Episcopalian Sacraments: Valid or Not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brofessor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was told by my parish that the Episcopalian baptism of my daughter is recognized in the Catholic church. I did not question it. I wonder if I need to look into it further.
 
Unless there was a problem with the Trinitarian form, and water, and intent, the baptism should be recognized as valid.

GKC
 
There are seasonal threads, on the Topic Which shall Not Be Named. Worse than this, worse than those, it is.

GKC
 
How serious is it to take communion in the Catholic church if you have not received that sacrament? I realize it is not proper but I was wondering to what extent. As well, is there ever an occasion where a child could receive if the parents prohibited the child from the sacrament?
 
GKC said:
A history and juxtaposition that is often used to illustrate the Elizabethan Compromise.

The sequence, as I recall it, was that the first Edwardian PB, 11549, used “The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life”, the 2nd, 1552, used the “Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving”, and the 1559 PB joined them.* Via media*.

GKC
Click to expand...
Yes, that is correct.
 
Awesome thread…I saw the title and got to wondering about this because I’ve read about how there have been talks between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church.

I know it’s been answered but I was doing some searching around on the subject and found some additional info so I’ll add this:

According to Roman Catholic canon law, Roman Catholics should not receive the Anglican Eucharist. canon 844§2

The law permits Roman Catholic priests to administer to an Anglican the sacraments of the Eucharist, Penance and the Anointing of the Sick only in danger of death or some other grave and pressing need and provided that the Anglican cannot approach an Anglican priest, spontaneously asks for the sacrament, demonstrates the faith of the Roman Catholic Church in respect of the sacrament and is properly disposed.[canon 844 §4]

Cardinal Ratzinger commented on the celebrations of the Eucharist in other churches or ecclesial communities whose orders his church did not recognize, saying that ‘in such celebrations there was indeed a true feeding on Christ, and therefore there was a real and transforming grace’. This was no new teaching as before Vatican II it was generally taught that, although considered invalid, Anglican orders were not meaningless and could carry God’s grace.[Bullogh, Sebastian (1963). Roman Catholicism. Penguin Books. pp. 118]
 
JonathonofOhio said:
Awesome thread…I saw the title and got to wondering about this because I’ve read about how there have been talks between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church.

I know it’s been answered but I was doing some searching around on the subject and found some additional info so I’ll add this:

According to Roman Catholic canon law, Roman Catholics should not receive the Anglican Eucharist. canon 844§2

The law permits Roman Catholic priests to administer to an Anglican the sacraments of the Eucharist, Penance and the Anointing of the Sick only in danger of death or some other grave and pressing need and provided that the Anglican cannot approach an Anglican priest, spontaneously asks for the sacrament, demonstrates the faith of the Roman Catholic Church in respect of the sacrament and is properly disposed.[canon 844 §4]

Cardinal Ratzinger commented on the celebrations of the Eucharist in other churches or ecclesial communities whose orders his church did not recognize, saying that ‘in such celebrations there was indeed a true feeding on Christ, and therefore there was a real and transforming grace’. This was no new teaching as before Vatican II it was generally taught that, although considered invalid, Anglican orders were not meaningless and could carry God’s grace.[Bullogh, Sebastian (1963). Roman Catholicism. Penguin Books. pp. 118]
Click to expand...
Yep.

GKC
 
johnnyjones said:
I was told by my parish that the Episcopalian baptism of my daughter is recognized in the Catholic church. I did not question it. I wonder if I need to look into it further.
Click to expand...
Yes the Catholic Church at least recognizes Baptisms performed by others even in cases not done out of necessity such as if death is not imminent. As long as done in the Trinitarian form as others have said.

Episcopalians will recognize a Catholic Confirmation because they believe they have apostolic succession along with the Catholics. But even though they will recognoze others Baptisms, Catholics won’t reciprocate and recognize an Episcopal Confirmation to my best knowledge.
 
CMatt25 said:
Yes the Catholic Church at least recognizes Baptisms performed by others even in cases not done out of necessity such as if death is not imminent. As long as done in the Trinitarian form as others have said.

Episcopalians will recognize a Catholic Confirmation because they believe they have apostolic succession along with the Catholics. But even though they will recognoze others Baptisms, Catholics won’t reciprocate and recognize an Episcopal Confirmation to my best knowledge.
Click to expand...
Nope.

GKC
 
Usbek_de_Perse said:
The Book of Divine Worship (the rather cumbersome Roman Catholic reworking of the already ponderous 1979 Book of Common Prayer simply adds the Agnus Dei, the Prayer of Humble Access (optional, don’t you know), a combined Gifts of God for the people of God and Behold the Lamb of God, and the Domine non sum dignus. A lengthy setting of the Agnus Dei could make the whole post-consecration pre-communion business into a mini liturgy in its own right (rite?).

By the way, my Catholic friends, have you noticed that the new ICEL texts are copyrighted? I will remind you that the Episcopal Church has never copyrighted its Books of Common Prayer. Indeed, the Catholic Church did not need to ask permission of the Episcopal Church when it lifted, wholesale, the bulk of the 1979 BCP to create the Book of Divine Worship. Just saying.
Click to expand...
Th BCP was copyrighted until it became officially in 1979. It was actually published in 1976. Between 1976 and 1979 it was illegal to reproduce it without permission. I know this because I got in a world of trouble over the issue, and over the issue of lifting passage from the New Zealand Praybook.
 
Actually, the book in question is the Anglican Prayer Book, not the BCP, although the former is based on the latter.
Those “extra prayers” are already in the Anglican Missal.

The 1928 BCP is a much more Protestant work than the 1979 book. The initial objectioncame not from Anglo-Catholics, but from the Low Church party, who saw it as too Catholic. I knew one of the major contributors. He was an SSJE monk.
 
martininthefiel said:
Actually, the book in question is the Anglican Prayer Book, not the BCP, although the former is based on the latter.
Those “extra prayers” are already in the Anglican Missal.

The 1928 BCP is a much more Protestant work than the 1979 book. The initial objectioncame not from Anglo-Catholics, but from the Low Church party, who saw it as too Catholic. I knew one of the major contributors. He was an SSJE monk.
Click to expand...
 
One more thing:

The 1979 book added Compline to the Daily Office. It also changed the Order of the Mass to something closer to the Latin Rite, and added the St.Basil the Great Eucharistic Prayer. Why Anglo-Catholics
prefer the 1928 BCP is a mystery.
 
martininthefiel said:
One more thing:

The 1979 book added Compline to the Daily Office. It also changed the Order of the Mass to something closer to the Latin Rite, and added the St.Basil the Great Eucharistic Prayer. Why Anglo-Catholics
prefer the 1928 BCP is a mystery.
Click to expand...
I like the shift in the Gloria, and a couple of such changes as you mention. But while FR. Peter Toon was in no sense an Anglo-Catholic, and makes points I would not agree with, in general, chap. 3 of this article sets out some of the sort of things that some might find problematic in the 79 book.

anglicanbooksrevitalized.us/Peter_Toons_Books_Online/Issues/actofpiracy.htm

GKC
 
CMatt25 said:
Yes the Catholic Church at least recognizes Baptisms performed by others even in cases not done out of necessity such as if death is not imminent. As long as done in the Trinitarian form as others have said.

Episcopalians will recognize a Catholic Confirmation because they believe they have apostolic succession along with the Catholics. But even though they will recognoze others Baptisms, Catholics won’t reciprocate and recognize an Episcopal Confirmation to my best knowledge.
Click to expand...
True, CMatt25. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Lutherans are Received, rather than Confirmed in The Episcopal Church; and Catholics do not reciprocate—neither do Eastern Orthodox…

Peace,
Anna
 
You know, Anna, I would gladly accept the papacy as a necessary concession to creating Christian unity, if that were the only impediment. Simply put, the Catholic church claims, with some justification, to have a divine charter. That makes them different from human institutions like the United Nations, the United States, the Episcopal Church, Apple Computer and Krispy Kreame. The sad thing is that they (collectively) don’t take that claim of divine charter seriously. It is one thing to claim to be the Church that Jesus established, to the exclusion of all others, it is another to act like that Church.

I still long for union in my ever shortening lifetime.

Benedict, are you listening?
Anna_Scott said:
Usbek de Perse,

And then there is that issue of the Pope. 😃

Anna
Click to expand...
 
GKC said:
I like the shift in the Gloria, and a couple of such changes as you mention. But while FR. Peter Toon was in no sense an Anglo-Catholic, and makes points I would not agree with, in general, chap. 3 of this article sets out some of the sort of things that some might find problematic in the 79 book.

anglicanbooksrevitalized.us/Peter_Toons_Books_Online/Issues/actofpiracy.htm

GKC
Click to expand...
I read the article, especially Chapter 3, and I do not entirely agree, but it would take a rebuttal of equal length or better to respond. I have no inclination so to do.

I did note, however, that he commented that initially Anglo-Catholic received the 1979 book favorably, which was one of my original points.

I also agree that the language employed in the 1979 BCP is often too pedestrian, but the same can be said of the Second Roman Missal–also a product of the 1960’s ethos. With the exception of Eucharistic Prayer D, the Saint Basil prayer, all of the Consecrations are wanting. Prayer C, with the exception of its version of the Dominie non sum dignis, borders on tragic comedy. Some of his points, though, strike me as nitpicking.

I have seen several of the current ‘experimental liturgies’, which will largely make it into the next BCP, and they scare me–terrify would not be too strong a word. The drift away from Trinitarian Christianity is unfortunate. The imperative to drive the Anglo-Catholic wing out of TEC, and replace it with a feminized, or worse yet neutered, theological formula is palpable.

The drift away from orthodoxy drove me out of TEC, but that drift had more to do with things other than the BCP. I believe the fractures in the Body of Christ are very sad. We should be seeking to fulfill Our Lord’s admonition that we all should be one. Part of accomplishing that is doing more listening to each other than talking at each other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top