Do Anglicans receive communion in churches without apostolic succession?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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...
Among the Anglicans (and motley be the crew, as we all know) the consecrated elements (i.e., the Body and the Blood) not consumed in a given Mass, would most likely (generalizing is difficult and hazardous) be either reserved in the Tabernacle (Body) or consumed by the priest or other suitable person (Blood). All the precautions that the RCC would expect, and more, would be observed by Anglicans of this stripe (piscina/sacrarium, communicating with blessed ground, and so forth). And Real Presence , in some sense, is the reason for it. Even, in many cases (as in my parish) up to Trent, Session XIII, canon 1, at least.
 
Anesti33 said:
You know “ecclesial” means “church” in Greek, right?
Click to expand...
I am quite aware of that. I just know that to be “in your face” about it, and to tell Protestants “your organizations are not ‘churches’, because only the ancient, historical, apostolically-descended communions in both East and West can be true Churches” is about the most off-putting, offensive, un-ecumenical thing I can possibly imagine.

As I said, it’s just politeness and social courtesy, and following commonly accepted terminology.
 
Anesti33 said:
Your problem is not with me but with the Church.
Click to expand...
I know what the official, technically and theologically precise terminology is, and I do not disagree with it. I am just referring to how we interact with people in the real world, people who do not see things the same way we do, and paying them basic courtesy based on how they perceive themselves.

It is the same as referring, or not referring, to a divorced-and-invalidly-remarried person’s consort as “wife” or “husband”. If you profess to that person, and to everyone else who knows them, for instance “I ran into Susan and her consort last night, I won’t say ‘husband’ because they’re in an invalid non-marriage, you know…”, you do nothing but harm. Susan is not going to say “you know, HomeschoolDad, you’re right, he’s not my husband, I truly appreciate you giving me that reality check, I’m going home right now, pack my bags, move out, and begin divorce proceedings tomorrow”. No, her reaction will be quite the opposite.
 
While theologians rightly say some groups are ecclesial communities instead of churches, the Directory for Ecumenism calls for us to address others using the terms they prefer, a basic form of respect. The Archbishop of Canterbury will dress in episcopal garb when appearing with the Pope in some circumstances. This may not be right according to the judgment that Anglican orders are null and void, it is correct according to the norms of ecumenism.

IOW, your behavior is what the Church asks us to do, and for much the same reasons as you describe. The pushing of a theologically correct opinion that will offend others is not the Church’s position for the most part.
 
The best places to look for Anglican attitudes is
  1. the Church of South India formed by the merger of different denominations after India’s independence from Britain. Bishops were ordained for groups without them, setting a standard for an historic episcopate required for Apostolic Succession.
  2. Anglican Lutheran dialogue in the past 50 years has brought the Lutheran World Federation and the Churches of the Anglican Communion closer to full communion. One consequence has been an increased appreciation of the historic episcopate among Lutherans.
Apostolic succession is understood differently in other denominations. The emphasis has been on shared behaviors now, rather than reconciling beliefs about apostolic succession.
 
Dovekin said:
Anglican Lutheran dialogue in the past 50 years has brought the Lutheran World Federation and the Churches of the Anglican Communion closer to full communion. One consequence has been an increased appreciation of the historic episcopate among Lutherans.
Click to expand...
Am I correct in understanding that Lutheran orders are having Anglican orders “grafted into them”, so that eventually, all Lutheran bishops will have orders descended from Anglicans, and thus valid according to the Anglicans?
 
HomeschoolDad said:
I know what the official, technically and theologically precise terminology is, and I do not disagree with it. I am just referring to how we interact with people in the real world, people who do not see things the same way we do, and paying them basic courtesy based on how they perceive themselves.

It is the same as referring, or not referring, to a divorced-and-invalidly-remarried person’s consort as “wife” or “husband”. If you profess to that person, and to everyone else who knows them, for instance “I ran into Susan and her consort last night, I won’t say ‘husband’ because they’re in an invalid non-marriage, you know…”, you do nothing but harm.
Click to expand...
Amen to that.

We occasionally do get a poster on this forum who wants to make an issue out of use of the word “church” with respect to Protestant denominations.

It’s not very conducive to promoting civil discussion to refuse to call other religions what they call themselves, especially in the Non-Catholic Religions forum.
 
That was in essence what the Church of South India idea did, in the eyes of those who initiated it.

As to the Lutherans, one would hope for an appearance of JonNC, to address that. But I don’t think that is what is going on.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
As I said, it’s just politeness and social courtesy, and following commonly accepted terminology.
Click to expand...
One time, I found myself in the unenviable position of teaching somebody (a visitor to the states) the rules of baseball - while watching a game. (This is an incredibly difficult task for those who haven’t done so before by the way - how many ways can a runner be ruled “out”?) Anyways, my friend kind of got the hang of it, but continued to call the “batter” a “batsman”. After the first couple of times, I stopped correcting him and started doing the same.

I did this because: (a) I wanted my friend to enjoy the game; (b) the fact that he called the batter a batsman would have no impact on the actual name; and (c) I didn’t want to be a jerk. Or rather I wanted to be more like this (in a very small way):

“4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way”
 
HomeschoolDad said:
Am I correct in understanding that Lutheran orders are having Anglican orders “grafted into them”, so that eventually, all Lutheran bishops will have orders descended from Anglicans, and thus valid according to the Anglicans?
Click to expand...
That is generally correct. In Europe, the Porvoo Communion, in the US, the ELCA and TEC are full communion partners, sharing Full altar and fellowship.
In both cases, Lutheran orders share AS with Anglican orders.
In both instances, any differences in teachings are considered not Church dividing.
 
Last edited:
HomeschoolDad said:
Am I correct in understanding that Lutheran orders are having Anglican orders “grafted into them”, so that eventually, all Lutheran bishops will have orders descended from Anglicans, and thus valid according to the Anglicans?
Click to expand...
I posted the examples to show two things:
  1. Anglicans tend to accept the validity of communion in other Churches.
  2. They would like all to accept the historic episcopate.
This differs from a strict Catholic approach of rejecting the communion of others, and emphasizing the exclusivity of the Catholic episcopacy. Or are Catholics closer to the Anglican approach?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top