May Anglicans Receive Communion?

[Aramis]

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).

From my point-of-view, I could not know what authority the Priest legitimately possessed on this issue. Thus, I would argue my receiving of the Communion was valid (after all, the only person who was ordained, who possessed a degree of liturgical/spiritual authority and served as Pastor, had granted approval), but the individual who had granted me permission to receive Communion may have been acting inappropriately (although, they may have had authority delegated from the Bishop…I do not know). Does that make sense?

Makes sense? Yes.

Still wrong? probably.

Were you to continue to receive, you should get permission from the local bishop. For such authority is seldom delegated; it’s not impossible, just not normative.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

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.

That would be correct RCIA would not be a requirement for a validly Baptized Anglican or Episcopalian. They only need to make a profession in the Catholic Church, be Confirmed, and receive their First Holy Communion. The Conditional Ordination would indicate that no certainity or documentation exists in the matter.

 

[nsper7]

Suppose I join an Anglican group (whether TAC or another) that is strongly Anglo-Catholic and has, by even Roman Catholic standards, valid Holy Orders (due to refusal to ordain women and through infusion of Orders from the Old Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy and other groups the RCC recognizes as having valid Holy Orders). If I am then taking Communion there, would I not then have a valid Communion by Roman Catholic standards and be allowed to receive at a Roman Catholic Church.

For those who join ‘Traditional Anglican’ (schismed from the Episcopal Church and sometime even the Anglican Communion itself) groups, this issue can be important because their are not always TA parishes accessible, but there are almost always Roman Catholic parishes that are accessible.

 

[Matariel]

That would be correct RCIA would not be a requirement for a validly Baptized Anglican or Episcopalian. They only need to make a profession in the Catholic Church, be Confirmed, and receive their First Holy Communion. The Conditional Ordination would indicate that no certainity or documentation exists in the matter.

Yes. Although Traditional Anglicans do have valid Holy Orders, since the Holy See hasn’t yet issued a statement dealing with it, it is technically a grey area (although, like I said, from all appearances, Traditional Anglicans do have valid Orders.) Considering this, Traditional Anglicans recieve a valid Eucharist, and, perhaps in further statements by the Vatican, will be permitted in special circumstances, like the Orthodox.

Until then, it is technically a grey area.

 

[The_Prodigal]

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.

Am I incorrect in assuming that these Anglican priests and bishops were ordained by Independent Catholic and Old Catholic bishops because they somehow doubted the validity of the sacrament within their own church?

(As an aside I am in the dark about Independent Catholics. I have not heard of this group before.)

Secondly, I am unaware of the Catholic Church’s definitive statement or other teaching that the Independent Catholic and Old Catholic churches have valid Holy Orders and are in Communion with Rome. Where can I find that information?

Thanks.

 

[jmcrae]

I know that the Orthodox can receive in a Catholic church because they share the same Eucharistic theology (admittedly, this is only under special circumstances). So, can Anglo-Catholics who believe in transubstantiation also receive in the same manner?

No.

Anglicans are, for all intents and purposes, considered the same as Protestants. They have to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation and make a Profession of Fatih to become Catholics, before they can begin to receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church.

The Orthodox are permitted to receive because they have Apostolic Succession; the issue of theology is secondary.

 

[jmcrae]

Am I incorrect in assuming that these Anglican priests and bishops were ordained by Independent Catholic and Old Catholic bishops because they somehow doubted the validity of the sacrament within their own church?

(As an aside I am in the dark about Independent Catholics. I have not heard of this group before.)

Secondly, I am unaware of the Catholic Church’s definitive statement or other teaching that the Independent Catholic and Old Catholic churches have valid Holy Orders and are in Communion with Rome. Where can I find that information?

I am under the impression that they are not in communion with Rome, although they may have Apostolic Succession separately.

The part I have questions about is (assuming they do have Apostolic Succession, how ever that comes about) whether or not they can validly have the intent to ordain, when they are ordaining people outside of their own religion. I have never seen this addressed, other than just to blow it off as nitpicking - I don’t think it is, though. If they think Anglicans are okay, then why don’t they become Anglican and follow the Anglican religion in its entirety?

 

[The_Prodigal]

I am under the impression that they are not in communion with Rome, although they may have Apostolic Succession separately.

The part I have questions about is (assuming they do have Apostolic Succession, how ever that comes about) whether or not they can validly have the intent to ordain, when they are ordaining people outside of their own religion. I have never seen this addressed, other than just to blow it off as nitpicking - I don’t think it is, though. If they think Anglicans are okay, then why don’t they become Anglican and follow the Anglican religion in its entirety?

That’s why I raise the question. It seems they seek ordination elsewhere or in addition to their own church just in case their own Holy Orders aren’t valid.

 

[nsper7]

That’s why I raise the question. It seems they seek ordination elsewhere or in addition to their own church just in case their own Holy Orders aren’t valid.

Well, many Traditional Anglicans view:

A) Due to the ordaining of women by certain provinces of the Anglican Communion, especially at the diocesan level (where Apostolic Succession is conveyed), has invalidated our Apostolic Succession and, thus, Holy Orders
B) They seek to have better ecumenical relations with Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy and, thus, wish for these groups to recognize the validity of Anglican Holy Orders and Apostolic Succession
C) The Union of Utrecht of the Old Catholic Churches is in full communion with the Anglican Communion, so it would make sense for them to participate in our ordination/consecration services

 

[The_Prodigal]

Note that the base requirements to receive:

1. belief in the real presence
2. valid baptism
3. valid first holy communion
4. not in a state of mortal sin
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…

Why requirement 3: “Valid first holy Communion” in the **other ** church. Why can’t receiving the sacrament in the Catholic church be the first Holy Communion for that individual if all the other requirements are satisfied?

 

[nsper7]

Why requirement 2: “Valid first holy Communion” in the **other ** church. Why can’t receiving the sacrament in the Catholic church be the first Holy Communion for that individual if all the other requirements are satisfied?

Well, I am back to the same question I asked earlier:

Did either of the two times I received Holy Communion at the Roman Catholic church, with the permission of the Priest (who is the Pastor), count as ‘first Holy Communion’? Prior to both receptions of the Blessed Sacrament, I received the Sacrament of Reconciliation (including a valid Penance and Absolution).

I am validly Baptized (Trinitarian formula, intent and water), albeit at a non-denomination church (but, by Roman Catholic and Anglican standards, it would still be a valid Baptism).

Thus, should I now be able to receive Communion at the Roman Catholic parish as long I ensure that 3 and 5 are always true before going to the Mass? If this is true, then I am truly a blessed man as long as I do not (as I joked with a Roman Catholic Priest, the Parochial Vicar that same Church/Student Center, that I meet with to discuss various issues…and he cracked up at the forthcoming statement) “get too close to the Tiber and fall in”.

 

[jmcrae]

Why requirement 3: “Valid first holy Communion” in the **other ** church. Why can’t receiving the sacrament in the Catholic church be the first Holy Communion for that individual if all the other requirements are satisfied?

Because you cannot (as an adult, at present) receive First Holy Communion in the Catholic Church unless you have already been Confirmed in the Catholic Church, and have made a Profession of Faith in the Catholic Church.

As Deacon Ed pointed out above, we don’t recognize Anglican Confirmations - Anglicans must receive Confirmation in the Catholic Church before they will be recognized as Catholics.

Receiving Holy Communion in the Catholic Church assumes that you have validly received First Holy Communion somewhere already - whether in the Orthodox Church, or where ever else they have a valid Eucharist.

 

[nsper7]

Because you cannot (as an adult, at present) receive First Holy Communion in the Catholic Church unless you have already been Confirmed in the Catholic Church, and have made a Profession of Faith in the Catholic Church.

As Deacon Ed pointed out above, we don’t recognize Anglican Confirmations - Anglicans must receive Confirmation in the Catholic Church before they will be recognized as Catholics.

Receiving Holy Communion in the Catholic Church assumes that you have validly received First Holy Communion somewhere already - whether in the Orthodox Church, or where ever else they have a valid Eucharist.

But through no fault of my own, I was led to believe (perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly, by the Roman Catholic Priest [who may or may not have had the necessary authority delegated to him by the Bishop]) that I was able to receive Holy Communion and I, as best as I can tell, validly received Holy Communion (was in a state of grace, etc.).

 

[jmcrae]

Well, I am back to the same question I asked earlier:

Did either of the two times I received Holy Communion at the Roman Catholic church, with the permission of the Priest (who is the Pastor), count as ‘first Holy Communion’?

No; he permitted this because he was assuming that you had already validly received your First Holy Communion.

You would not receive your First Holy Communion in the Catholic Church without months (or at least weeks) of preparation beforehand, whether you are a child or an adult.

As an adult convert, you would also need to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation in the Catholic Church, and make a Profession of Faith before making your First Holy Communion. (For children, the order is reversed, for historical reasons that I won’t delve into for this thread.)

 

[MrS]

But through no fault of my own, I was led to believe (perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly, by the Roman Catholic Priest [who may or may not have had the necessary authority delegated to him by the Bishop]) that I was able to receive Holy Communion and I, as best as I can tell, validly received Holy Communion (was in a state of grace, etc.).

That may be the case.

But now you know.

So please do not present yourself to receive the Real Presence unless you are in full communion with the Catholic or Othodox church. But you are always welcome to attend Mass.

 

[jmcrae]

But through no fault of my own, I was led to believe (perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly, by the Roman Catholic Priest [who may or may not have had the necessary authority delegated to him by the Bishop]) that I was able to receive Holy Communion and I, as best as I can tell, validly received Holy Communion (was in a state of grace, etc.).

Yeah, I had a similar situation back in the early 1980s. Once I figured out that I was not eligible to receive, though, I stopped, because I felt that my (apparent*) disobedience in this area was interfering with the integrity of my Christian witness in other areas.

• I don’t feel that I was being disobedient, since I had been misled and was not disobeying on purpose; nevertheless, the consequences were the same as if I had done it on purpose. So I made a voluntary choice to abstain from the Eucharist until such time as I could honestly make a Profession of Faith in the Catholic Church. I later found out that the priest who had permitted it also had some other problems; he seemed unaware of Church law in a lot of other areas, too. Anyhow, I found that I got on a lot better; I was seen as showing appropriate respect, and I got a lot of respect in return, as well.

 

[nsper7]

No; he permitted this because he was assuming that you had already validly received your First Holy Communion.

I do not think so. After all, I gave him my testimony and he knew I had no Roman Catholic background. Prior to faith in Christ, I was a non-religious Jew. I cam to faith in an Evangelical/non-denominational method, was Baptized and eventually became Anglican (Confirmed this past June 1st). Thus, no Roman Catholicism in my ‘spiritual’ heritage.

That may be the case.

But now you know.

So please do not present yourself to receive the Real Presence unless you are in full communion with the Catholic or Othodox church. But you are always welcome to attend Mass.

Actually, I still do not know whether that Priest had the authority to allow me to receive Holy Communion or not (as someone mentioned in the original thread, Bishops can delegate that authority to Priests).

EDIT: Please note that the permission granted by the Priest was only for times when my Episcopal parish is closed. The issue will not come up again until either Thanksgiving or Christmas (I know…that sounds really bad, but it is a campus Chapel House and closes during semester breaks).

 

[jmcrae]

I do not think so. After all, I gave him my testimony and he knew I had no Roman Catholic background. Prior to faith in Christ, I was a non-religious Jew. I cam to faith in an Evangelical/non-denominational method, was Baptized and eventually became Anglican (Confirmed this past June 1st). Thus, no Roman Catholicism in my ‘spiritual’ heritage.

He might be mistakenly thinking that Anglicans have valid Sacraments.

 

[Matariel]

He might be mistakenly thinking that Anglicans have valid Sacraments.

Traditional Anglicans do technically have valid Sacraments, although the Holy See has not yet aknowledged it yet.

 

[jmcrae]

Traditional Anglicans do technically have valid Sacraments, although the Holy See has not yet aknowledged it yet.

They do, if it is possible for a priest to be ordained validly by someone who is not of the same religion and does not share his beliefs.

I am not understanding how this is possible.