D
Dovekin
Guest
That last note, about the Lambeth Conference, was a response to sudy’s remark. That may not have been clear.
Why are high Chuch Anglicans not allowed to receive Communion in a Catholic Church but the Eastern Orthodox are?
- Status
F
FrDavid96
Guest
What they teach is indeed different from Catholics. The very fact that they are willing to say that so many other differences “do not matter” is itself a difference. They cannot agree with other Anglicans and still be in complete agreement with Catholics—not at the same time.FrDavid96:
The really odd thing is that that is my point. “The high Church Anglican” is not allowed to receive Communion because they do not have a valid ministry, not because their teaching on the Eucharist is different from ours.
They can decide what constitutes an equivalent situation to danger-of-death in interpreting the meaning of “other grave necessity”
That phrase “grave necessity” has traditionally (by canon law custom) means times of war, persecution, disaster, or famine. The bishops are given the latitude to decide what other situations are EQUIVALENT to times of war, persecution, natural disaster, or famine.
What they cannot do is to change that standard “grave necessity” to a lower one. They cannot say that a barber strike or a shortage of AAA batteries is a good enough reason (just to use a few obvious examples).
I suppose that clause was added to the canon to show some deference to the relevant non-Catholic groups as a way of demonstrating that canon 844 is not meant to be a vehicle for proselytizing.
I’m doing no such thing. I’m merely repeating what the law says.
Again, I’m telling you that they cannot “set” the norms. They cannot change the law. They can only interpret how to apply the law, but without lessening it.
The law says “grave necessity” and the bishops conferences can define this and can apply an equivalent (but not lower) standard.
S
sudy
Guest
To be fair, it was somewhere around 1983~ that I was told it was simply ‘blessed bread’, so I can accept that the Anglican understand of the Eucharist has improved since.
D
Dovekin
Guest
So you disagree with ARCIC on whether Anglicans and RC substantially agree on the Eucharist. And with the 1988 Lambeth Conference. And with the Vatican, who accepted the 1994 Clarifications as answering the objections in their response. And wih John Paul II and Abp George Carey in their affirmation of the agreements reached.
That is fine with me. It just means you are closer to Anglicans on Auhority than most Catholics claim. It doesn’t mean that Anglicans and RC do not agree on the Eucharist.
As i said earlier, the Bishops of Britain and Ireland published norms in 1997 One Bread, One Body, and commented:
I am not particularly happy with mixed marriages being compared to times of war or persecution, but that is how this particular canon has been interpreted. That does not seem to be what you envisage.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
First, that’s a “teaching document.” It is not one that has any force of law.As i said earlier, the Bishops of Britain and Ireland published norms in 1997 One Bread, One Body, and commented:
Dovekin:
I am not particularly happy with mixed marriages being compared to times of war or persecution, but that is how this particular canon has been interpreted. That does not seem to be what you envisage.
Secondly, I completely disagree with many of the conclusions.
There’s no way to reconcile their “norms” with what we find clearly in the Code of Canon Law and in the recent (and yes, binding) documents that have come from the Holy See, such as Ecclesia de Eucharistia and Redemptionis Sacramentum.
The norms go far beyond the types of situations allowed by the canon. For example, one requirement is the inability to approach a minister of ones own faith. This does not mean that said minister is simply absent from the room at that precise moment. Yet, that’s the standard they are applying when it comes to their “special occasions.” For example, at a Catholic wedding there might not be an Anglican minister present. Well, of course not. But there is likely to be one very close by. Just because he’s not in the same room, does not mean that the Anglican layperson has no access to him (which is what the canon requires).
I likewise disagree with the overall approach. The canon is intended to apply to serious situations. While serious situations can indeed go beyond the customary interpretation of times of war, persecution, disaster, etc. nevertheless the canon requires that the situation be at least something close to those dire situations. The standard they apply is, in reality, often the normal daily lives of people who just happen to be in mixed marriages or who just happen to attend a Catholic wedding or funeral.
As I said earlier, the canonical standard of “grave necessity” is the highest standard of all in canon law (one might argue that “danger of death” is either a higher standard or comes under the heading of "grave necessity). Although it need not be met, strictly speaking, the document goes entirely to the other extreme and applies a standard so weak that it could quite literally apply to any non-Catholic on any given day who just happens to find himself inside a Catholic church at Mass-time.
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
It has nothing to do with whether we disagree or not. Many would say that the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches “disagree” on matters such as original sin, purgatory and the filioque, yet we share the same faith. Both the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches recognize each others Apostolic Succession and expression of faith and therefore are in communion with one another. I would say the same with the Orthodox Churches in a sense. We share the same faith, we are just not in communion with one another at this moment in history. Hopefully that changes in our lifetime.
The Anglican Church is not part of the ancient Church. They left the ancient Church therefore It does not have a valid priesthood. As Catholics, we believe that the Orthodox and the Catholic Church are the ancient Church. We recognize the Orthodox Church as having Apostolic Succession, therefore, a valid priesthood and Sacraments.
In my experience, Catholic friends of mine would recognize the Orthodox and the Catholic Church as the same Church in some sense. Both believe to be the ancient Church and recognize the 7 Ecumenical Councils. I think most Catholics would acknowledge this. Most Catholics, ones I know anyway, would not say the same about the Anglican Church (although similar in Liturgy and other forms of expression of the faith).
ZP
The Anglican Church is not part of the ancient Church. They left the ancient Church therefore It does not have a valid priesthood. As Catholics, we believe that the Orthodox and the Catholic Church are the ancient Church. We recognize the Orthodox Church as having Apostolic Succession, therefore, a valid priesthood and Sacraments.
In my experience, Catholic friends of mine would recognize the Orthodox and the Catholic Church as the same Church in some sense. Both believe to be the ancient Church and recognize the 7 Ecumenical Councils. I think most Catholics would acknowledge this. Most Catholics, ones I know anyway, would not say the same about the Anglican Church (although similar in Liturgy and other forms of expression of the faith).
ZP
D
Dovekin
Guest
First, the Directory for the Application of the Principles for Ecumenism says:
“In other cases, it is strongly recommended that the diocesan Bishop, taking into account any norms which may have been established for this matter by the Episcopal Conference or by the Synods of Eastern Catholic Churches, establish general norms for judging situations of grave and pressing need … Catholic ministers will judge individual cases and administer these sacraments only in accord with these established norms, where they exist. Otherwise they will judge according to the norms of this Directory.”
Secondly, so what? You know better than the best canon lawyers and bishops of Britain?
A
Aulef
Guest
Are you saying that a priest whose ordination is null can validly baptize a person?
D
Dovekin
Guest
Yes, that is my point. Agreeing on the Eucharist is not determinative, there are other issues that prevent intercommunion with Anglicans and Lutherans.
I disagree with your history. There has been an archbishop in Canterbury continuously from the time when St Augustine was sent by Gregory I. They did not leave the historic Church. They made some changes to their traditions that led to separation from from other parts of the Church. Those changes may have been mistakes, but I do not think it means they “left the historic church.” Most of their traditions were not changed.
I disagree with your history. There has been an archbishop in Canterbury continuously from the time when St Augustine was sent by Gregory I. They did not leave the historic Church. They made some changes to their traditions that led to separation from from other parts of the Church. Those changes may have been mistakes, but I do not think it means they “left the historic church.” Most of their traditions were not changed.
D
Dovekin
Guest
Everyone says that.
A lay person can validly baptize,
Even a non Christian can baptize validly.
T
thistle
Guest
That is correct.
A
Aulef
Guest
I am thrilled to know that I, a lay man, can Baptize and give other Sacraments to people.
I didn’t know decisions of one of the Councils of Lateran were nullified.
Time to save souls, brothers!
I didn’t know decisions of one of the Councils of Lateran were nullified.
Time to save souls, brothers!
D
Dovekin
Guest
Canon law says:
Can. 861 §1 The ordinary minister of baptism is a Bishop, a priest or a deacon, without prejudice to the provision of can. 530, n. 1.
§2 If the ordinary minister is absent or impeded, a catechist or some other person deputed to this office by the local Ordinary, may lawfully confer baptism; indeed, in a case of necessity, any person who has the requisite intention may do so. Pastors of souls, especially parish priests, are to be diligent in ensuring that Christ’s faithful are taught the correct way to baptise.
Can. 862 Except in a case of necessity, it is unlawful for anyone without due permission to confer baptism outside his own territory, not even upon his own subjects.
————-
I haven’t been able to track down your reference to the Lateran Council. If you could be a little clearer about what canonsyou mean.
Can. 861 §1 The ordinary minister of baptism is a Bishop, a priest or a deacon, without prejudice to the provision of can. 530, n. 1.
§2 If the ordinary minister is absent or impeded, a catechist or some other person deputed to this office by the local Ordinary, may lawfully confer baptism; indeed, in a case of necessity, any person who has the requisite intention may do so. Pastors of souls, especially parish priests, are to be diligent in ensuring that Christ’s faithful are taught the correct way to baptise.
Can. 862 Except in a case of necessity, it is unlawful for anyone without due permission to confer baptism outside his own territory, not even upon his own subjects.
————-
I haven’t been able to track down your reference to the Lateran Council. If you could be a little clearer about what canonsyou mean.
I
Ioana
Guest
I thought you could only give Baptism as a lay person and also technically matrimony to your spouse right?
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
Thanks for the response. I am not that knowledgable with Anglican history.
ZP
ZP
F
FrDavid96
Guest
The response was not accurate. They did in fact leave the Church.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
The Directory on Ecumenism (the part you quoted) merely repeats what’s already in Canon Law and helps to explain it. Nothing new, and nothing that I haven’t already posted right here. In fact, if anything, it re-enforces what I’ve been saying. There must be a “grave and pressing need.” Absent such a grave and pressing need, it cannot be done.
As for your last comment, that’s the sort of thing a person says when he has nothing to say to support his own position.
D
Dovekin
Guest
If I remember correctly, you had said One Bread, One Body was a teaching document with no legal force. I was pointing out that Catholic ministers will only judge by the norms established by the Bishops. I quoted the Directory, but could as well have quoted Canon law to that effect apparently. We agree, the norms established by the bishops of Britain and Ireland have a binding force? Even though you disagree with them?
My last comment was a response to your statement that you disagreed with the British and Irish bishops that people in mixed marriages may have a grave and pressing need to share communion. This was in response to your claims that “grave and pressing need” must refer only to war, famine, pestilence, etc.
As you said, you disagree with the bishops. I have nothing to say to support my position. Bishops are the only ones who can determine what is a grave and pressing need. Why would I care that you disagree with bishops who have that authority? I do not ask this defiantly, but am truly interested in finding the “Caholic Answer.” The weight of evidence seems to me to be against your position.
Or perhaps I should just ask, if One Bread, One Body is a teaching document, what have you learned from it?
Last edited:
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
Thanks Father David. I thought that was the case.
ZP
ZP
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
you need to reread the thread title. why are high church Anglicans NOT ALLOWED to
receive communion in a Catholic Church?
the Anglicans are not in full communion with the Catholic Church. the Catholic Church wants those receiving the Eucharist to have a Catholic understanding and Catholic belief of the Mass and the Eucharist.
when i was Episcopalian, i thought we were almost the same as Catholic and then i became Catholic and the differences could not be overlooked. the Episcopal church is a liturgical church with Holy Communion, but it is still more Protestant.
receive communion in a Catholic Church?
the Anglicans are not in full communion with the Catholic Church. the Catholic Church wants those receiving the Eucharist to have a Catholic understanding and Catholic belief of the Mass and the Eucharist.
when i was Episcopalian, i thought we were almost the same as Catholic and then i became Catholic and the differences could not be overlooked. the Episcopal church is a liturgical church with Holy Communion, but it is still more Protestant.
- Status