther used that metaphor to explain how he viewed the way Real Presence took place in the Eucharist and the kind of change consecration operated in the species, not how long it was “effective” (for lack of a better word).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top