May Anglicans Receive Communion?

[Br.Rich_SFO]

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.

Until Rome says that they do in fact have valid Holy Orders then they DON"T, for most practical purposes related to the Catholic Church. What they say dosen’t really matter.

 

[john_chrysostom]

Of course not, they are apples and oranges.

Anglicans are NOT permitted to receive in any Catholic Church not because they don’t believe or teach the same theology, but because they do not have valid Sacraments or valid Holy Orders required to celebrate a Valid Eucharist.
(excepting of course Baptism and Marriage)

Br. Rich, what you repeat is the standard party line, but I am afraid you are quite mistaken in your historical facts on this one. If Peter was the Patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox Church in Antioch (Turkey), and Linus was the first Bishop of Rome, there is slim evidence that Peter was really involved in the See of Rome. Tradition aside (of which see below), it was Paul who appointed Linus, and hence it is reasonable to assume that Paul consecrated Linus as the first Bishop of Rome.

What follows is that the apostolic succession in Rome begins with Paul and Linus, and the Church of England received orders from Rome since William the Conqueror took possession of Britain under the banner of the then pope. Hence Roman and Anglican orders are identical: Paul and Linus. (Also, remember it was Rome that excommunicated Canterbury (England), not the other way around.)

While the tradition is that Peter was killed in Rome, that is a tradition that is contradicted by the historical fact that Peter was the Patriarch of the Syriaic Church (Antioch), lived there, and died there. Go to their website and see their evidence. Peter’s bones may have been stolen away to Rome to add weight to the title of prime apostolic see, but even today his alleged bones and chains may not be authentic. Relying on the argument from tradition pales in light of historical facts.

Regarding tradition, the Anglo Catholic Church has always placed scripture above tradition, the Orthodox Church has always placed scripture coequal to tradition, and the Roman Catholic Church has always placed scripture below tradition, ie, infallibility.

I will not repeat Lou Tarsitano’s arguments here, for as a Quigley graduate and later a learned Anglo Catholic priest, he argued effectively against the ignorance of such misplaced apples and oranges. On some of these issues, you may want to review his postings. Unfortunately he did not have the last word because he was dying and ran out of steam.

 

[Matariel]

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.

Huh? Of course Catholic and Traditional Anglicans are both in the same religion-- Christianity. I don’t understand this statement of yours…

 

[Matariel]

Until Rome says that they do in fact have valid Holy Orders then they DON"T, for most practical purposes related to the Catholic Church. What they say dosen’t really matter.

I know, but we need to be oecumenically-minded; we need not go out of our way to dismiss them, since, really they are one of the groups most open to the Church, and even go out of there way to aquiesce Rome. I consider them as having valid Apostolic Orders. However, as far as the Church is concerned, since there has been no ruling as of yet, they are a grey area, and need to be treated by the Church itself as having questionable Orders.

 

[countrylifer]

We have a prominant family in our parish, whose sons is dating a Lutheran, and she goes to Communion whenever she attends Mass… The family has also said some weekends their son attends her church and it counts because he attended a service.
Do you just let these people go on believing this, do you say something to them, or should our pastor get involved.
Last May, we had a group of people from Isreal, attend our Mass. They took pictures of the people in church and videod the kids. One even went to communion twice, and left the 2nd host on the pew. When some of the parishioners talk to our pastor after Mass, he said there wasn’t anything he could do about it. We don’t even think he checked their credentials before allowing them to film during Mass. Two young girls in short shorts sat in the back pew drinking cokes and laughing most of the Mass.
I think he should have stopped them…Any response??

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

We have a prominant family in our parish, whose sons is dating a Lutheran, and she goes to Communion whenever she attends Mass… The family has also said some weekends their son attends her church and it counts because he attended a service.
Do you just let these people go on believing this, do you say something to them, or should our pastor get involved.
Last May, we had a group of people from Isreal, attend our Mass. They took pictures of the people in church and videod the kids. One even went to communion twice, and left the 2nd host on the pew. When some of the parishioners talk to our pastor after Mass, he said there wasn’t anything he could do about it. We don’t even think he checked their credentials before allowing them to film during Mass. Two young girls in short shorts sat in the back pew drinking cokes and laughing most of the Mass.
I think he should have stopped them…Any response??

Why didn’t the Ushers stop them? The Pastor should stop the Lutheran from receiving Holy Communion and should instruct the Catholic young man that a Lutheran service does not fulfil his Sunday obligation. If nothing is done the Bishop should be notified.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

I don’t understand this at all. The only obedience rule that is relevant should be receiving valid communion during Lent-Easter, making your “Easter duty.” What’s so difficult in abstaining from Anglican “communion”, which is most probably invalid as far as the Catholic Church is concerned? Seems that the Sunday Mass obligation should be the major concern.

 

[countrylifer]

Why didn’t the Ushers stop them? The Pastor should stop the Lutheran from receiving Holy Communion and should instruct the Catholic young man that a Lutheran service does not fulfil his Sunday obligation. If nothing is done the Bishop should be notified.

We don’t have a standard group of ushers, rather just a few men who take up the collection and gifts.
There have been calls to the Archdiocese, about this and similar situations. The person that called was told, the Archdiocese does not have time to micromanage the parish.
One reason nothing is done about this particular family is that they are large contributors. It seems there are different rules according to your bank account.
Several parishioners mentioned the fact that it was quite distrubing to have these strangers in our church filming. They asked if anyone checked their credentials. The only response they got was a story in the bulletin titled " Are you afraid to die?"

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t understand this at all. The only obedience rule that is relevant should be receiving valid communion during Lent-Easter, making your “Easter duty.” What’s so difficult in abstaining from Anglican “communion”, which is most probably invalid as far as the Catholic Church is concerned? Seems that the Sunday Mass obligation should be the major concern.

Sorry, it wasn’t clear. I was Protestant, at the time - United Church of Canada. Anglican Communion wasn’t even on my radar.

 

[quiet52]

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).

You may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending Mass, but you cannot receive the Eucharist at a Catholic Mass without explicit permission from the bishop. .