Why are high Chuch Anglicans not allowed to receive Communion in a Catholic Church but the Eastern Orthodox are?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ioana
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Ioana

Guest
Just wondering about this. I’ve heard some Anglicans do believe in the Real Presence.
 
Because they disagree with more than the Eastern Orthodox do

It takes more than the belief in the real presence. You have to have valid priests. Apostolic succession. Anglicans don’t have that. So they can believe in the real presence but they don’t have real priests to bring about transubstantiation. Eastern Orthodox have valid holy orders.
 
Last edited:
Fair enough. As an Orthodox I ain’t complaining about the rule at all 🙂
 
Eastern Orthodox believe in transubstantiation while Anglicans believe in Consubstantiation.
 
EO are closer to full communion than the Church of England
 
Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ⇒ can. 861, §2.

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

§5. For the cases mentioned in §§2, 3, and 4, the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops is not to issue general norms except after consultation at least with the local competent authority of the interested non-Catholic Church or community.
 
Last edited:
1ke said:
Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ⇒ can. 861, §2.

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

§5. For the cases mentioned in §§2, 3, and 4, the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops is not to issue general norms except after consultation at least with the local competent authority of the interested non-Catholic Church or community.
Click to expand...
Also, we must add to that #46 of Ecclesia de Eucharistia
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.
Click to expand...
It is not enough that the potential recipient believe in “most” of the Church’s truths about the Eucharist, but must believe all of them, including the necessity of a validly ordained priest to consecrate.

So believing in the Real Presence is just one requirement among many.
 
I’ll take a stab - someone correct me if I’m wrong.

Transubstantiation states the wine and host become the actual body and blood of Christ.

Consubstantiation states the presence of the Lord is in or “beside” the wine and host.
 
Transubstantiation: bread and wine become Body and Blood of Christ

Consubstantiation: bread and wine coexist with Body and Blood of Christ
 
UpUpAndAway said:
Transubstantiation: bread and wine become Body and Blood of Christ

Consubstantiation: bread and wine coexist with Body and Blood of Christ
Click to expand...
Honestly, these two beliefs do not seem to me to be insurmountably irreconcilable. As Catholics, we believe that the Eucharist remains “bread and wine” in “accident” or “appearance” - so in a way, the bread and wine DO co-exist with the body and blood of Christ, at least physically speaking. Metaphysically and “really” the bread and wine cease to exist - but my point is physically they do still exist. I believe it would be possible to reconcile transubstantiation with consubstantiation and synthesize them in a way acceptable to both Catholics and Anglicans.

I think if Anglican and Catholic theologians got together and hammered out this issue, we could probably come to a common declaration of faith regarding the Eucharist.

@FrDavid96 Does a declaration like this exist already?
 
Last edited:
Cecilia_Dympna said:
So why didn’t the Anglicans go with that?
Click to expand...
Because they didn’t come out of the general reformation on the Continent as sects started by individuals. They were an entire particular Church within the Catholic Church that broke away.

Many people consider Anglicanism to be distinct from both Protestantism and Catholicism. In Anglicans own words, they are both “Catholic and Reformed.”
 
Last edited:
Spyridon said:
I think if Anglican and Catholic theologians got together and hammered out this issue, we could probably come to a common declaration of faith regarding the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
I don’t think a broad declaration that could accommodate differing beliefs concerning the Eucharist would be helpful. That would be to relativise doctrine. It would be a fudge.
 
EO do not believe in transubstantiation or consubstantiation. In EO circles the Catholic idea is rejected and the concept is that the Eucharist comes about by a simple mystery unknown to us. EO ideas are not incompatible with Catholicism but they are not the same.

So; say an EO member who is in the process of becoming Catholic receives in one Catholic parish where the priest knows who they are and what their situation is and then goes to a different parish for travel reasons and receives there without anybody knowing that they’re technically still Orthodox. Would that be “against the rules” so to say because I’ve heard conflicting things.
 
Brendan_64 said:
don’t think a broad declaration that could accommodate differing beliefs concerning the Eucharist would be helpful.
Click to expand...
That’s not what a common declaration is.

A common declaration is an agreed upon doctrinal summary which two sides agree upon.
 
It makes me want to pick up a Quantum Physics textbook too at times. As I understand it

transubstantiation- the accidents remain those of bread and wine but the essence turns to that of the blood and body of Christ
consubstantiation- the accidents remain the same but the substance turns to both that of the body and blood of Christ but also remains the substance of bread and wine.

It’s a slight difference that in my opinion has no point and only seems to exist for the sake of being different (no offense). I’m not 100% sure all Anglicans believe in it, but it is a concept mostly for Lutherans (from what I have heard).
 
Transubstantiation is the substance changing. So with the Eucharist, the bread literally becomes the flesh of Christ (though in bread form). Consubstantiation means with substance – in this case, Christ is with the bread, but not necessary the bread becoming the flesh of Christ.
 
I’ve been told directly by both a parishioner and the minister at a Church of England church that the wafer does not become the body and blood of Christ but that it is merely a symbolic act in remembrance only. The people at this church considered themselves as ‘high church’, so I know for a fact that all Anglican churches don’t necessarily believe even in consubstiation, let alone transubstantiation. I fully acknowledge that many do, however, so I don’t mean to upset or anger anyone. I just mean that it’s not a universal Anglican belief.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top