Do Anglicans receive communion in churches without apostolic succession?

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

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?

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?

The Catholic Church does not reject the validity of orders that can be shown to be in tactile apostolic succession. There is no doubt that the various Eastern and Oriental Orthodox bishops are valid bishops. They have preserved the lines of succession, and valid form and intention for 2000 years. As an Anglo-American, an occasional Anglophile, and with ties of various kinds with Anglicanism in the past, I would like to see the Catholic Church re-assess the validity of Anglican orders, not to deny Apostolicae curae, but to give due consideration to the “grafting on” of Dutch and Polish orders. I’d also like to see Rome recognize, more than she already does, that Anglican Christianity sees itself as the progression of ancient Catholicism in Britain, Henrican schism notwithstanding. Needless to say, the question of women’s ordination would be a problem in all of this.

 

[JohnStrachan]

I’m a member of the Anglican Church of Canada. We believe in Apostolic Succession - of course the RC’s don’t acknowledge it. Never the less, we invite all and any baptized Christians to come forward for communion. Personally I won’t go to communion in a RC church out of respect. I understand that for RC’s communion is a vehicle that demonstrates one’s complete adherance to the teachings of the church. I’ve always found it curious however that the RC church expects that recipients of communion go to confession if they have committed a mortal sin. From what I’ve read almost everyone in church goes up for communion yet scant few ever go to confession. Something doesn’t jive here.

 

[Symphorian]

This was apparently the attitude of the late Cardinal Basil Hume, Archbishop of Westminster. In an interview with the Church Times (a weekly Anglican newspaper) he was reported as saying that Apostolicae Curae needed “careful reconsideration.”

I can think of only a couple of Anglican clerics who swam the Tiber who were ordained ‘sub conditione’ - one was the late Graham Leonard, one time Bishop of my Diocese.

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/li...shop-leonard-as-a-roman-catholic-priest-11016

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I’m a member of the Anglican Church of Canada. We believe in Apostolic Succession - of course the RC’s don’t acknowledge it. Never the less, we invite all and any baptized Christians to come forward for communion. Personally I won’t go to communion in a RC church out of respect. I understand that for RC’s communion is a vehicle that demonstrates one’s complete adherance to the teachings of the church. I’ve always found it curious however that the RC church expects that recipients of communion go to confession if they have committed a mortal sin. From what I’ve read almost everyone in church goes up for communion yet scant few ever go to confession. Something doesn’t jive here.

I’m sure you probably know this, but the RC Church doesn’t necessarily say that there was a break in tactile succession, but that there was a defect of form and intent that invalidated the line of orders. As I pointed out above, RC might want to revisit this, in light of the “grafting on” of Dutch and Polish lines, and possible reconsidering of the ordinal (for both priests and bishops) as it exists today.

As far as communion being almost automatically received by everyone these days (i.e., after Vatican II) and confession seeming to be comparatively rare, I have questioned this myself on these forums, and it wasn’t well-received. Various people reminded me that we can’t know how many people go to confession by appointment (when few if any people would be aware of them having gone), nor whether they have gone at one of the bi-annual penitential services (Advent and Lent) when many people choose to receive the sacrament — and you wouldn’t know who had gone and who hadn’t, unless you were at that particular penance service. (Some would also add that we are not supposed to be speculating on “who has gone and who hasn’t”.) I can only say that RCs are required to go to confession at least once a year — if they don’t know that, they need to be reminded. Once a month is not too often. Long confession lines are a good thing.

 

[GKMotley]

The other known one was Fr. John J. Hughes, noted scholar on Apostolicae Curae.

 

[GKMotley]

I’m sure you probably know this, but the RC Church doesn’t necessarily say that there was a break in tactile succession, but that there was a defect of form and intent that invalidated the line of orders. As I pointed out above, RC might want to recuring of the defect of intent, in 1661-62 does not visit this, in light of the “grafting on” of Dutch and Polish lines, and possible reconsidering of the ordinal (for both priests and bishops) as it exists today.

Which use of the the Edwardine Ordinal was assumed to cause the break. The assumed defect of form was cured in the revision to the rite as found in the 1662 Prayer Book. But the break was assumed to have severed the tactile line.

 

[Anesti33]

There is a certain procedure for reception of the Eucharist by non-Catholics. Off the top of my head, it involves a manifestation of the same faith in the Real Presence, a spontaneous request by the subject, and an appeal to the Ordinary, who is the sole arbiter of intercommunion in individual cases.

It appears @lucky1 did not have benefit of this process and simply had a complicit relative. Prove me wrong…

 

[Anesti33]

Never the less, we invite all and any baptized Christians to come forward for communion.

That is a praxis of rupture with Eucharistic theology, which says for Catholics that the Eucharist is a visible sign of our oneness in faith, not an ordinary meal that we all pass around the table.

 

[GKMotley]

Something like Canon 844, exception 4, maybe?

Communicatio in sacris - Wikipedia

 

[Anesti33]

Danger of death, grave and pressing need? Yeah, not a wedding.

 

[Anesti33]

Something like Canon 844, exception 4, maybe?

Intercommunion would also presuppose a state of grace, so @lucky1 would necessarily have gone to Catholic confession prior to his wedding day. Should be no problem absolving an Anglican; it’s done all the time in RCIA.

Speaking of RCIA, I should mention my experience in 4 years of teaching it. Our candidates and catechumens were not put off by my description of their “ecclesial communities”. On the contrary, they were grateful and pleased to hear of the distinction and the reason Protestants are different, sacramentally, from Catholics. It is an important lesson for them to learn as they swim the Tiber.

On the other hand, we often received students who were there because of convalidation. They sometimes had no intention of becoming Catholic, but were placed in RCIA, usually with their domestic partners, to learn the faith of the Catholic partner. These students were hostile and combative to the Faith. It was very difficult to cater at once to a class of receptive converts vs. one person who was the opposite of receptive. It wasn’t the mention of “ecclesial communities” that set them off, either. It was the teachings of Marian devotion. It was faith and works. It was the Real Presence. It was any wedge issue between Calvinism and Catholicism, and they would pick at it like an old scab. The candidates and catechumens soaked up the faith like a sponge, but life was made very interesting when the convalidation crew was added to the mix.

 

[Dovekin]

Danger of death, grave and pressing need? Yeah, not a wedding.

The Directory also envisages that a grave and pressing need may be experienced in some mixed marriages. This is the only circumstance explicitly added to those mentioned in previous documents.

This is how the British Bishops described how this was addressed in the 1993 Directory on Ecumenism from the Vatican. This was in One Bread One Body, the 1998 guidance approved by the bishops conferences of England & Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. Further one they explicitly say:

Even when the bride or groom is indeed admitted to Holy Communion at a ‘Nuptial Mass’, it is not envisaged that this be extended to relatives and other guests not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

While they do not think this should be a common practice, it recognises that there will be times when it does happen while adhering to the norms of the Vatican and the local bishops.

In the US, the USCCB did not agree on norms, so it is left to bishops to set policies and norms. Some bishops are closer to the British bishops than others. All are within the scope of the norms in the Ecumenical Directory.

 

[Anesti33]

So his confession was heard, then?

 

[Dovekin]

I do not know anything about the particular case. I am just saying it may be permitted within the norms of the diocese. Your assumption that proper procedure was not followed could be incorrect. It could be correct. There is some variation in how norms are applied.

 

[Anesti33]

It would seem that if a couple spends 6-9 months preparing for marriage, and wishes a Nuptial Mass, and it is known that one partner is a non-Catholic who believes in the Eucharist, that the Ordinary could be involved in the normal decision process. The Ordinary is certainly queried for permission for such a mixed marriage, why not just tack on a rider for intercommunion at the same time?

So it would seem.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Should be no problem absolving an Anglican; it’s done all the time in RCIA.

Could you elaborate further? And is this something unique to Anglicans, or would other baptized Christians be able to avail themselves of this in RCIA?

And why is it done?

I don’t necessarily object, I’m just a little confused by what is described here.

 

[Anesti33]

Baptized Christians who are Candidates for Confirmation and reception into the Church cannot receive sacraments unless they are in a state of grace. Therefore, they need to make a General Confession before any of the sacramental ceremonies occur. So absolution of non-Catholics is done as a matter of routine in parish groups such as RCIA.

Yes, I know that RCIA is not for baptized Christians and that shorter Confirmation processes should be available. But that’s not how it works out on the ground, and our parish is very faithful and obedient to our leadership. Our RCIA is one-stop shopping for those adults seeking sacraments.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Yes, I know that RCIA is not for baptized Christians

It’s not?

I thought that RCIA was mandatory for all converts except the Orthodox, who are presumed to have the same faith as Catholics do (basically) and who simply come into union, rather than “converting” as such.

I knew of a Lutheran family who had to go through the whole RCIA thing, about two years, before they could profess themselves as Catholics and receive the sacraments (other than baptism and matrimony, which they already had).

 

[Anesti33]

No. RCIA is a Rite, it is a Process, it is not a class or program, and is it explicitly designed for the unbaptized Catechumens. The form and flow of the Rites reflect this. The Scrutinies in the middle of Lent are not to be used except by the Elect.

One-size-fits-all RCIA is often used by parishes that lack the resources for, say, three separate tracks. Also, we usually have fewer than 12 students in there, and at one point we had 3 rotating, inexperienced leaders. It’s difficult to split them so finely.

 

[GKMotley]

Quite so…