Interfaith Eucharist

[East_Anglican]

My understanding is that

An Anglican can except the sacrament from a Roman Catholic
Priest but The Roman Catholic priest can not give it to the Anglican

Roman Catholics are not allowed to recieve it from Anglican priests but Anglican priests are allowed to give it to them.

Is this right?

Apologies if this is the wrong forum

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

My understanding is that

An Anglican can except the sacrament from a Roman Catholic
Priest but The Roman Catholic priest can not give it to the Anglican

Roman Catholics are not allowed to recieve it from Anglican priests but Anglican priests are allowed to give it to them.

Is this right?

Apologies if this is the wrong forum

An Anglican is permitted by his community to receive in the Catholic Church. But the Catholic Church does not permit an Anglican to receive, because they are not in union with the Catholic Church.

Catholic s are not permitted by the Catholic Church to receive in the Anglican Community, because the Eucharist is not valid. The Anglican Community allows anyone to receive.

 

[THurifer2]

You are talking about two things here.
One is the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ

The Other is a flat piece of bread

Either way there is no such thing as an interfaith Eucharist.

Catholics canot recieve the flat bread

Catholic priests cannot knowingly give the body blood sould and divinity to an anglican…unless of course an ICBM is incoming.

 

[mtoon]

Under normal circumstances it’s analogous to most of the Orthodox churches. The Catholic Church allows them to receive communion in the Catholic Church, but their respective churches do not allow them to.

Similarly, the Catholic Church allows Catholics to receive communion in their churches, but they do not allow it.

 

[benedictgal]

Under normal circumstances it’s analogous to most of the Orthodox churches. The Catholic Church allows them to receive communion in the Catholic Church, but their respective churches do not allow them to.

Similarly, the Catholic Church allows Catholics to receive communion in their churches, but they do not allow it.

But, you forget something very important. The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of the Holy Orders of the Orthodox. However, there are issues that still divide Catholics and Orthodox (namely the filioque and Papal supremacy).

You cannot make that same comparison to the Anglicans. The Church does not recognizes the Anglican priesthood. The line of apostolic succession was broken. Furthermore, the Anglicans began ordaining women to the priesthood and then, subsequently, to the office of bishop.

 

[puzzleannie]

Under normal circumstances it’s analogous to most of the Orthodox churches. The Catholic Church allows them to receive communion in the Catholic Church, but their respective churches do not allow them to.

Similarly, the Catholic Church allows Catholics to receive communion in their churches, but they do not allow it.

no it is not precisely analogous as the Anglicans do not have valid sacraments but the Orthodox do. Catholics are allowed to receive in an Orthodox Church if no Catholic church is available, but Orthodox priests are not allowed to communicate anyone outside their communion ie non-Orthodox, or are Orthodox allowed to communicate in any other Church.

 

[jmcrae]

My understanding is that

An Anglican can except the sacrament from a Roman Catholic
Priest but The Roman Catholic priest can not give it to the Anglican.

The requirement in the Catholic Church is that the recipient of Holy Communion be a Catholic in full communion with the Church, who is in the state of grace. Exceptions are made for members of Orthodox churches and for baptized persons who are on the verge of death who are requesting the Sacrament.

Catholic priests of the Latin Rite trust that everyone who is approaching them for Holy Communion is a Catholic, and is in the state of grace. If they have doubts, they normally don’t express them in the Communion line-up itself, but they may ask you to stay behind and have a chat with them after Mass, if there is any doubt.

Roman Catholics are not allowed to recieve it from Anglican priests but Anglican priests are allowed to give it to them.

Anglican priests are allowed to give the Eucharist to anyone who wants it. As I understand it, the Anglican requirement is that the recipient be breathing.

Catholics are not allowed to receive in any Church except a Catholic Church, unless they are on the verge of death, in which case, they can also receive from an Eastern Orthodox priest.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Under normal circumstances it’s analogous to most of the Orthodox churches. The Catholic Church allows them to receive communion in the Catholic Church, but their respective churches do not allow them to.

Similarly, the Catholic Church allows Catholics to receive communion in their churches, but they do not allow it.

The difference between the two examples is like night and day. Catholic/ Orthodox both have valid Sacraments… Catholic/Anglican do not, only the Catholic Eucharist is a valid Sacrament in this case, the Anglican is not.

 

[Digitonomy]

Under normal circumstances it’s analogous to most of the Orthodox churches. The Catholic Church allows them to receive communion in the Catholic Church, but their respective churches do not allow them to.

Similarly, the Catholic Church allows Catholics to receive communion in their churches, but they do not allow it.

Despite the objections of others here, I agree that it’s a very good analogy. The Anglicans allow their members to receive in a Catholic Church because the recognize the validity of Holy Orders and Eucharist in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church, however, denies the validity of Anglican Orders and Eucharist.

The Catholic Church allows its members to receive at times in an Orthodox Church because it recognizes the validity of Holy Orders and Eucharist in the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church, however, generally denies the validity of Catholic Orders and Eucharist.

Most of us on this board believe the Catholic view is correct in contrast to either the Orthodox or Anglicans, but that doesn’t change the accuracy of the analogy.

 

[benedictgal]

Despite the objections of others here, I agree that it’s a very good analogy. The Anglicans allow their members to receive in a Catholic Church because the recognize the validity of Holy Orders and Eucharist in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church, however, denies the validity of Anglican Orders and Eucharist.

The Catholic Church allows its members to receive at times in an Orthodox Church because it recognizes the validity of Holy Orders and Eucharist in the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church, however, generally denies the validity of Catholic Orders and Eucharist.

Most of us on this board believe the Catholic view is correct in contrast to either the Orthodox or Anglicans, but that doesn’t change the accuracy of the analogy.

However, remember that the Catholi cChurch does not recognize the sacraments of the Anglican Church because they are not valid. Their ordrinations are invalid and, therefore, they cannot impart their version of communion to Catholics because it is invalid.

Therefore, from the Church’s end, the Othodox sacraments are valid because their priesthood is valid. Now, of course, they cannot concelebrate each other’s liturgies (just remember the Holy Father and the Patriarch); however, the Church does allow us to receive Holy Communion from the Orthodox even though they don’t reciprocate.

Therefore, the Anglican analogy is not valid in this case. It all boils down to the validity of the Sacraments, which the Anglicans don’t have.

 

[SMHW]

Despite the objections of others here, I agree that it’s a very good analogy.

I suppose this analogy is valid in a kind of old style SAT question way:

Anglican views on eligibility to receive communion are to Catholic views on eligibility to receive communion

as

Catholic views on eligibility to receive communion are to Orthodox views on eligibility to receive communion.

It would have to be understood that the analogy isn’t absolute since details vary. (And the validity of the Eucharist is an important detail.)

 

[benedictgal]

I suppose this analogy is valid in a kind of old style SAT question way:

Anglican views on eligibility to receive communion are to Catholic views on eligibility to receive communion

as

Catholic views on eligibility to receive communion are to Orthodox views on eligibility to receive communion.

It would have to be understood that the analogy isn’t absolute since details vary. (And the validity of the Eucharist is an important detail.)

That is probably the most important detail of all, along with the validity (or lack thereof) of Holy Orders. The Church recognizes the Sacraments imparted by the Orthodox precisely because the Holy Orders are valid. Without valid Holy Orders, you don’t have the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.

 

[Digitonomy]

Therefore, the Anglican analogy is not valid in this case.

It’s a valid analogy because our rules on communion reflect that we don’t accept the validity of the Anglican sacraments, which is exactly the same reason the Orthodox use for rules on communion with Catholics. Religion A doesn’t accept the sacraments of Religion B, and thus doesn’t allow those sacraments to be administered to or received by its members. SMHW said it well.

benedictgal:

It all boils down to the validity of the Sacraments, which the Anglicans don’t have.

Correct! (with scattered exceptions).

Rereading this, I should clarify: The way the Catholic Church deals with Anglicans regarding communion is not analogous to how the Catholic Church deals with Orthodox Christians regarding communion. However, as I think mtoon was saying, the way the Catholic Church deals with Anglicans regarding communion is analogous to how the Orthodox Church deals with Catholics regarding communion.

 

[SMHW]

That is probably the most important detail of all, along with the validity (or lack thereof) of Holy Orders. The Church recognizes the Sacraments imparted by the Orthodox precisely because the Holy Orders are valid. Without valid Holy Orders, you don’t have the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.

Yep.

Which is why I used different verbiage than the original posts.

The analogy ‘works’ if you compare the opinions on the validity of the sacraments; such an analogy remains more or less valid whether the opinions are true or false. If I were to make ‘validity’ the subject rather than ‘opinion’ of validity then the validity of the analogy itself comes into question.

It’s hard to discuss the validity of an analogy about validity! It’s almost as bad as trying to define the words “a” or “the” without using “a” or “the” in the definition.

 

[mtoon]

But, you forget something very important. The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of the Holy Orders of the Orthodox. However, there are issues that still divide Catholics and Orthodox (namely the filioque and Papal supremacy).

You cannot make that same comparison to the Anglicans. The Church does not recognizes the Anglican priesthood. The line of apostolic succession was broken. Furthermore, the Anglicans began ordaining women to the priesthood and then, subsequently, to the office of bishop.

The analogy is not only valid, it needs no addition. Catholics cannot receive Anglican communion per the Catholic Church yet the Anglicans offer it. Similarly; Orthodox cannot receive Catholic communion per their churches, yet the Catholic Church offers it. Even when smothered in superfluous information, the analogy stands.

Also, I’m not at all sure ALL the Orthodox (both Eastern and Oriental) churches recognize the Catholic priesthood as being valid. They all might, but they are so fractured amongst themselves, I’m not sure it’s a known fact – but it well might be.

 

[benedictgal]

The analogy is not only valid, it needs no addition. Catholics cannot receive Anglican communion per the Catholic Church yet the Anglicans offer it. Similarly; Orthodox cannot receive Catholic communion per their churches, yet the Catholic Church offers it. Even when smothered in superfluous information, the analogy stands.

Also, I’m not at all sure ALL the Orthodox (both Eastern and Oriental) churches recognize the Catholic priesthood as being valid. They all might, but they are so fractured amongst themselves, I’m not sure it’s a known fact – but it well might be.

I think you forgot one small detail. The Eastern Churches are part of the Catholic Church. Therefore, it is rather odd for you to say that the Church recognizes Eastern sacraments if we are one in the same (different rites, but the same Church). If circumstances warrant, I, as a Latin Rite Catholic, can fulfill my Sunday and/or Holy Day of Obligation Mass at a Byzantine Church. The Byzantines can fulfill their obligations at a Latin Rite Church. Why? We are all under the umbrella of Peter.

The bottom line to the OP is the fact that the Church does not recognize the “communion” offered by the Protestant ecclesial communities because she does not recongize the validity of their form of Holy Orders since they have no apostolic succession. The Orthodox are an entirely different matter, as the Church calls them Sister Churches and does not refer to them as Ecclesial Communities.

 

[mtoon]

I think you forgot one small detail. The Eastern Churches are part of the Catholic Church. Therefore, it is rather odd for you to say that the Church recognizes Eastern sacraments if we are one in the same (different rites, but the same Church). If circumstances warrant, I, as a Latin Rite Catholic, can fulfill my Sunday and/or Holy Day of Obligation Mass at a Byzantine Church. The Byzantines can fulfill their obligations at a Latin Rite Church. Why? We are all under the umbrella of Peter.

The bottom line to the OP is the fact that the Church does not recognize the “communion” offered by the Protestant ecclesial communities because she does not recongize the validity of their form of Holy Orders since they have no apostolic succession. The Orthodox are an entirely different matter, as the Church calls them Sister Churches and does not refer to them as Ecclesial Communities.

An analogy is a literary device. I posted a valid analogy. No matter what means of obfuscation you try to employ you’re not about to change that fact. You are wrong and your inability to either recognize or accept that fact rests squarely on you.

 

[benedictgal]

An analogy is a literary device. I posted a valid analogy. No matter what means of obfuscation you try to employ you’re not about to change that fact. You are wrong and your inability to either recognize or accept that fact rests squarely on you.

Yes, I know that. I hold a degree in Journalism from the University of Texas at Austin.

However, there are folks who read these forums who may or may not have familiarity with issues of the Orthodox or those Eastern Churches in communion with the Holy See. Such unfamiliarity sometimes breeds confusion. That is why, even though you post an analogy, it should be done with some caution.

Remember, too, that the Church does not allow open communion nor does she allow us to partake of the “communion” offered by the Protestant ecclesial communities (this most certainly includes the Anglicans). There are issues of validity where Holy Orders and the Eucharist are concerned.

The strange thing is that the question of the validity of the Church’s Holy Orders as seen by the Orthodox did not come up when Pope Benedict XVI visited the Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I in Turkey last year. While they did not concelebrated each other’s liturgies, each attended the other’s services. In fact, Rome and Constantinople each send a delegation to mark each other’s principal feasts. A delegation from Rome travels to Constantinople for the feast of St. Andew. A delegation from Constantinople travels to Rome for the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul.

As I said before, as far as I can tell (and I do not pretend to be an exeprt on the Orthodox), the sticking points between the two Churches rests on the issue of Filoque and Papal Supremacy.

 

[jmcrae]

I think you forgot one small detail. The Eastern Churches are part of the Catholic Church. Therefore, it is rather odd for you to say that the Church recognizes Eastern sacraments if we are one in the same (different rites, but the same Church). If circumstances warrant, I, as a Latin Rite Catholic, can fulfill my Sunday and/or Holy Day of Obligation Mass at a Byzantine Church. The Byzantines can fulfill their obligations at a Latin Rite Church. Why? We are all under the umbrella of Peter.

They were referring to the Eastern Orthodox in schism. Not to treat them as a monolithic group, since there are at least five distinctly different Churches represented by the term “Eastern Orthodox” but there are at least some of them who do not recognize the validity of Holy Orders or the Sacraments as practiced by the Catholic Church in union with Rome, in any of its Rites; they don’t only pick on the Latin Rite or the Western Church.

The bottom line to the OP is the fact that the Church does not recognize the “communion” offered by the Protestant ecclesial communities because she does not recongize the validity of their form of Holy Orders since they have no apostolic succession.

And the fact that they aren’t in full communion with the Pope.

The Orthodox are an entirely different matter, as the Church calls them Sister Churches and does not refer to them as Ecclesial Communities.

And we don’t intercommune with them, either, ordinarily.

 

[benedictgal]

They were referring to the Eastern Orthodox in schism. Not to treat them as a monolithic group, since there are at least five distinctly different Churches represented by the term “Eastern Orthodox” but there are at least some of them who do not recognize the validity of Holy Orders or the Sacraments as practiced by the Catholic Church in union with Rome, in any of its Rites; they don’t only pick on the Latin Rite or the Western Church.

And the fact that they aren’t in full communion with the Pope.

And we don’t intercommune with them, either, ordinarily.

That is true in the sense that it is not a regular practice. However, if we do find ourselves in an area where a Latin Rite or some other Rite in communion with Rome is not available, then, under those circumstances can we receive Holy Communion from an Eastern Orthodox Church.

Now, when I lived in Austin, there was (and still is) a Greek Orthodox Church, St. Elias. Although I never set foot in it (I probably should have, at least just to see what it looked like), it would not have made any sense for me to receive Holy Communion from their Church since Austin has a plethora of Catholic Churches. But, if I were visiting Greece and was not in an area where there were any Latin Rite or Eastern Rite (communion with Rome) churches, then, I would have to go to a Greek Orthodox Church, out of pure necessity.

I can’t say the same for the Anglicans, though. I did manage to set foot inside St. David’s because Cardinal Cassidy (who was one of the point prelates on ecumenism) had been invited to speak at the Episcopal ecclesial community. However, it was just that, a speech. There was no real prayer service involved. However, to go to one of their services just to go and then receive their version of communion is something that the Church is against. In fact, doing so would have caused scandal, especially if those present knew that I was Catholic.

You are right in the first point you raised. The Russian Orthodox Church is highly suspect of us and has accused us of trying to invade their turf, so to speak.

I guess my bone of contention was that in the Anglican analogy, there needs to be a distinction regarding validity. We don’t recognize the validity of their ordinations. Hence, without a valid ordination (which lacks Apostolic Succession since it was broken), there can be no valid Eucharist.