In the same way that other Churches have their rules, so does the Catholic Church.
Of course not, they are apples and oranges.
With all respect, I’m a bit confused. What does the validity of their clergy’s ordinations have to do with an Anglican’s disposition to receive Communion? That to me seems to be apples and oranges.
An Anglican most likely has never received their First Holy Communion.
You have every reason to be confused - and you’re absolutely correct.
By this definition, I can validly take Communion at a Roman Catholic Church.
Check.
Check.
Check. Although the Roman Catholic Priest who had granted me permission to take Holy Communion during those two Sundays when my Anglican/Episcopal parish was closed may have been at fault, am I to be held responsible for accepting the words of a person perceived to be in liturgical authority?
The two Sundays I took Communion at the Roman Catholic Church, I made sure to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation from a Roman Catholic Priest (including the Pennance, which was performed, and Absolution).
Check.
Priests don’t have the authority. The priest exceeded his authority.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM
Those are the rules but what’s to stop them from coming into a Catholic Church to receive? I haven’t seen any liturgical police lately to keep them or anyone else away. If we see them on TV, however, then it’s a different story.
Just wondering…if your position could or would be classified as dissent, isn’t that a degree of “schism-ism”? In other words, what’s the difference between their dissent and yours.
Nothing stops them from abusing the Sacrament. Only valid Baptism is required to receive the Grace from other Sacraments, and even a non-Baptized person does in fact receive the Real Body and Blood of Christ if they were to receive Holy Communion.
We live in confusing times. Canon Law simply permits something which is absurd in the face of Catholic theology. People outside of communion with the Church should not receive Communion.
With all due respect, a large amount of the traditional Anglicans and continuing Anglicans have valid Holy Orders, via Independent Catholic and Old Catholic lines. This happened in the 1930’s after Apostolica Curae, so that document no longer applies to them.Canon law prohibits the non-catholics from receiving Catholic sacraments. It then proceeds to specify an exception for the Orthodox…
5) valid eucharist to be received
6) not barred otherwise by episcopal or papal decree or by the law itself.
Anglicans, lacking valid clergy, lack a valid eucharist, and thus lack valid fist holy communion.
Note that Catholics should not receive the Anglican communion, as it is invalidly consecrated, and thus isn’t the real presence, even if the Anglicans think it is…
So they say, I know of no document confirming this from Rome, is there one? There was no mention of this in the Documents of Vatican II?
No, but it definitely happened. I’ve looked into it. I think the Vatican has declined to talk about it in recent years, due to the troubles within the Anglican communion. However, it is reflected in the fact that, since the 30’s, Anglican priests who become Catholic priests are conditionally ordained. Also, when I was going to do RCIA they said to me that RCIA was not a requirement for Anglicans who were becoming Catholic, because we share a lot of common belief. I was just required to read the Catechism in its entirity.
You are correct, but, as was discussed on the original thread that I had brought up the issue in, the Bishop could have delegated to the Priest that authority to make such decision on his own without immediate consultation (I forget who brought this point up originally).