Under what circumstances could an Anglican receive the Catholic Eucharist?

[FrDavid96]

What I meant, was would not the same criteria also apply to any of their ordinations? You can’t have it both ways - judging RC or OC ordinations on one basis, and Anglican ones on another, without simply making a mockery of the criteria in the first place.

It would apply if the Church ever denied the office of the priesthood, as Anglicanism did. But since this has never happened in the Church, it does not apply.

I’m not trying to have it both ways. And the Church certainly isn’t doing so.

Anglicanism on the other hand is trying to have it both ways. At one point, they deny the office of priesthood, then later claim that they have retained the very thing that they rejected.

 

[7_Sorrows]

It would apply if the Church ever denied the office of the priesthood, as Anglicanism did. But since this has never happened in the Church, it does not apply.

I’m not trying to have it both ways. And the Church certainly isn’t doing so.

Anglicanism on the other hand is trying to have it both ways. At one point, they deny the office of priesthood, then later claim that they have retained the very thing that they rejected.

maybe i missed the explanation somewhere in this thread, but when did anglicanism deny the office of the priesthood?

 

[Bluegoat]

maybe i missed the explanation somewhere in this thread, but when did anglicanism deny the office of the priesthood?

They didn’t. In the Reformation period, there was a lot of dissenting opinion among reform-minded types in Europe. Some were quite radical. Some groups, as we can see, did indeed get rid of the priesthood entirely.

There were reformers in England who agreed with this, and it was hotly debated. Within what became the Anglican Church, there were some individuals who advocated this position. However, the Anglican Church did not.

Some claim the denial of the priesthood comes from denying elements of the priesthood which are essential. Some see transubstantiation as an essential element, or the understanding of the sacrifice of the Mass is perhaps a better example. So they would argue that if the Anglican Church denied these things, they are essentially denying the nature of the priesthood. This is a difficult position though, since it depends on the RC and the OC having maintained these things, explicitly or even implicitly, since the beginning. Otherwise, by the same criteria, their own ordinations would also be invalid. Unfortunatly for this argument, at least in the case of the Orthodox we can say that their understanding is indeed different than the Catholic one even now. Many would argue that this is also true for the Catholic understanding - that it did not always incorporate these elements, even implicitly.

 

[FrDavid96]

maybe i missed the explanation somewhere in this thread, but when did anglicanism deny the office of the priesthood?

One source of evidence for this is the “39 articles” of Anglicanism. Here are a few quotes:

25 OF THE ACRAMENTS ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God’s good will towards us, by the which He doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm, our faith in Him.
There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.
Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not the like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.
The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, have they a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.

28…Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions…

 

[Bluegoat]

One source of evidence for this is the “39 articles” of Anglicanism. Here are a few quotes:

25 OF THE ACRAMENTS ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God’s good will towards us, by the which He doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm, our faith in Him.
There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.
Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not the like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.
The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, have they a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.

28…Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions…

And what do you think the Anglicans mean when they say they aren’t Sacraments in the same way as Baptism and the Eucharist?

 

[FrDavid96]

And what do you think the Anglicans mean when they say they aren’t Sacraments in the same way as Baptism and the Eucharist?

What you posted and what the 25th article of Anglicanism says are two different things.

The article clearly denies that the 5 of the 7 Sacraments are sacraments. The article clearly denies that Ordination is a Sacrament.

Since Anglicanism denied (I use the past tense because in this context, we’re speaking of the time of Elizabeth I and Edward VII) that the priesthood is even a Sacrament, it’s rather difficult to make the argument that the community retained a Catholic belief in Ordination–in fact, it’s downright impossible.

As the Church teaches:
“We pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.”