Receiving Communion at another Church

[Tantum_ergo]

True, but they are our brothers in Christ, Christian brothers, and well if their Church has open communion personally I see no issue with it. I wonder what Jesus would say on this matter.

One doesn’t have to wonder. . .one knows.

It is a question of truth. . .revealed truth.

The Catholic Church teaches revealed truth ==it doesn’t ‘make up’ things.

So what the Church teaches is what Christ teaches.

Therefore I repeat --we don’t need to ‘wonder’ what Jesus would say. He has said it. The Church teaches it. As Catholic Christians, we should be upholding truth, don’t you think?

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

Jesus is considered to be present symbolically in the communion services in those Protestant Churches. Jesus Christ is truly present, Body and Blood, in the Eucharist in the Catholic Church. It’s the Real Presence, not just some symbol.

A Protestant minister is a servant of Jesus. The Priest at Mass is in persona Christi.

What would Jesus say on this matter? Hasn’t he spoken clearly enough?

Thank you! Jesus, and His Holy Church have spoken quite clearly. Protestants believe only in a symbol. We believe in the Real Presence.
Kathryn Ann

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

True, but they are our brothers in Christ, Christian brothers, and well if their Church has open communion personally I see no issue with it. I wonder what Jesus would say on this matter.

I stand by my answer. The Church founded by Christ Himself has spoken on this. We believe in the Real Presence, and they in a symbol. We must stand up for Him, in Whom we believe.
“Open Communion” is a misnomer. Open to what? To any interpretation at all? No, we must hold fast to the teachings of the Church.

 

[Vico]

This is a good point, but I think every Catholic should know that Mass/Divine Liturgy attendance does not mean that one must automatically receive communion. Catholics are obliged to attend Mass every Sunday, but we are only obliged to receive communion once a year (during Easter).

Perhaps someone will point out the canon law (I think there is one) that states that if a Catholic Mass isn’t available in the area, then the obligation to attend Mass is abrogated.

Latin Catholic

Can. 1247
On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass. Moreover, they are to abstain from those works and affairs which hinder the worship to be rendered to God, the joy proper to the Lord’s day, or the suitable relaxation of mind and body.

Can. 1248
§1. A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass.
§2. If participation in the eucharistic celebration becomes impossible because of the absence of a sacred minister or for another grave cause, it is strongly recommended that the faithful take part in a liturgy of the word if such a liturgy is celebrated in a parish church or other sacred place according to the prescripts of the diocesan bishop or that they devote themselves to prayer for a suitable time alone, as a family, or, as the occasion permits, in groups of families.

Eastern Catholic

Canon 881

1. The Christian faithful are bound by the obligation to participate on Sundays and feast days in the Divine Liturgy, or according to the prescriptions or legitimate customs of their own Church sui iuris, in the celebration of the divine praises.
2. In order for the Christian faithful to fulfill this obligation more easily, the available time runs from the evening of the vigil until the end of the Sunday or feast day.
3. The Christian faithful are strongly recommended to receive the Divine Eucharist on these days and indeed more frequently, even daily.
4. The Christian faithful should abstain from those labors or business matters which impede the worship to be rendered to God, the joy which is proper to the Lord’s day, or to the proper relaxation of mind and body.

 

[Church_Militant]

Unfortunately, **SecretGarden, **you’re making up something that is contrary to authentic and authoritative Catholic teaching. See Ecclesia de Eucharistia (Note especially sections 43-46) which specifically states

1. In considering the Eucharist as the sacrament of ecclesial communion, there is one subject which, due to its importance, must not be overlooked: I am referring to the relationship of the Eucharist to ecumenical activity. We should all give thanks to the Blessed Trinity for the many members of the faithful throughout the world who in recent decades have felt an ardent desire for unity among all Christians. The Second Vatican Council, at the beginning of its Decree on Ecumenism, sees this as a special gift of God.89 It was an efficacious grace which inspired us, the sons and daughters of the Catholic Church and our brothers and sisters from other Churches and Ecclesial Communities, to set forth on the path of ecumenism.

Our longing for the goal of unity prompts us to turn to the Eucharist, which is the supreme sacrament of the unity of the People of God, in as much as it is the apt expression and the unsurpassable source of that unity.90 In the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice the Church prays that God, the Father of mercies, will grant his children the fullness of the Holy Spirit so that they may become one body and one spirit in Christ.91 In raising this prayer to the Father of lights, from whom comes every good endowment and every perfect gift (cf. *Jas *1:17), the Church believes that she will be heard, for she prays in union with Christ her Head and Spouse, who takes up this plea of his Bride and joins it to that of his own redemptive sacrifice.
44. Precisely because the Church’s unity, which the Eucharist brings about through the Lord’s sacrifice and by communion in his body and blood, absolutely requires full communion in the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance, it is not possible to celebrate together the same Eucharistic liturgy until those bonds are fully re-established. Any such concelebration would not be a valid means, and might well prove instead to be an obstacle, to the attainment of full communion, by weakening the sense of how far we remain from this goal and by introducing or exacerbating ambiguities with regard to one or another truth of the faith. The path towards full unity can only be undertaken in truth. In this area, the prohibitions of Church law leave no room for uncertainty,92 in fidelity to the moral norm laid down by the Second Vatican Council.93

(Snip)

These conditions, from which no dispensation can be given, must be carefully respected, even though they deal with specific individual cases, because the denial of one or more truths of the faith regarding these sacraments and, among these, the truth regarding the need of the ministerial priesthood for their validity, renders the person asking improperly disposed to legitimately receiving them. And the opposite is also true: Catholics may not receive communion in those communities which lack a valid sacrament of Orders.98

The faithful observance of the body of norms established in this area 99 is a manifestation and, at the same time, a guarantee of our love for Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, for our brothers and sisters of different Christian confessions – who have a right to our witness to the truth – and for the cause itself of the promotion of unity.

 

[Nat682]

I am sure I will get slammed for saying this, and I am a traditionalist Catholic, but here’s my view on this:

Anglicans, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox have holy orders and apostolic succession. Any simulated Mass in any other denomination is invalid, and no Catholic should participate in such a service.

Anglicanism presents somewhat of a dilemma. I do realize that the official position of the Catholic church is that their Masses are invalid. However, the Anglican church does have Holy Orders, and their rite is extremely similar to the Novus Ordo Catholic Mass. The problem lies in the simulated ordination of female priests in Anglican churches. Obviously, if a woman is simulating the Mass, then it is invalid. If a man is celebrating the Mass, then there lies the possibility of a female bishop being in his apostolic succession, thus invalidating his Holy Orders. However, the Anglican church did not start simulating the ordination of women until the 1970s or so, and purported female bishops remain rare. Therefore, if a man is celebrating, I think that an Anglican Mass can be assumed to be valid. Of course, no other Protestant Mass is valid, and there is no excuse for not going to a Catholic church when this is reasonably possible.

I respect those who disagree, but this is my view on the situation.

 

[LilyM]

I am sure I will get slammed for saying this, and I am a traditionalist Catholic, but here’s my view on this:

Anglicans, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox have holy orders and apostolic succession. Any simulated Mass in any other denomination is invalid, and no Catholic should participate in such a service.

Anglicanism presents somewhat of a dilemma. I do realize that the official position of the Catholic church is that their Masses are invalid. However, the Anglican church does have Holy Orders, and their rite is extremely similar to the Novus Ordo Catholic Mass. The problem lies in the simulated ordination of female priests in Anglican churches. Obviously, if a woman is simulating the Mass, then it is invalid. If a man is celebrating the Mass, then there lies the possibility of a female bishop being in his apostolic succession, thus invalidating his Holy Orders. However, the Anglican church did not start simulating the ordination of women until the 1970s or so, and purported female bishops remain rare. Therefore, if a man is celebrating, I think that an Anglican Mass can be assumed to be
valid. Of course, no other Protestant Mass is valid, and there is no excuse for not going to a Catholic church when this is reasonably possible.

I respect those who disagree, but this is my view on the situation.

Similarity of form does not mean valid sacraments. An actor playing the part of a Catholic priest might perfectly repeat all the words and gestures, but not having the same intent (among other things) that a priest has, cannot validly confect the sacraments.

So it is with both the sacraments of Holy Orders and Eucharist. Anglicans believe quite different things than Catholics about both the nature of the priesthood and the nature of both sacraments. So however great the similarity in word and gesture, the intent is sufficiently different that neither sacrament is validly confected.

 

[Phemie]

Wasn’t that question settled by Pope Leo XIII’s 1896 Apostolicae Curae"On the Nullity of Anglican Orders"?

 

[LilyM]

Wasn’t that question settled by Pope Leo XIII’s 1896 Apostolicae Curae “On the Nullity of Anglican Orders”?

Of course it was - not that everyone is aware of that particular bit of teaching, unfortunately.

 

[japhy]

Of course it was - not that everyone is aware of that particular bit of teaching, unfortunately.

Except that not every Anglican priest was ordained in the Anglican church; there are validly ordained priests who convert to the Anglican church and carry out their ministry there. Anglican Eucharistic theology is like a box of chocolates, so there is the possibility of a validly ordained priest at an Anglican Eucharist who actually confects the Eucharist.

In addition to that, the Anglican Rite of ordination has not remained the same since the days of Leo XIII, so there are some men who are ordained in the Anglican church by valid bishops (e.g. converts, Old Catholic, etc.), thus resulting in validly ordained priests in the Anglican church.

 

[Luvtosew]

Jesus is considered to be present symbolically in the communion services in those Protestant Churches. Jesus Christ is truly present, Body and Blood, in the Eucharist in the Catholic Church. It’s the Real Presence, not just some symbol.

A Protestant minister is a servant of Jesus. The Priest at Mass is in persona Christi.

What would Jesus say on this matter? Hasn’t he spoken clearly enough?

I also think Jesus has spoken clearly, the body of Christ is all Christians who believe in Christ as our saviour, and we are to commune together.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Except that not every Anglican priest was ordained in the Anglican church; there are validly ordained priests who convert to the Anglican church and carry out their ministry there. Anglican Eucharistic theology is like a box of chocolates, so there is the possibility of a validly ordained priest at an Anglican Eucharist who actually confects the Eucharist.

In addition to that, the Anglican Rite of ordination has not remained the same since the days of Leo XIII, so there are some men who are ordained in the Anglican church by valid bishops (e.g. converts, Old Catholic, etc.), thus resulting in validly ordained priests in the Anglican church.

I don’t think this is relevant. Once a priest converts, he leaves behind the Apostolic succession of the Catholic Church, does he not? Even if his ordination is valid, after he converts, since he is no longer Catholic, he cannot validly consecrate the Host.

Someone else correct me, but even if a priest had been ordained with the Catholic Church, his ordination cannot stand up on its own within the Anglican Church, he has lost the support of Rome, correct?

 

[japhy]

I don’t think this is relevant. Once a priest converts, he leaves behind the Apostolic succession of the Catholic Church, does he not? Even if his ordination is valid, after he converts, since he is no longer Catholic, he cannot validly consecrate the Host.

Ordination confers an indelible mark upon the soul: a priest is a priest forever. While it may be illicit for him to confect the Eucharist outside the Catholic Church, he does not lose the blessing of his ordination which permits him to do so.

even if a priest had been ordained with the Catholic Church, his ordination cannot stand up on its own within the Anglican Church, he has lost the support of Rome, correct?

A priest does not need the continued “support of Rome” for his ordination to remain effective, just like you don’t need to continue believing in Jesus Christ (or to be supported by Rome, for that matter) for your baptism to remain effective.

From the Catechism:
1583: It is true that someone validly ordained can, for grave reasons, be discharged from the obligations and functions linked to ordination, or can be forbidden to exercise them; but he cannot become a layman again in the strict sense, because the character imprinted by ordination is for ever. The vocation and mission received on the day of his ordination mark him permanently.

Long story short: a Catholic priest who converts to the Anglican or Lutheran communities can still validly confect the Eucharist at a liturgy, so long as the conditions for validity are met.

 

[japhy]

I also think Jesus has spoken clearly, the body of Christ is all Christians who believe in Christ as our saviour, and we are to commune together.

But St. Paul tells us there are times when we should go so far as to expel a person from our communion until such a time as he has repented:
It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. …] When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men; not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber – not even to eat with such a one. (1 Cor 5:1-11)
From his follow-up letter to the Corinthians, it would appear that “deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved” does not mean they should kill the man (!) but that he should be removed from the household of God, as it were (cf. 1 Tim 1:20).

If he has been removed from their assemblies, he is certainly not partaking of the Eucharist with them, for they have been warned not even to eat with the man, and that warning comes in the context of the “paschal festival”. So even though this man believes in Jesus Christ (or at least we may assume as much), Paul seems to be saying he should not receive Communion.

 

[Corki]

I am sure I will get slammed for saying this, and I am a traditionalist Catholic, but here’s my view on this:

Anglicans, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox have holy orders and apostolic succession. Any simulated Mass in any other denomination is invalid, and no Catholic should participate in such a service.

Anglicanism presents somewhat of a dilemma. I do realize that the official position of the Catholic church is that their Masses are invalid. However, the Anglican church does have Holy Orders, and their rite is extremely similar to the Novus Ordo Catholic Mass. The problem lies in the simulated ordination of female priests in Anglican churches. Obviously, if a woman is simulating the Mass, then it is invalid. If a man is celebrating the Mass, then there lies the possibility of a female bishop being in his apostolic succession, thus invalidating his Holy Orders. However, the Anglican church did not start simulating the ordination of women until the 1970s or so, and purported female bishops remain rare. Therefore, if a man is celebrating, I think that an Anglican Mass can be assumed to be valid. Of course, no other Protestant Mass is valid, and there is no excuse for not going to a Catholic church when this is reasonably possible.

I respect those who disagree, but this is my view on the situation.

The Anglican problem is even more (sadly) complicated. There is a possibility that a given Anglican priest might be validly ordained. However, that’s not the only element of a valid Consecration. Some Anglican churches do not use valid matter and they are all over the board in terms of their understanding of Transubstantiation. Without those last two (valid matter and valid intent) the fact that a given priest has valid orders doesn’t help.

However, in terms of the OPs question, even **if **you somehow knew that the Anglican priest was validly ordained, that the matter was valid and that he shared a Catholic understanding and intent regarding the Consecration, a Catholic is still in the wrong to be actively participating in the Anglican Mass.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

From the Catechism:
1583: It is true that someone validly ordained can, for grave reasons, be discharged from the obligations and functions linked to ordination, or can be forbidden to exercise them; but he cannot become a layman again in the strict sense, because the character imprinted by ordination is for ever. The vocation and mission received on the day of his ordination mark him permanently.

Long story short: a Catholic priest who converts to the Anglican or Lutheran communities can still validly confect the Eucharist at a liturgy, so long as the conditions for validity are met.

I was not saying that he ceases to be a priest. I know that ordination forever marks his soul. My understanding is that if a priest leaves the Catholic Church, his consecration of the Host would no longer be considered licit and Catholics could not receive from him. The catechism passage you quoted makes no mention of this.

I probably stated my original response incorrectly. The priest would remain a Catholic since you cannot erase baptism, but he would be in heresy by practicing at an Anglican Church, correct?

 

[japhy]

My understanding is that if a priest leaves the Catholic Church, his consecration of the Host would no longer be considered licit and Catholics could not receive from him.

That is correct. His consecration would be illicit (against Church law, if not divine law), but it would still be valid (actual, effective). We should not receive valid sacraments illicitly, except perhaps if there is no other recourse.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

Unfortunately, SecretGarden, you’re making up something that is contrary to authentic and authoritative Catholic teaching. See Ecclesia de Eucharistia (Note especially sections 43-46) which specifically states

Thank you, ChurchMilitant, for posting all the above in order to clarify.
Kathryn Ann

 

[Splagchnizomai]

I also think Jesus has spoken clearly, the body of Christ is all Christians who believe in Christ as our saviour, and we are to commune together.

In Catholic usage, the Body of Christ is understood in two main ways: the Body of Christ is Christ present in the Eucharist; and the Body of Christ is his Church, the Catholic Church.

You appear to define things as a Protestant would. Be Catholic and believe as a Catholic!

 

[Church_Militant]

I also think Jesus has spoken clearly, the body of Christ is all Christians who believe in Christ as our saviour, and we are to commune together.

Yet would you give false witness by reception of the Catholic Eucharist, thus implying that you share the same belief as we do, when in fact you do not?

I know I would never do such a thing in an n-C service for that very reason. There is no symbolic presence or mere memorial in authentic Christian (meaning Catholic) communion and there never was for the first 1500 years of Christian history.

The discussion is moot in that the Church has definitively taught that we may not take n-C communion. There are very very limited and conditional exceptions to the circumstances when a properly disposed n-C might receive, as mentioned in Ecclesia de Eucharistia but we are not in a position here to make those discernments.