Episcopal Communion at a Funeral

[itsjustdave1988]

But in this case, the Catholics receiving the Episcopal communion did not think it was a valid Catholic sacrament. My wife knew it was not the body and blood of Jesus Christ. This Canon Law reference doesn’t make it clear cut.

You are looking at this incorrectly. I’ll give you an example …

Canon law obliges every Catholic to Mass every Sunday and holy days of obligation. Let’s say I forget or didn’t know that today is a holy day of obligation (which it is). Am I in violation of canon law if I don’t go to Mass today? Yes. Have I sinned? Yes. This is called material sin. Just because I am ignorant of my sin, does not mean that I am not guilty of the sin (invicible ignorance excluded).

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches:

ignorance denotes privation of knowledge, i.e. lack of knowledge of those things that one has a natural aptitude to know. Some of these we are under an obligation to know, those, to wit, without the knowledge of which we are unable to accomplish a due act rightly. Wherefore all are bound in common to know the articles of faith, and the universal principles of right, and each individual is bound to know matters regarding his duty or state. …

… whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called “invincible,” because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know. (*Summa Theologica, *IIa, 76, 2)

Let’s presume the Catholics in this case were ignorant of the obligation to only receive sacraments from a Catholic minister, in accordance with canon 844 of the Code of Canon Law. Their ignorance could have been overcome by study (presumably, unless there was some kind of defect in intellectual capability), so the ignorance is cannot be “invincible.”

The other two kinds of ignorance, other than invincible, is “vincible” and “affected.” Vincible ignorance can be overcome by study, given time, opportunity, and capability. The person guilty of vincible ignorance in matter they are bound to know, commits a sin, as St. Thomas asserts. Catholics are bound to know what is prohibited by canon law, as this is a matter regarding a Catholics “duty or state” as St. Thomas puts it.

The worst king of ignorance is called “affected.” This kind of ignorance is deliberately sought after. This kind of ignorance actually increases culpability.

continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued …

Again, from St. Thomas Aquinas:

Ignorance is “consequent” to the act of the will, in so far as ignorance itself is voluntary: and this happens in two ways, in accordance with the two aforesaid modes of voluntary (3). First, because the act of the will is brought to bear on the ignorance: as when a man wishes not to know, that he may have an excuse for sin, or that he may not be withheld from sin; according to Job 21:14: “We desire not the knowledge of Thy ways.” And this is called “affected ignorance.” Secondly, ignorance is said to be voluntary, when it regards that which one can and ought to know: for in this sense “not to act” and “not to will” are said to be voluntary, as stated above (3). And ignorance of this kind happens, either when one does not actually consider what one can and ought to consider; this is called “ignorance of evil choice,” and arises from some passion or habit: or when one does not take the trouble to acquire the knowledge which one ought to have; in which sense, ignorance of the general principles of law, which one to know, is voluntary, as being due to negligence. (ST, IIa, 6, 8)

According to St. Thomas, vincible ignorance of what one is bound to know is a sin. These Catholics may not have known the prohibition against their actions established by canon 844, but they should have.

For a sin to be mortal three things are required: (1) Grave matter, (2) Full advertence, (3) Perfect consent of the will.

I suggest that with sins of vincible ignorance, full advertence is necessarily lacking. Consequently, sins of vincible ignorance are never mortal. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that, depending on its type and degree, ignorance may remove, diminish, leave unaffected, or even increase one’s culpability for a materially sinful act (cf. CCC 1735, 1746, 1859).

 

[mercygate]

Ahimsa:

What if a non-Catholic church offers, not “communion”, but a simple offering of bread and wine, which is seen as a meal, rather than a sacrament? How would a Catholic approach that situation?

I good faith, he could not participate in anything that even appeared to mimic a Eucharist. The treasure we have in the Sacred Body and Blood of Christ is a precious gift. In cherishing that gift, we could not commit the false “charity” of giving the impression that anything else on earth even comes close. It would be a lie, and an offense to the Sacrifice of Christ…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

But in this case, the Catholics receiving the Episcopal communion did not think it was a valid Catholic sacrament.

Whether valid or not, Catholics may only receive of Sacraments from Catholic ministers. Canon 844 is clear cut. If you have a doubt of law (dubium) St. Thomas Aquinas tells us: “if it be a matter of doubt, he must either act according to the letter of the law, or consult those in power.” (ST, IIa 96, 6).

In this case, given the context of §2 of canon 844 (see here: vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM), it should be clear that the prohibition against Catholics receiving sacraments from non-Catholic ministers does not make exception for non-valid sacraments. §2 gives an exception, under certain conditions, one of which is that the sacrament is valid. Conversely, there’s NO exception for invalid sacraments.

 

[Lisa_N]

Wow I am so amazed at the base of knowledge on this list. I am in the process of converting and was at an Episcopal service as a friend of mine invited me to hear her do the gospel reading. It was a tiny chapel and we were at the end of one pew. When it was time for communion I didn’t know what to do because I had a feeling it wasn’t appropriate (even though I’m not yet a real Catholic!). I sort of tried to move out of the way but the people behind me pushed me a long and my friend said “Go on up” so I ended up at the rail feeling like a worm. Next time I will be able to decline and provide the reason lest someone asks.

Lisa N

 

[jamesclaude]

Lisa N:

Wow I am so amazed at the base of knowledge on this list. I am in the process of converting and was at an Episcopal service as a friend of mine invited me to hear her do the gospel reading. It was a tiny chapel and we were at the end of one pew. When it was time for communion I didn’t know what to do because I had a feeling it wasn’t appropriate (even though I’m not yet a real Catholic!). I sort of tried to move out of the way but the people behind me pushed me a long and my friend said “Go on up” so I ended up at the rail feeling like a worm. Next time I will be able to decline and provide the reason lest someone asks.

Lisa N

Rather than “feeling like a worm” you may proceed to the altar rail, kneel, then cross your arms across your chest to recieve a blessing rather than the elements.

In every Episcopal Eucharist I’ve attended, the priest always offers these options to the congregation before the actual Eucharist begins.

If one feels that an Episcopal blessing " ain’t quite good enough ", then - by all means - please DON’T go up to the altar - simply stand aside at the end of the pew and reseat yourself after they’ve passed by you - or - better yet: just lift the kneeler, sit back and they will pass in front of you while you remain seated.

December 8 + Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary +

 

[katherine2]

mercygate:

I good faith, he could not participate in anything that even appeared to mimic a Eucharist. The treasure we have in the Sacred Body and Blood of Christ is a precious gift. In cherishing that gift, we could not commit the false “charity” of giving the impression that anything else on earth even comes close. It would be a lie, and an offense to the Sacrifice of Christ…

Actually, I do participate in such when I visit Orthodox churches.

 

[jamesclaude]

flameburns623:

1. The Anglican Church does not officially teach the Real Presence in the Eucharist. (Nor do they deny it explicitly: about half of all Anglicans accept it, and about half probably don’t). The RCC would not be comfortable with this ambiguity of doctrine.

Did I miss out on that poll ? http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon9.gif About half and half ?

While it is true that attitudes vary among we Anglicans regarding the Real Presence, freedom and “ambiguity” are allowed - undeniably making the Roman Church “uncomfortable” with it.

What makes this “Episcopagan” uncomfortable is when my Roman Christian brothers and sisters tell me that - while I DO believe ( personally ) in the Real Presence and treat it as such - I somehow have no right believe it in my heart of hearts. It’s like "how dare you Do that ! "

That may be in line with official Roman Catholic doctrine, but I am NOT a Roman Catholic Christian - and view these comments by Catholic lay people as very patronizing - and yes - even rude.

Quote the Church Fathers until the cows come home, but there must be respect for your Separated Brethren - and their sincerity of concience - no matter how "deluded’ you or the learned doctors of the Church in Rome believe us to be…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

but I am NOT a Roman Catholic Christian - and view these comments by Catholic lay people as very patronizing - and yes - even rude.

What comments were rude?

Ya know … when I frequent Protestant forums, I expect those there to speak freely about their beliefs, even if some of their assertion may offend me as a Catholic. It is, after all, their PROTESTANT forum.

Yet, I find it ironic that when non-Catholics comes to a CATHOLIC forum, they are shocked and offended that we disagree with their theology, and actually say so publically.

I suggest that you should presume to hear from the Catholics on this forum that non-Catholics are either heretics, schismatics, or infidels (or simply ignorant of the true faith). If that offends you, perhaps you should take a moment and reflect on the fact that this is a Catholic forum. You are certainly welcom here, but if being here and reading what Catholics have to say offends you, perhaps this place is not for you.

 

[mercygate]

jamesclaude:

What makes this “Episcopagan” uncomfortable is when my Roman Christian brothers and sisters tell me that - while I DO believe ( personally ) in the Real Presence and treat it as such - I somehow have no right believe it in my heart of hearts. It’s like "how dare you Do that ! "

That may be in line with official Roman Catholic doctrine, but I am NOT a Roman Catholic Christian - and view these comments by Catholic lay people as very patronizing - and yes - even rude.

Let me respond as a former Anglican. Whether I believed in the real presence as an Anglican had nothing to do with whether the Catholic Church believed in the validity of Anglican sacraments. Perhaps I always got on well with Catholics because I respected their position: If theirs was the One True Church, then the positions they held were perfectly reasonable and irreformable.

That isn’t rude.

 

[mercygate]

katherine2:

Actually, I do participate in such when I visit Orthodox churches.

I am not sure what you mean by “participate.” The Orthodox Churches have valid Sacraments – but THEY won’t let US participate.

In fact, a Catholic friend of mine, who visited Mount Athos, was prohibited from venerating a relic of the true cross.

The question was about non-Communion services.

 

[katherine2]

mercygate:

I am not sure what you mean by “participate.” The Orthodox Churches have valid Sacraments – but THEY won’t let US participate.

In fact, a Catholic friend of mine, who visited Mount Athos, was prohibited from venerating a relic of the true cross.

The question was about non-Communion services.

I fully understand that. I stand by my post.

 

[jamesclaude]

mercygate:

Let me respond as a former Anglican. Whether I believed in the real presence as an Anglican had nothing to do with whether the Catholic Church believed in the validity of Anglican sacraments. Perhaps I always got on well with Catholics because I respected their position: If theirs was the One True Church, then the positions they held were perfectly reasonable and irreformable.

That isn’t rude.

If you think that your go-cart is the only one on the track, that’s just dandy !

But when another go cart or two show up , and you tell 'em that you hold the franchise - well, that’s a wholly different affair.

If you’re a Roman Catholic, you’re in the BIG Buick - in like Flynn, rolling down the heavenly highway…

Merely HOLDING this position is just fine.

TELLING others that their beliefs are affrontry - THAT’S a problem.

The Episcopal church may be known for many things - one of 'em is good manners - even if we’re headed for hell ( maybe Purgatory? ) in a Gucci handbasket !

Thus, we are endlessly and readily aware of what causes us to be your “Separated Brethren” -

 

[jamesclaude]

itsjustdave1988:

What comments were rude?

Ya know … when I frequent Protestant forums, I expect those there to speak freely about their beliefs, even if some of their assertion may offend me as a Catholic. It is, after all, their PROTESTANT forum.

Yet, I find it ironic that when non-Catholics comes to a CATHOLIC forum, they are shocked and offended that we disagree with their theology, and actually say so publically.

I suggest that you should presume to hear from the Catholics on this forum that non-Catholics are either heretics, schismatics, or infidels (or simply ignorant of the true faith). If that offends you, perhaps you should take a moment and reflect on the fact that this is a Catholic forum. You are certainly welcom here, but if being here and reading what Catholics have to say offends you, perhaps this place is not for you.

I have never engaged in name calling, baiting or disrespectful behavior towards the Roman Catholic Church or its members.

My posts usually revolve around asking questions, answering and discussing the most outrageous rumors regarding the Masonic Fraternity, and asking even more questions.

I feel that telling me - as an Episcopalian - that most of what we do is pure “hooey” is NOT respectful or polite.

This isn’t necessarily the case in this particular thread, but in the short time I’ve belonged to this forum - it has happened frequently. ( In the threads discussing Freemasonry, I can’t even begin to describe it ! ) Can ya say: " scorched buns ? " on here ?


So - is this a Jerry Springer free-for-all, or is it a forum for respectful dialogue - learning and sharing and asking questions ?

Should this forum be just for Roman Catholics - preachin’ to the choir ? (Without we Dissenters, it’d be mighty boring on here)

I simply choose to be polite about it, and enjoy your fellowship. I have learned MUCH in a relatively short period of time.

I’m neither shocked nor offended - just a little disappointed at times, that’s all.

My hide will no doubt thicken in the fullness of time… I appreciate your advice…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

This isn’t necessarily the case in this particular thread

Ah, I see. So you were just venting about other people behaving badly outside this thread. Thanks for the clarification.

Mere disagreement should not be taken as being rude. If you are wrong, you will be told that, as I’m sure you will tell us when you think we are wrong. If merely being told you are wrong is offensive to you, then it is you that has a problem, not others.

 

[jamesclaude]

itsjustdave1988:

Ah, I see. So you were just venting about other people behaving badly outside this thread. Thanks for the clarification.

Mere disagreement should not be taken as being rude. If you are wrong, you will be told that, as I’m sure you will tell us when you think we are wrong. If merely being told you are wrong is offensive to you, then it is you that has a problem, not others.

Point taken - thanks Dave !

 

[Lisa_N]

jamesclaude:

Rather than “feeling like a worm” you may proceed to the altar rail, kneel, then cross your arms across your chest to recieve a blessing rather than the elements.

In every Episcopal Eucharist I’ve attended, the priest always offers these options to the congregation before the actual Eucharist begins.

If one feels that an Episcopal blessing " ain’t quite good enough ", then - by all means - please DON’T go up to the altar - simply stand aside at the end of the pew and reseat yourself after they’ve passed by you - or - better yet: just lift the kneeler, sit back and they will pass in front of you while you remain seated.

December 8 + Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary +

Yep, definitely will do it better next time. It would have been pretty difficult to get out of the way. I actually tried but we were wedged between the group behind us who was moving forward and the folks in our pew trying to get out. Literally no where to go unless I stood on the pew! I thought that would be tacky. I hadn’t thought about going up and asking for a blessing instead. Thank you for the suggestion.

As to the Eucharist not being “good enough” that wasn’t the point at all. I just wasn’t sure of protocol and didn’t want to offend my friend who’d invited me. She said “Go on up” and I didn’t want to make a fuss. I did know the Catholic protocol but I’ve never been to an Episcopal service before. I should have asked in advance what to do.

In my former church one young man never took communion. I finally asked why not and he said he was adopted but as his birth parents were Jewish, he felt it was respectful to them not to take Communion. It was not meant as some kind of slight or to devalue the sacrament at that church. It was meant to show respect for his birth parents. So please don’t read some kind of slight into someone’s reluctance to take communion. There might be a valid reason.

Lisa N

 

[Journeyman]

All,

Thanks for the responses. Very helpful!

Couple questions though------

Rather than “feeling like a worm” you may proceed to the altar rail, kneel, then cross your arms across your chest to recieve a blessing rather than the elements.

In every Episcopal Eucharist I’ve attended, the priest always offers these options to the congregation before the actual Eucharist begins.

If one feels that an Episcopal blessing " ain’t quite good enough ", then - by all means - please DON’T go up to the altar

Would there be any reason to approach the Episcopal minister for a blessing? He/she is not an ordained minister of the Catholic Church so as a Catholic, it wouldn’t seem appropriate to ask for a blessing. Thoughts?

Dave, I agree with your comments regarding Canon Law. And I can see where all Catholics have an obligation to know what sections of Canon Law impact their lives. But, frankly, I have to think that most Catholics have no idea that something called “Canon Law” must be followed by the faithful and to go against Canon Law is sinful. Noteworthy is the post above where two priests seem ignorant of Canon 844. If the clergy don’t know Canon Law, how can the layman be expected to know it? If this Canon is important, I would expect to find a similar prohibition in the CCC.

Also, in this particular case where the Catholic faithful are ignorant of Canon Law, this would appear to not be a mortal sin and therefore a venial sin which is forgiven at a valid Catholic Eucharist or the next sacrament of Reconciliation even if not admitted as a sin, correct?

 

[davidc2]

Journeyman:

Would there be any reason to approach the Episcopal minister for a blessing? He/she is not an ordained minister of the Catholic Church so as a Catholic, it wouldn’t seem appropriate to ask for a blessing. Thoughts?

It would be the same as getting a blessing from a lay person. (or as we used to say in Texas, he’s just shooting blanks)

 

[jamesclaude]

davidc2:

It would be the same as getting a blessing from a lay person. (or as we used to say in Texas, he’s just shooting blanks)

Ah, I was waiting for that one.* What a charitible viewpoint…*

Howsabout: that so-called bogus priest is just spinning his wheels… or… that dog won’t hunt… ( Governor Ann Richards like that saying )

It’s kind of nice that we went ahead and ordained women - that pretty much put the brakes on re-unification with Rome. A gay (openly) bishop is the icing on the cake.

Reunifying sounded like a good thing at one time - too late now, 'cause that’s all she wrote…