Roman Catholic Taking Communion at Other Christian (Non-Catholic) Churches?

[BernadetteM]

I am a newly confirmed Catholic and this morning I went to an Episcopal church with a friend of mine. (I had gone to a Catholic mass earlier in the morning and received the Eucharist, so no problem there.) I didn’t think I should receive communion but was a little unclear because I didn’t know why their holy orders are not valid but the Orthodox are. But anyway, I abstained and am glad because I now know it was the correct thing to do, because for historic reasons that I’m still not entirely clear on, they lost apostolic succession while the Orthodox did not.
But I was quite uncomfortable there. Because I did not believe this was really the body and blood of Christ, I did not kneel or bow to the altar or anything like that. It was very strange. With respect to Episcopalians, it felt sacrilegious, treating something like the body and blood of Christ when it in fact isn’t. So in a big way I feel much better going to an Evangelical service where communion is viewed as simply symbolic. But because Anglicans/Episcopalians (as I understand it) believe in transubstantiation of some kind, isn’t there a kind of sacrilege here that Catholics should be very careful about?
On another note, in my diocese, the Episcopal priests from their diocsean cathedral are given communion at our diocsean cathedral. When I saw this at the mass on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception (a doctrine they accept), I asked the rector of the cathedral about it. He said our bishop has given them permission to receive while in our cathedral. Does this seem unusual or scandalous to anyone? I’m not really sure what to think about it. They do believe it to be the true body and blood so I’m not particularly bothered by it, but I wonder what everyone else thinks.

The Episcopal church is not consistant in believing that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. Many think of it as a symbol or might think it is spiritually His Body and Blood.

At this point in time the Episcopal church has a very wide variety of beliefs on the same doctrines. It will depend on which parish you attend what is taught.

I remember when I was a member, only confirmed members were to receive and now anyone who is baptized, no matter their belief can receive.

I did attend my former parish, one that is entering the Ordinariate for Anglicans and asked my Pastor what was appropriate for me to do as far as entering the pew. He said it was allowed to bow to the crucifix. Although soon the parish will be part of the Catholic Church, until then if I am visiting I will not receive Communion. The priests there understand completely and they themselves are anxiously waiting for the day when they will be ordained Catholic priests and united to Christ’s Holy Church.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’ve been visiting an Orthodox parish now for a couple weeks. I would NEVER seek to dupe them and take Communion unless I were chrismated into the Orthodox faith.

 

[Oldtimer_7]

In the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the largest of the Lutheran bodies in the US, the general invitation to visitors is that all baptized believers are invited to participate. In my particular parish, the church council voted to change the wording to remove the word baptized, so it now reads “all believers.” Though we believe in the Real Presence, we are closer to the Orthodox understanding of it than the Catholic position.

In the past month, I have communed in two ELCA churches and two Episcopal churches. Since I know we are in full communion, I had no hesitation in going forward for communion in the Episcopal churches. If I were to attend another church and was not sure about their practice, I would call ahead and ask their practices and then respect them.

If we look at the word Eucharist, in Greek, the Eu- refers to good, and the Charis refers to love. In not violating the church’s practice and therefore creating dissension at this most holy moment, I can express my love for them as fellow Christians. While I sit in the pew, I can give thanks to God for blessing my brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’ve never heard consubstantiation as an Anglican approach to the Eucharist. I know some Lutherans have believed that but even our good fellow poster JonNC will point out that that is not the official Lutheran approach at all these days. Anglicans choose not to define the mystery at all. The 39 Articles adopts a more Calvinistic approach but Anglo-Catholics tend to look at it more through a Catholic or Orthodox lens. Some evangelically-minded Anglicans see it as mere symbol. There are so many different approaches within Anglicanism that you can get lost in the whole process. But honestly I’ve never heard of consubstantiation as one of the explanations in the Anglican ethos of the Eucharist?

Consubstantiation, if I’m correct meaning that Christ is present with the bread and the wine, but not actually the bread and the wine.

Is this an Anglo-Catholic community? I’m confused myself.

I’m also confused by your post; if you don’t believe the Eucharist is literal, why did you join the Church?

 

[Contarini]

However, NO to Lutheran or Episcopalians. You are NOT in full union with them, they are not in full union with you.

But this seems circular. It assumes that “full union” is some kind of bureaucratic formality rather than a sacramental reality.

If it’s the latter, then by simply receiving communion you enter into full union.

So what you ought to say (what presumably you really mean) is “they are heretics and you shouldn’t be in full union with them.” Simply saying “you are not in full union” is a euphemistic dodge.

This is a personal issue for me. If I could enter into communion with Rome and go on receiving communion in the Episcopal Church, I would do so. I refuse to act in a way that implies that I don’t think sacramental grace is present in a place where I know I have received such grace, or in a way that further divides Christians rather than uniting them.

Edwin

 

[Inishfree]

I don’t think anyone would think you are being rude for not taking communion. They would understand that you are not a part of their denomination and would respect you for coming to the baptism, etc.

 

[rockerchar]

But this seems circular. It assumes that “full union” is some kind of bureaucratic formality rather than a sacramental reality.

If it’s the latter, then by simply receiving communion you enter into full union.

So what you ought to say (what presumably you really mean) is “they are heretics and you shouldn’t be in full union with them.” Simply saying “you are not in full union” is a euphemistic dodge.

This is a personal issue for me. If I could enter into communion with Rome and go on receiving communion in the Episcopal Church, I would do so. I refuse to act in a way that implies that I don’t think sacramental grace is present in a place where I know I have received such grace, or in a way that further divides Christians rather than uniting them.

Edwin

Let me go ahead and say: I’m aware of RC canon law in this matter. Catholics do not allow for intercommunion with Protestants.

However. It seems like Catholics should be allowed to receive communion in the Anglican church. There is very little credal difference in a Roman Catholic and an Anglo-Catholic in communion with Rome. One could be on the same page with the RC hierarchy, and remain firmly a member of the Anglican Communion, as is the case with the TAC.

The very structure of the Anglican Communion seems to accommodate for theological diversity. Reception of Anglican communion doesn’t appear to me as a theological acceptance of “Anglicanism” as a pre-packaged set of ideas.

The RC tradition seems to hold that, basically, receiving the Body of Christ in a Catholic church implies assent to the CCC.

I feel like intercommunion between Catholics and ELCA/Episcopcal churches was considered in the 70s. Anyone have any historical info w/ regards to interdenominational communion?

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I don’t mean to say this the wrong way, but most Protestants won’t bat an eye if you don’t take communion. Not everyone always does, in any church. Generally people won’t say anything. They won’t be offended. And if they ask (which would be a rarity, I assure you), you can simply say the truth - you’re a Roman Catholic and you’re not allowed to partake in another church’s communion. You’ll probably get a nod or an “oh, okay,” and that’s it.

Don’t worry about refusing communion. It’ll all be okay .

I miss communion myself!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

This is a very good post; It sums up my feelings as well. I’ve tried so hard to be a good Catholic for years and have tried looking into Orthodoxy recently (though I have to drive a ways to do it) and I think despite my excitement, enthusiasm, and awe at their ecclesiological peculiarities, piety, and strengths, in the end if I have to either a) be a good Catholic or b) be an Orthodox Christian, I have to affirm that my communion is the SOLE truth and sole possessor of valid sacramental graces while the others are either “invalid” or “schismatic” or “empty.” And when I was an Anglican, like you, I felt the people were filled with grace and the sacraments weren’t empty wafers and wine for an indoor picnic pageant. I have to reject Catholicism if I become an Orthodox and I have a tough time doing that in that the Catholic Church is obviously not a ??? for valid grace-filled sacraments for me. And I have trouble as a Catholic believing, as Benedict XVI has said, that the Orthodox are “defective” because they lack his oversight.

There are so many psychological barriers in such a journey. That’s what I miss about Anglicanism----the friendly, open-minded, charitable, common-sense approach that there is grace in Christendom everywhere, some more than others but nevertheless the faith in the Triune God is powerful and God is good. Anglicans also acknowledge their own shortcomings and failures and historical blunders readily without denial and subterfuge. I like that.

But this seems circular. It assumes that “full union” is some kind of bureaucratic formality rather than a sacramental reality.

If it’s the latter, then by simply receiving communion you enter into full union.

So what you ought to say (what presumably you really mean) is “they are heretics and you shouldn’t be in full union with them.” Simply saying “you are not in full union” is a euphemistic dodge.

This is a personal issue for me. If I could enter into communion with Rome and go on receiving communion in the Episcopal Church, I would do so. I refuse to act in a way that implies that I don’t think sacramental grace is present in a place where I know I have received such grace, or in a way that further divides Christians rather than uniting them.

Edwin

 

[Kristin234]

At my Church we just pass it down and those who don’t want it don’t take it.

No one really pays attention to others when we are passing communion. Sometimes I don’t even take it. My Catholic friend came with me to church a couple of times and I never knew she didn’t take communion until she pointed it out. She said she felt awkward that she didn’t take it since everyone around her did but I didn’t even notice so I doubt anyone else notices nor do they care.

 

[Contarini]

Let me go ahead and say: I’m aware of RC canon law in this matter. Catholics do not allow for intercommunion with Protestants.

However. It seems like Catholics should be allowed to receive communion in the Anglican church. There is very little credal difference in a Roman Catholic and an Anglo-Catholic in communion with Rome. One could be on the same page with the RC hierarchy, and remain firmly a member of the Anglican Communion, as is the case with the TAC.

The TAC isn’t part of the Anglican Communion.

The RCC ruled in the late 19th century that Anglicans do not have apostolic succession. The bigger issue here is that Anglo-Catholicism seems to depend on a less than fully honest account of what happened in the English Reformation. Anglo-Catholics have essentially declared Anglicanism to be Catholic and have claimed simply to be practicing “real” historic Anglicanism, when in fact they were radically changing Anglicanism in order to make it more Catholic. I don’t mean that Anglo-Catholics are individually dishonest–GKC is a sterling example of an Anglo-Catholic who understands and accepts the historical evidence about the English Reformation. But as a whole I don’t think the Anglo-Catholic movement would exist if not for a lot of highly dubious interpretations of Anglican history. I’m not talking about deliberate dishonesty but about the highly ideological reinterpretation of history to which humans in general are prone.

The worry of the RCC (and of the Orthodox for the most part) is that Anglo-Catholics don’t really speak for Anglicans as a whole. The TAC, being a small splinter group of Anglo-Catholics, would seem to be in better shape in this regard. But even there, it’s become clear that even this small and relatively unified group is all over the map in terms of their understanding of what it means to be Catholic Christians and the role union with Rome might play in Catholicity.

The very structure of the Anglican Communion seems to accommodate for theological diversity. Reception of Anglican communion doesn’t appear to me as a theological acceptance of “Anglicanism” as a pre-packaged set of ideas.

Indeed. But that’s precisely the RC worry. By receiving communion in an Anglican church, you are saying that this fuzziness is within the acceptable limits of Catholicity.

Note that I’m paraphrasing what I take to be the official RC stance here. As my earlier post indicated, I wish this wasn’t their position. I would be happy with the RCC continuing to deny communion to Anglicans, while allowing Catholics to receive communion in Anglican and other Protestant churches as a recognition of the genuine faith in Jesus found there. Catholics generally acknowledge that there is a “spiritual presence” of Christ in Protestant (including Anglican) Eucharists. And since that’s all some Anglicans claim (which of course is one of the Catholic objections to Anglican claims to be Catholic) it’s not clear that Catholics would be professing anything about Anglicanism that they don’t believe simply by receiving Anglican communion. Wherever Christ is present to some degree, there surely Christ is to be received. But I don’t expect the RC hierarchy to accept this argument any time soon! And I admit that it’s partly driven by personal circumstances.

The RC tradition seems to hold that, basically, receiving the Body of Christ in a Catholic church implies assent to the CCC.

Or rather, to the teaching of the Catholic Church of which the CCC is the fullest recent expression.

I feel like intercommunion between Catholics and ELCA/Episcopcal churches was considered in the 70s. Anyone have any historical info w/ regards to interdenominational communion?

There were certainly priests who practiced intercommunion in the 70s, and a few still do (though I suspect that it’s become harder to so so without getting in trouble with one’s bishop–for one thing, the good people of this forum are quite happy to “tattle” on their priests if they think the priests are guilty of “abuses,” a hideous word which they seem happy to apply to relatively trivial liturgical irregularities, let alone something like intercommunion). My wife was offered communion by a Catholic priest while serving as a hospital chapel intern (she was attending a Protestant seminary) in Kentucky in the 90s. Her father, a Methodist minister, was invited by a Catholic priest to help administer communion in Indiana in the late 70s (he didn’t know what to do with Catholic laypeople who approached him and stuck out their tongues, since communion on the tongue is emphatically not a Methodist practice!).

Officially, I don’t think intercommunion was ever considered apart from a formal reunion of churches, but the prospects for this seemed a lot brighter in 1970 than they do now. Catholics had moved dramatically in a more ecumenical direction, for one thing. But the big difference between then and now is the ordination of women in Anglican churches (I’m not sure when it happened in Lutheranism), which has led both Catholics and Orthodox to back off from serious discussion of reunion. Women’s ordination is regarded as a deal breaker by both communions.

Edwin

 

[hn160]

The TAC isn’t part of the Anglican Communion.

The RCC ruled in the late 19th century that Anglicans do not have apostolic succession. The bigger issue here is that Anglo-Catholicism seems to depend on a less than fully honest account of what happened in the English Reformation. Anglo-Catholics have essentially declared Anglicanism to be Catholic and have claimed simply to be practicing “real” historic Anglicanism, when in fact they were radically changing Anglicanism in order to make it more Catholic. I don’t mean that Anglo-Catholics are individually dishonest–GKC is a sterling example of an Anglo-Catholic who understands and accepts the historical evidence about the English Reformation. But as a whole I don’t think the Anglo-Catholic movement would exist if not for a lot of highly dubious interpretations of Anglican history. I’m not talking about deliberate dishonesty but about the highly ideological reinterpretation of history to which humans in general are prone.

The worry of the RCC (and of the Orthodox for the most part) is that Anglo-Catholics don’t really speak for Anglicans as a whole. The TAC, being a small splinter group of Anglo-Catholics, would seem to be in better shape in this regard. But even there, it’s become clear that even this small and relatively unified group is all over the map in terms of their understanding of what it means to be Catholic Christians and the role union with Rome might play in Catholicity.

Indeed. But that’s precisely the RC worry. By receiving communion in an Anglican church, you are saying that this fuzziness is within the acceptable limits of Catholicity.

Note that I’m paraphrasing what I take to be the official RC stance here. As my earlier post indicated, I wish this wasn’t their position. I would be happy with the RCC continuing to deny communion to Anglicans, while allowing Catholics to receive communion in Anglican and other Protestant churches as a recognition of the genuine faith in Jesus found there. Catholics generally acknowledge that there is a “spiritual presence” of Christ in Protestant (including Anglican) Eucharists. And since that’s all some Anglicans claim (which of course is one of the Catholic objections to Anglican claims to be Catholic) it’s not clear that Catholics would be professing anything about Anglicanism that they don’t believe simply by receiving Anglican communion. Wherever Christ is present to some degree, there surely Christ is to be received. But I don’t expect the RC hierarchy to accept this argument any time soon! And I admit that it’s partly driven by personal circumstances.

Or rather, to the teaching of the Catholic Church of which the CCC is the fullest recent expression.

There were certainly priests who practiced intercommunion in the 70s, and a few still do (though I suspect that it’s become harder to so so without getting in trouble with one’s bishop–for one thing, the good people of this forum are quite happy to “tattle” on their priests if they think the priests are guilty of “abuses,” a hideous word which they seem happy to apply to relatively trivial liturgical irregularities, let alone something like intercommunion). My wife was offered communion by a Catholic priest while serving as a hospital chapel intern (she was attending a Protestant seminary) in Kentucky in the 90s. Her father, a Methodist minister, was invited by a Catholic priest to help administer communion in Indiana in the late 70s (he didn’t know what to do with Catholic laypeople who approached him and stuck out their tongues, since communion on the tongue is emphatically not a Methodist practice!).

Officially, I don’t think intercommunion was ever considered apart from a formal reunion of churches, but the prospects for this seemed a lot brighter in 1970 than they do now. Catholics had moved dramatically in a more ecumenical direction, for one thing. But the big difference between then and now is the ordination of women in Anglican churches (I’m not sure when it happened in Lutheranism), which has led both Catholics and Orthodox to back off from serious discussion of reunion. Women’s ordination is regarded as a deal breaker by both communions.

Edwin

As a Lutheran, I would not take or think about taking Communion in a Episcopal/Anglican church because it would say that we are of like mind in doctrine when we are at the altar rail. Not all Episcopalian/Anglican believe the same thing when it comes to the Sacrament of the Altar. The Anglican Church was influenced by John Calvin. Roman Catholics would do well to decline Communion at these churches.

 

[Harpazo]

As a Lutheran, I would not take or think about taking Communion in a Episcopal/Anglican church because it would say that we are of like mind in doctrine when we are at the altar rail. Not all Episcopalian/Anglican believe the same thing when it comes to the Sacrament of the Altar. The Anglican Church was influenced by John Calvin. Roman Catholics would do well to decline Communion at these churches.

Although I disagree with Lutheran theology, it is refreshing to see a Lutheran take this seriously!

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Contarini]

As a Lutheran, I would not take or think about taking Communion in a Episcopal/Anglican church because it would say that we are of like mind in doctrine when we are at the altar rail. Not all Episcopalian/Anglican believe the same thing when it comes to the Sacrament of the Altar.

Indeed. There are of course two ways to approach this: one is to refuse intercommunion with Anglicans altogether, and the other is to figure out what a particular Anglican or a particular Anglican parish believes. Which you do, of course, will depend on your theological premises. I respect, although I disagree with, your position, which is essentially that of the RCC.

A confessional Lutheran church in Germany that I attended while doing dissertation research gave me communion, although they practiced closed communion with regard to the Calvinist elements of the state Church. I think they assumed that all Anglicans were Anglo-Catholics. I didn’t find out that they practiced closed communion until toward the end of my time there, or I might have tried to clarify the situation with them. However, I certainly believe in the Real Presence (though I’m a bit more tolerant with regard to Calvinist views of the Eucharist than Catholics or confessional Lutherans are).

To be precise, Bucer and Vermigli (and even Bullinger, I’d argue) influenced the C of E more than Calvin himself. In the Elizabethan context, Calvin was thought of largely in terms of Genevan polity, which the Puritans pushed and the state church rejected. When it comes to Eucharistic theology, though, Bucer and Vermigli were largely of one mind with Calvin.

Edwin