The question is, are you in favor of it?
My proposal was for arguments sake.
So then, what do you think, should we let the Anglicans, non-Chalcedonians, Orthodox and Roman Catholics all share communion unconditionally?
It’s
never unconditional. Here’s a quote from the United States’ Catholic bishops’ website,
a quote which cites canon law:
“Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law (canon 844 § 4). Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches (canon 844 § 3).”
I underlined the part that bolsters what Marduk explained; I apologize for the confusion/lack of clarity.
As you can see, as a pastoral provision, the Catholic bishops
can lawfully permit members of the Orthodox Church, the (non-Chalcedonian) Oriental Orthodox Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, and even the Polish National Catholic Church to receive Holy Communion at a Catholic Liturgy.
This does not include the Anglicans. The reasoning behind these choices
seems very clear-cut to me: the Catholic position is that the above churches - Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, etc. -
have preserved apostolic succession and the Sacraments despite being in schism. That’s why they’re singled out in that manner.
The Anglican Communion, however, has not. They have not had a valid priesthood or valid Sacraments (except baptism and matrimony) since the reign of Edward VI (1547-1553), whose revolutionary changes in the English church ended apostolic succession in that church.
Although Mary I (1553-1558) did restore the Catholic faith to England, that didn’t ultimately help: her successor, Elizabeth I (1558-1603),
removed and replaced all but one of the valid and Catholic bishops of Mary’s reign with her own Protestant "bishops."
So even if the Anglican Communion had had a valid rite of ordination in Elizabeth’s reign, it didn’t matter: there weren’t really any validly ordained bishops left.
Thus the Catholic Church’s standards on this matter are perfectly consistent. When it comes to intercommunion, we generally
do treat differently churches with the Sacraments and apostolic succession, and ecclesial communities that have broken apostolic succession and no longer have the Eucharist.
Of course, I could be wrong, and
gurneyhalleck1 could be right about the Anglicans.
At least for now, though, I’ll stick with what I’ve always been taught as a Catholic: that the Anglican Communion does not have apostolic succession or a valid hierarchy.
Well, that’s what we have been discussing here.
Roman Catholics are claiming that their church already allows Orthodox to receive. This is what they are talking about.
But as Marduk clarified (thank you again, Marduk!), this permission is not indiscriminate. It is by definition an exception - albeit one widely and generally granted.
Roman Catholics are not supposed to receive if publicly denying the Papal dogmas, they are excommunicated Latae Sentantiae. An Orthodox Catholic denies them automatically, willfully and publicly.
To me that seems inconsistent.
It would be inconsistent if the permission to receive were indiscriminate, but as we said, it’s not.
It’s technically possible - under
grave and
rare circumstances - even for a Protestant to be given Holy Communion. I don’t remember the exact requirements off the top of my head, but it’s something like this (maybe others can find the source for this): if the situation is grave (say, danger of death), if the bishop permits it, and if that validly baptized Protestant professes a belief in the Holy Eucharist
and a desire to receive,
and if he or she
has no access to a minister from his or her own denomination.
That a Roman Catholic is not supposed to receive if he or she denies the papacy is perfectly true, Hesychios, but that’s in normative circumstances. The exceptions made for Christians not in communion with the Catholic Church are - even if broadly applied - by definition exceptions, pastoral provisions.
The condition of “permission of their own bishops” settles the matter.
