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

[QContinuum]

Oh dang it!

 

[steido01]

Transubstantiation is not based on reason, it is based on the supernatural, creative and transformative order that God implements through His Word. However, God’s Word is not contrary to reason, He complements and supplements it.

Indeed, understood at its best, Transubstantiation merely reinforces the concept of the Real Presence in the Sacrament. Misunderstood at its worst, it becomes a sophomoric exercise in attempting to explain the Divine.

It was the Lutheran determination that, given the great importance of the Sacrament, it was more reverent to understand it as a mystery than to dare overstep plain Scripture and Christ’s own words with human reason. The Orthodox generally agree in that sense, and rightly refer to the Sacraments as ‘mysteries.’ Basically, they stick to St. John Chrysostom:

And now you ask how the bread becomes the body of Christ, and the wine and the water become the blood of Christ. I shall tell you. The Holy Spirit comes upon them, and achieves things which surpass every word and thought … Let it be enough for you to understand that this takes place by the Holy Spirit.

The concept of the Trinity uses Aristotelian elements, yet, I’m presuming you’re okay with that, yes?

Apples and rectangles. The Trinity is so very incomprehensible that any school of thought or metaphor used to describe it will fall short. Even the Athanasian Creed, which is perhaps the clearest, cannot do justice to the majesty of the Trinity.

And do the consecrated host and wine appear to all the physical senses and material studies as remaining what they were?

Why do you care? Does Christ say to observe, experiment and hypothesize, or to take and eat?

 

[Wesrock]

Because you’re insinuating too much Aristotlean baggage onto the word transubstantiation, which was used before Aristotlean metaphysics were ever popular. Terms like accidents and species have (or had) broader use beyond Aristotlean definitions, and doesn’t imply we’re accepting Aristotlean metaphysics as an explanation for all things.

You’ve professed belief that there is a change such that what was bread is no longer bread and is the body and blood of Christ even though it retains the appearance of bread and wine. Congrats, that’s the Catholic position of transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is that belief, not a rational exercise in metaphysics, even though that’s been done on transubstantiation by some Catholic theologians.

 

[Dovekin]

Most of the ARCIC material can be found at the Vatican website Fr provided earlier in the discussion. The Vatican unfortunately has the wrong letter from Cardinal Cassidy posted as his 1994 cover letter for the clarifications. It is available at ARCIC-II-328 ~ Cardinal Edward Cassidy, Letter of Cardinal Edward Idris Cassidy regarding the ARCIC Clarifications ~ IARCCUM.org
It is important because it states the request for more study in the official response no longer holds and that the agreements reflect “remarkable consensus” that throws “new light” on he discussion.

 

[AugustTherese]

Misunderstood at its worst, it becomes a sophomoric exercise in attempting to explain the Divine.

Kind of like when an Ecumenical Council attempted to use reason in “attempting to explain the Divine” with the Dogma of the Trinity…I mean, why do that? Were not Christ’s words in Scripture clear enough to take His word at it and simply accept what was said about the Trinity instead of implementing a “sophomoric exercise”?

It was the Lutheran determination that, given the great importance of the Sacrament, it was more reverent to understand it as a mystery than to dare overstep plain Scripture and Christ’s own words with human reason

I understand your perspective here and appreciate it. However, the problem that arises with the Sacrament of the Eucharist is that we confess that what you see with your physical eyes, in its substance, is really the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. We are not talking about the invisible Holy Spirit being poured out into your heart in the Mystery of Holy Baptism; there would be no reason to explain that Mystery in the same way as that of the physical Eucharist. It would be contradictory to publicly confess that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is the Body and Blood when you physically sense bread and wine, not to explain that you are sensing only the accidents of bread and wine while the substance is what we confess it to be. Why? Because the Body and Blood are not mere spiritual realities, they are physical and spiritual ones; and, when you publicly confess that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and an atheist inadvertently catches wind of these words, it will be illogical and unreasonable to him/her; not because he/she lacks faith, but because he sees the exact same accidents of a physical substance as you do. And, what is the substance of what we both see? Bread and wine? No, the Body and Blood are the substances under the sensory appearances (accidents) of bread and wine.

 

[FrDavid96]

I mentioned it because I was a high church Anglican Catholic allowed to receive Communion in the Roman Catholic Church. I was hoping to address the OP’s question in showing that I believe high church Anglicans can, indeed, receive Eucharist in a Catholic parish.

The individual priest might have allowed that, but he was acting contrary to the laws of the Catholic Church.

Just because a person does something, that doesn’t mean that what was done was legitimate.

 

[FrDavid96]

Is the consecrated host truly bread or the body and blood of Jesus?

If the consecration is attempted by a Lutheran, it is not the Eucharist. It’s not consecrated. It’s not the Body of Christ.

 

[AugustTherese]

Wesrock:

Is the consecrated host truly bread or the body and blood of Jesus?

If the consecration is attempted by a Lutheran, it is not the Eucharist. It’s not consecrated. It’s not the Body of Christ.

I’m pretty sure that was a rhetorical question.

 

[FrDavid96]

…

The Anglicans and Roman Catholics do not share the Eucharist not because of differences on the Eucharist but because they belong to different Churches. …

No. That’s not the case.

We do not engage in sharing in the Eucharist with Anglicans (communio in sacris) because Anglican “priests” are not validly ordained.

A Catholic can never simulate receiving Communion; which is what happens when one who is not-validly-ordained attempts the consecration.

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid96:

Wesrock:

Is the consecrated host truly bread or the body and blood of Jesus?

If the consecration is attempted by a Lutheran, it is not the Eucharist. It’s not consecrated. It’s not the Body of Christ.

I’m pretty sure that was a rhetorical question.

It doesn’t matter.

If it’s not a consecrated host, it should not be called “a consecrated host.”

 

[AugustTherese]

If it’s not a consecrated host, it should not be called “a consecrated host.”

Or, put quotation marks around the term as you did.

 

[Wesrock]

AugustTherese:

FrDavid96:

Wesrock:

Is the consecrated host truly bread or the body and blood of Jesus?

If the consecration is attempted by a Lutheran, it is not the Eucharist. It’s not consecrated. It’s not the Body of Christ.

I’m pretty sure that was a rhetorical question.

It doesn’t matter.

If it’s not a consecrated host, it should not be called “a consecrated host.”

Thank you, Father. I’ll be more careful with how I speak about it in the future. I only meant a consecrated host generally speaking when it truly occurs (which is during Catholic/Orthodox consecrations). I did not intend to mean a Lutheran practice specifically.

 

[AugustTherese]

I only meant to belief in what happens to a consecrated host generally speaking. I did not intend to mean a Lutheran practice specifically.

Yes, we know. You did no harm.

 

[steido01]

Because you’re insinuating too much Aristotlean baggage onto the word transubstantiation, which was used before Aristotlean metaphysics were ever popular.

Nah, just explaining the Lutheran reluctance to use such language. I’ve personally acknowledged in this thread that Transubstantiation can be a useful explanation in some circumstances, when rightly understood.

You’ve professed belief that there is a change such that what was bread is no longer bread and is the body and blood of Christ even though it retains the appearance of bread and wine.

Obviously we must speak of some sort of ‘change,’ else it would remain common bread and wine and not a means of Grace. But I don’t believe I’ve ever crossed the line into stating one way or another that the bread or wine would cease to exist. Neither, it seems, does Paul. (1 Cor. 11:27) Lutherans are content with the mystery.

Congrats, that’s the Catholic position of transubstantiation.

Well, something tells me neither the RCC nor the LCMS will be inviting one another to each other’s altars anytime soon.

Transubstantiation is that belief, not a rational exercise in metaphysics, even though that’s been done on transubstantiation by some Catholic theologians.

When best understood, yes. As I’ll happily admit. Again.

---

Kind of like when an Ecumenical Council attempted to use reason…

I understand you don’t care for me, but you can cut out the pithiness. Your selective quoting of me excised the olive branch I offered in the previous sentence. That’s unfortunate. So is the rudeness you continue to show even your own clergy.

 

[steido01]

Do I win a prize for this?

 

[AugustTherese]

I understand you don’t care for me, but you can cut out the pithiness. Your selective quoting of me excised the olive branch I offered in the previous sentence. That’s unfortunate. So is the rudeness you continue to show even your own clergy.

What ‘pithiness’?

Also, there are spiritual fathers in this world who do not do much spiritual fathering that goes ‘unnoticed’ and no one mentions anything; even so, I will always do my best to respect clergy as much as I can for the mere fact of Whom they represent by their Orders. However, I will not simply shut my mouth and say nothing when it comes to clergy, whomever that might be, acting uncharitable towards laity. Unfortunately, there are clergymen who do so!

And, since you brought it up, my account was temporarily suspended for “inciting animosity towards clergy”. However, CAF moderators have not explained specifically or given any evidence of such accusation. If any clergy even hints at anything uncharitable towards laity in their words, I will always call them out, especially on CAF; I will not contact the San Digeo Archbishop. If simply quoting clergy’s words on this forum and exposing any hint of abrasiveness or callousness is “inciting animosity towards clergy”, then so be it; even if my account gets permanently banned. It is the one beef I have with this site and I will not compromise my conscience because I fear a digital account being permanently banned. I will not sheepishly tolerate the double standard of clergy getting to say whatever they want and however they want simply because they are clergy while laity get crucified just for looking the wrong way at them! If anything, laity are to hold clergy as accountable as they can; Bishops cannot magically see and know everything.

 

[Dovekin]

The Lutheran Catholic Dialogue in the US quoted Cardinal Ratzinger on this issue in 2005:

“Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote in 1993 to Bavarian Lutheran bishop Johannes Hanselmann:

“I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord in a Lutheran Lord’s Supper.” [Briefwechsel von Landesbischof Johannes Hanselmann und Joseph Kardinal Ratzinger über das Communio-Schreiben der Römischen Glaubenskongregation, Una Sancta, 48 (1993): 348.]”

I think I will go with what Ratzinger said, rather than your interpretation, Fr. Unless you can explain how your emphasis on validity can be reconciled with the Cardinal’s remark? I am not an expert on this, but I don’t think you have grasped the significance of things like the ARCIC agreements and dialogue with Lutherans.

 

[Ioana]

I was talking about the fact that for some reason certain groups of Protestants have made a differentiation which was simply made for the sake of being different. Of course apparently life is a bit more complicated than that but it was not meant as a spite on Catholic teaching; to the contrary.

 

[FrDavid96]

The Lutheran Catholic Dialogue in the US quoted Cardinal Ratzinger on this issue in 2005:

“Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote in 1993 to Bavarian Lutheran bishop Johannes Hanselmann:

“I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord in a Lutheran Lord’s Supper.” [Briefwechsel von Landesbischof Johannes Hanselmann und Joseph Kardinal Ratzinger über das Communio-Schreiben der Römischen Glaubenskongregation, Una Sancta, 48 (1993): 348.]”

I think I will go with what Ratzinger said, rather than your interpretation, Fr. Unless you can explain how your emphasis on validity can be reconciled with the Cardinal’s remark? I am not an expert on this, but I don’t think you have grasped the significance of things like the ARCIC agreements and dialogue with Lutherans.

I certainly grasp the significance of both documents, what I do not do is to falsely inflate it, nor claim that it makes statements which it does not make.

I can explain it rather easily.

1. The future Pope Benedict spoke about the presence of the Lord being in the community. He does NOT (as some who attempt to put words into his mouth will falsely claim) say that their attempts to consecrate the Eucharist is valid. Any claim that he is saying that is putting words into his mouth which he never said. Had he intended to say that their consecrations were valid ones, he would have come right out and said it. He is know for being very clear and direct in his writing, indeed very detailed, not ambiguous. If he intended it, he would have said it. The fact that he did not say it is a clear enough indication that he did not intend to say it.
2. When he wrote “insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’” He was merely saying that the issue is much more complex than simply an “all or nothing” false dichotomy. In other words, even if the Eucharist is not validly consecrated (as in a Lutheran service), Christ is still present in some way with the community. The Holy Spirit is still at work. We cannot say that since Lutheran attempts to consecrate lack validity that a Sunday gathering of Lutherans remembering the Lord’s Supper is of no more value than a group of Hindus having a picnic in the park (to use an exaggerated extreme). We must affirm that such a gathering of Lutherans has true Christian value.

 

[steido01]

While we Lutherans would obviously disagree about the ‘validity’ of our own orders, Catholics should listen to Fr. David on what their church teaches and how to interpret Benedict XVI’s words.