Episcopalian Communion

[ChurchSoldier]

Well, for me, it was a choice to attend church and enter RCIA, but it is not a choice to refrain from communion; it is mandated. The way you worded the above sounded as if the OP should refrain from communion as a choice. Maybe I am wrong. I am a bit dense sometimes. Not my fault though.

Refrain from communion as a result of attending a RC church yet not yet being RC.

The choice from the OP seemed to be 1) Continue with current church and receive communion or 2) attend RC and not.

Sorry for any lack of clarity.

 

[runningdude]

Refrain from communion as a result of attending a RC church yet not yet being RC.

The choice from the OP seemed to be 1) Continue with current church and receive communion or 2) attend RC and not.

Sorry for any lack of clarity.

A better option may be 3) Refrain from all communion until one has discerned his next step.

No church or protestant group requires reception of communion at every service, so the OP should not feel guilty taking this step.

 

[Whit_Dupree]

Is an act, a repeated act that is not without understanding, of taking communion in the Episcopal or the Anglican Church a “turning away” from Catholic Eucharist?

I am looking at CCC 1398-1401, particularly 1400. “Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities * is not possible.” Not possible means what in this context? It is possible to take communion, it is just that the act is not permitted by the Catholic Church? CCC1400 gives a reason: because the mystery has not been preserved: i.e., the reality is not complete.

Consider CCC 1356 and 1357. This has duration of historical practice that includes apostolic succession and a declaration of the real presence of Christ based on the authority of the words/command of Christ at the Last Supper to his disciples who were granted the powers of Christ’s priests and further by the power of the Holy Spirit to effect by a mystery, upon consecration, the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine.

Yet, the species of bread and wine remain molecular wheat and water and not molecularly human cells. Transubstantiation (across) means a complete change of substance. So, for the Anglican Church, where the belief is in consubstantiation (with), which means the real presence of Christ along with the species is present, the reality is not complete, I assume because it would be more toward perfect to have only substance, more simple, than two substances present simultaneously. The effect of this is that the host no longer has the real presence after the faithful have finished partaking. Whereas, the Catholic remainder host continues to be the real presence of Christ when returned to the Tabernacle.

The second loss of reality in the Anglican Church is the consecration, which is not valid, due to the break in Apostolic succession of bishops from Peter, a point that Anglicans dispute, and a point by contrast that does continue to ensure validity of consecration in the Eastern Church.

I would like to understand – Why the distinction between “trans” (across) and “con” (with) is fatal to the warrant; what evidence supports each side of the argument on Apostolic succession or lack of it; and in the broader context not only of ecumenism but also of personal faith in God, why God would invalidate a sincerely held partaking of Eucharist qua communion with Christ by a member of either Anglican or Catholic Churches and why such an act is grounds for excommunication by the Catholic Church, when it may not be by God? There is something in here that I don’t yet “get”.*

 

[Indifferently]

You seem a little confused. If you don’t think this church has the Real Presence yet you receive, you are acting dishonestly. You should not partake in a communion you do not believe in. I will only receive communion from eposcopally ordained priests,personally - if the Church allows it, of course - but that’s just me.

 

[Whit_Dupree]

I am skeptical that anyone in one lifetime of study on Earth has the whole truth about these topics. We usually do not have full knowledge about any topic. Did Jesus, when on Earth, have full knowledge?

 

[runningdude]

Is an act, a repeated act that is not without understanding, of taking communion in the Episcopal or the Anglican Church a “turning away” from Catholic Eucharist?

…
The second loss of reality in the Anglican Church is the consecration, which is not valid, due to the break in Apostolic succession of bishops from Peter, a point that Anglicans dispute, and a point by contrast that does continue to ensure validity of consecration in the Eastern Church.

I would like to understand – Why the distinction between “trans” (across) and “con” (with) is fatal to the warrant; what evidence supports each side of the argument on Apostolic succession or lack of it; and in the broader context not only of ecumenism but also of personal faith in God, why God would invalidate a sincerely held partaking of Eucharist qua communion with Christ by a member of either Anglican or Catholic Churches and why such an act is grounds for excommunication by the Catholic Church, when it may not be by God? There is something in here that I don’t yet “get”.

The distinction between “trans” and “con” is a moot point. Consubstantiation was condemned as a heresy in the 1400’s, I believe - long before the Protestant Reformation. The Anglican’s only began to deny transubstantiation after they lost valid Holy Orders due to removing an essential piece of the ordination ceremony. It is the lack of Holy Orders that invalidates their communion.

Possibly had they not lost Holy Orders, they would have received the graces to maintain proper Eucharistic theology.

 

[runningdude]

I am skeptical that anyone in one lifetime of study on Earth has the whole truth about these topics. We usually do not have full knowledge about any topic. Did Jesus, when on Earth, have full knowledge?

I fail to see how this is a relevant observation. The Church has provided a clear and definitive answer that Holy Order are necessary for the Eucharist, and that the Anglican Church as a whole does not possess them. Very little additional information or “knowledge” is needed to adequately answer the OP’s question.

By questioning whether unspecified “knowledge” or “whole truth” exists, I suspect you are trying to undermine the general consensus that it is not beneficial to continue receiving Anglican communion when one is discerning conversion to the Catholic Church. For what purpose, I will withhold speculation.

 

[Whit_Dupree]

On the lack of apostolic succession, is there any way acceptable to the Catholic Church for the Anglican Church to return to the Church? – given some Protestant mingling in the liturgy of the word or liturgy of the Eucharist, and maybe or maybe-not an interruption of the passing down hands on head. Is there some sacrament of reconciliation that Rome would accept from London? Ecumenism could, potentially, and with hope, arguably, probably, could, maybe, bring such change about… If so, then would female Anglican clergy be allowed to remain? And, with such liberal change with its camel’s nose under the tent, bring in further consolidations of main stream Protestant secs, and so on until the universal Church once again stands as beacon of religion reaching up toward Heaven?

For a small example: a year or so ago Episcopal priests (male priests) with wives could return to the Church; and some I believe from Canada did return. I have met half dozen former Episcopalians who have come into the Catholic Church. Myself, it seemed the place to go to learn Christianity (one has to learn by doing), since the teaching are available backed by a venerable history of working through these issues. Nonetheless, I suspect that the doctrine can change by small degrees over time. In this vein of thought, what is wrong – after full and long debate – from allowing an exception to apostolic succession on the part of Anglicans? Perhaps a historical document will be found that speaks in favor of interpreting the events of history in favor of succession. Again, the words of Christ are brief on this topic and spoken a long time ago as translated and so on. Maybe God changes his mind about this point. No way, you say?

 

[ChurchSoldier]

As a result of the Apostolic Curae in 1898 the Anglican Communion had Bishops from the Old Catholic / Union of Ultrecht line attend and co-consecrated Anglican Bishops. The form had been corrected since 1662.

So as a result of the RC church declaring Anglican Orders void, the Anglicans took action to ensure they were re-instated which had been completed by all new bishops by the late 1960’s. It just so happens that’s when the liberal wing of Anglicanism began straying from the Biblical model of ordination, which is most likely the reason the RC church decided not to revisit the validity.

So, if one were to take the time to investigate thoroughly, they would come to the conclusion the orders were valid but not licit, as long as they followed the Biblical model that is…

I write this not to convince those not looking to be convinced, but those looking for a bit more education.

 

[zz912]

Not a sin to partake, as you are not Catholic yet. But I would refrain from partaking in communion for a couple of reasons. First, give yourself time to reflect and pray on the matter. Second, you aren’t required to partake in communion, so don’t feel pressured to do so. Third, when taking communion, you are physically signifying your assent to the teachings of that particular denomination or church. As you don’t agree fully with your current denomination, but believe in the Catholic faith, I would not take communion.

If you are able, I would start attending Mass now, and begin RCIA when it starts. You are always welcome at Mass, you just can’t partake of the Eucharist until you have completed RCIA and been Confirmed. And spiritual communion in Mass in front of the true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus is FAAAAAAR more beneficial than partaking of a symbol in another denomination.

God bless, and welcome!

 

[GKC]

As a result of the Apostolic Curae in 1898 the Anglican Communion had Bishops from the Old Catholic / Union of Ultrecht line attend and co-consecrated Anglican Bishops. The form had been corrected since 1662.

So as a result of the RC church declaring Anglican Orders void, the Anglicans took action to ensure they were re-instated which had been completed by all new bishops by the late 1960’s. It just so happens that’s when the liberal wing of Anglicanism began straying from the Biblical model of ordination, which is most likely the reason the RC church decided not to revisit the validity.

So, if one were to take the time to investigate thoroughly, they would come to the conclusion the orders were valid but not licit, as long as they followed the Biblical model that is…

I write this not to convince those not looking to be convinced, but those looking for a bit more education.

It is not historically accurate to say the Agreement of Bonn was totally a reaction to Apostolicae Curae. Anglicans and OCs had been talking to each other for years before the Bull, with an idea to inter-communion.

Starting in 1932, the joint consecrations between OC/Utrecht and Anglican bishops theoretically would infused valid/illicit episcopal lines into Anglicanism, and that widely, Still such lines would have to be checked and demonstrated, in a given case. And what the RCC’s position on the subject might be has never officially been expressed, AFAIK.

Education is a good thing.

GKC

 

[Whit_Dupree]

“if one were to take the time to investigate thoroughly, they would come to the conclusion the orders were valid but not licit, as long as they followed the Biblical model.”

Thank you, this must have been some ilk of what I had been reading a few months ago.

I have close family members and in-laws who are on each side of this or similar debates. I like the tension between conservative and liberal, as both have their good points, that is, until it degenerates into a disrespect for human politeness and slippery slopes into harmful deeds against persons and disregard for life; and thence drops into terror and war in the name of a religious doctrine.

I have always, that I can remember, received a – something apart from the ordinary – when partaking Eucharist. Only in recent years have I tried to figure out what it all meant – still learning, as with this forum.

I have no dog in a fight to change the Roman Catholic doctrine, nor do I desire to take communion at an Episcopal Church; although, I know of five separate sets of persons who have done so for various reasons and who subsequently felt conflicted and simultaneously wondered why they had to be put into a position to feel that way about themselves. Also a Catholic deacon who did not so participate but admitted that in his position as a board member of a non-Catholic seminary, that the requirement was at minimum silly and at most a burden, given the relative heaviness of the Church’s position vs. the lightness of the circumstance.

Which leads me again, to think of Jesus qua divine, with a very human sense of humor, and how He himself would act in such a situation.

I tend to think of all Christians – well the ones whom I know – as being still Catholic in a universal sense. I definitely believe protestants, in particular Episcopalians, are unnecessarily biased against the Catholic church teaching out of ignorance. I know of three couples where one spouse was not Catholic but over time became Catholic once the bias had been worn off with familiarity.

I am for Ecuminism, and gather pleasure from our parish’s annual common service with the Christian churches that are proximate and are willing to participate. The bishops and priests of those churches have a fine dinner together before the service and mix and mingle among a lively crowd of parishioners and guests who greet them with hugs and smiles and laughter and much storytelling with a glass of wine held up as if a candle in the dark was called for.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

It is not historically accurate to say the Agreement of Bonn was totally a reaction to Apostolicae Curae. Anglicans and OCs had been talking to each other for years before the Bull, with an idea to inter-communion.

Starting in 1932, the joint consecrations between OC/Utrecht and Anglican bishops theoretically would infused valid/illicit episcopal lines into Anglicanism, and that widely, Still such lines would have to be checked and demonstrated, in a given case. And what the RCC’s position on the subject might be has never officially been expressed, AFAIK.

Education is a good thing.

GKC

Thanks for the clarification!

 

[GKC]

Thanks for the clarification!

You’re very welcome.

I’m certainly not saying that the situation didn’t make some folks smile.

GKC

 

[PaulfromIowa]

On the lack of apostolic succession, is there any way acceptable to the Catholic Church for the Anglican Church to return to the Church? – given some Protestant mingling in the liturgy of the word or liturgy of the Eucharist, and maybe or maybe-not an interruption of the passing down hands on head. Is there some sacrament of reconciliation that Rome would accept from London?

Anglicans can certainly join with the Catholic Church but it has to be on a Christian, not a liberal, basis.

If so, then would female Anglican clergy be allowed to remain?

No, the apostolic Churches, Catholic and Orthodox, all agree that women cannot be priests.

And, with such liberal change with its camel’s nose under the tent, bring in further consolidations of main stream Protestant secs, and so on until the universal Church once again stands as beacon of religion reaching up toward Heaven?

As I noted, communion must happen on the grounds of orthodoxy, not liberalism. The Anglican Church has, unfortunately, been moving in a liberal direction away from Christianity for decades now. The Anglican/Episcopal churches have been in a death spiral since they adopted liberalism as their god. The same can be said of mainstream Lutheranism/Presbyterianism.

 

[runningdude]

The church has investigated in cases involving clergy convert. Only a handful of Anglican clergy were possibly found to be validly ordained using Old Catholic Holy Orders.

I believe only one Anglican bishop who converted had a strong case for valid orders, having been ordained in a purely Old Catholic ordination with no other Anglican bishops present. The church still performed a conditional ordination out of an abundance of caution.

Aside from these few cases, all Anglican clergy converts have been ordained absolutely. All Vatican statements have been to the effect that Apostolic Curae was still applicable.

 

[Christian_Soul]

The Anglican Church has, unfortunately, been moving in a liberal direction away from Christianity for decades now. The Anglican/Episcopal churches have been in a death spiral since they adopted liberalism as their god. The same can be said of mainstream Lutheranism/Presbyterianism.

I have no doubt there are some Anglicans even here who will agree with you as well as some Lutherans who are for instance of the MO synod, who would agree with you about the ELCA. But while maybe not many on this forum, I’m certain there are many Anglican/Episcopalian/Lutheran and Presbyterian Christians out in the world, practicing and living their faiths, who would not agree with your view that they they are moving from Christianity.

 

[GKC]

The church has investigated in cases involving clergy convert. Only a handful of Anglican clergy were possibly found to be validly ordained using Old Catholic Holy Orders.

I believe only one Anglican bishop who converted had a strong case for valid orders, having been ordained in a purely Old Catholic ordination with no other Anglican bishops present. The church still performed a conditional ordination out of an abundance of caution.

Aside from these few cases, all Anglican clergy converts have been ordained absolutely. All Vatican statements have been to the effect that Apostolic Curae was still applicable.

Since Apostolicae Curae, only two Anglican clergy have been ordained as RC priests sub conditione: Fr. J. J. Hughes and Fr. Graham Leonard. Fr. Leonard was sometime Anglican Bishop of London. All other such ordinations have been absolute. As an Anglican, Fr. Leonard did have OC lines; as is quite common amongst Anglican clergy, but he was not ordained or consecrated by OCs. Indeed, I know of no case when an Anglican priest was ordained by OCs. What occurs is joint OC/Anglican consecrations; that is, to the episcopate. And this was a factor in his case. However, using that logic, a large number of Anglican clergy would qualify similarly.

As to Fr. Hughes I can not say. I have his autobio around here somewhere, and I think he might have said something on the topic, but the book eludes me.

Certainly, *Apostolicae Curae *is still operative, and, as I have said, I am not aware of any official statement as to the general result of the joint OC/Anglican consecrations.

GKC

 

[Filioque]

I am technically Episcopalian and I attend an episcopal church but I believe everything about Catholicism and know its true but I haven’t fully made the transition from attending an episcopal church to attending a Catholic Church. I plan to do RCIA next time it starts.

My problem is that since i haven’t converted to Catholicism yet, am I bound by the law that says Catholics can’t take communion in Protestant churches?

I would suggest that you start going to Mass at your local Catholic parish. You can make a spiritual act of communion until such time that you are recieved into the Church and are able to recieve communion at Mass.

Much like someone who is engaged gains a more solid love when they wait until their wedding night to consumate their love in a legitimate manner, waiting and making a spiritual communion will prepare you for the gloious day of your first holy communion.

One form of the prayer of spiritual communion is:

My Jesus, I believe that You are present in the Most Holy Sacrament.
I love You above all things, and I desire to receive You into my soul.
Since I cannot at this moment receive You sacramentally,
come at least spiritually into my heart.
I embrace You as if You were already there and unite myself wholly to You.
Never permit me to be separated from You.

 

[Whit_Dupree]

Okay, so these issues are worked through with due diligence on an individual basis.

How about the new Pope, assuming the context now is somewhat toward the liberal, is he likely to have a commission take another look at the issue? Or is the issue so written in stone that it will not change? If you read back at the time of schism, and you folks have studied that history, what little I have read of it, the tipping point did not have to tip: it was contingent and could have not gone the way it did. The conflict was more political than theological. Is that a reasonable statement?