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

[Dovekin]

Ok Thanks

I still think the agreements on the Eucharist should preclude statements like a Catholic participating in a Lutheran or Anglican communion is a “simulation of receiving Communion.” There are other reasons it should not be done, but not because their rituals are in any way a “simulation.”

 

[neophyte]

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.

I didn’t at all mean to give the impression that I thought you were being spiteful. I had merely taken your comment to indicate that you thought that the difference between transubstantiation and consubstantiation is insignificant. I apologize.

 

[blackforest]

That’s quite a run-on sentence, lol! I’m not sure what your question is. Perhaps this primer on the Anglican Catholic Church would help?

 

[blackforest]

This reply is analogous to my receiving two different diagnoses from two different doctors. I will connect with my current parish priest and ask.

 

[YoungApologist3]

Not a run-on sentence. Just a sentence with a lot of commas, and a lack of dashes and parentheses.

 

[blackforest]

True dat.

 

[YoungApologist3]

I added dashes to that post. It should make more sense now. If not, how about phrasing it like this?

Ah, so you are not referring to the “Anglican Use” parishes* that are scattered about, but rather are referring to a denomination distinct from Catholicism?

*which used to be Episcopalian or Anglican, but the entire parish converted to Catholicism (but have been granted permission to use doctrinally corrected Anglican Mass rubrics)

 

[blackforest]

From my most recently posted link:

Are you really Catholic?

Yes. While the Church of England (from which the ACC springs) did participate in the 16th century Reformation, in all matters essential, it never abandoned its catholic roots. In like fashion, the ACC accepts as “catholic” what is known as the Consensus Patrum et Ecclesiae (the consensus of the Fathers and the Church). Or to borrow a famous phrase from St. Vincent of Lérins (c.434), we hold the Catholic Faith to be that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. The essentials of this faith are outlined in the Affirmation of St Louis (1977), the founding document of the Anglican Catholic Church.

For a more in-depth treatment of this subject, see The Catholicity of Anglican Reform in the Apologetics section of this website.

 

[thistle]

I still think the agreements on the Eucharist should preclude statements like a Catholic participating in a Lutheran or Anglican communion is a “simulation of receiving Communion.” There are other reasons it should not be done, but not because their rituals are in any way a “simulation.”

It’s a simulation if there is no belief in transubstantiation.

 

[YoungApologist3]

Are they in communion with Rome? That’s what I’m trying to figure out.

 

[blackforest]

That’s the very next question on the FAQ page.

Are you under the Pope?

No. While the ACC is a Catholic Church, it is not under the jurisdiction of Rome. While Anglican Catholics acknowledge the Pope as the Bishop of Rome, and can even afford him such titles as the Patriarch of the West, we do not believe that he has universal jurisdiction (authority over and above that of a bishop in his diocese) or extraordinary magisterium (the power to teach infallibly without the support of an Ecumenical Council). That said, Anglican Catholics are be open to the idea of a reinterpreted papacy, which corrects excessive claims and ties the magisterium more firmly to the limiting authority of the Tradition and the whole Church. Under these terms, we share with John Paul II, an interest that “all might be one” (Jn. 17:21).

Sorry to take the lazy way out. They just explain better than I ever could.

 

[steido01]

While Anglican Catholics acknowledge the Pope as the Bishop of Rome, and can even afford him such titles as the Patriarch of the West, we do not believe that he has universal jurisdiction (authority over and above that of a bishop in his diocese) or extraordinary magisterium (the power to teach infallibly without the support of an Ecumenical Council). That said, Anglican Catholics are be open to the idea of a reinterpreted papacy, which corrects excessive claims and ties the magisterium more firmly to the limiting authority of the Tradition and the whole Church. Under these terms, we share with John Paul II, an interest that “all might be one” (Jn. 17:21).

Fascinating. That could’ve been written by a Lutheran.

 

[blackforest]

Given Luther’s belief that the Pope was the anti-Christ, I wouldn’t call them all that similar . . .

 

[FrDavid96]

Ok Thanks

I still think the agreements on the Eucharist should preclude statements like a Catholic participating in a Lutheran or Anglican communion is a “simulation of receiving Communion.” There are other reasons it should not be done, but not because their rituals are in any way a “simulation.”

If the bread and wine are not consecrated by a validly ordained priest, then there is no Communion (no Eucharist, no Body of Christ, etc. etc. whatever other synonyms we might choose to use).

It either “is” the Eucharist or “is not.” There is no third option.

 

[FrDavid96]

From my most recently posted link:

Are you really Catholic?

Yes. While the Church of England (from which the ACC springs) did participate in the 16th century Reformation, in all matters essential, it never abandoned its catholic roots. In like fashion, the ACC accepts as “catholic” what is known as the Consensus Patrum et Ecclesiae (the consensus of the Fathers and the Church). Or to borrow a famous phrase from St. Vincent of Lérins (c.434), we hold the Catholic Faith to be that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. The essentials of this faith are outlined in the Affirmation of St Louis (1977), the founding document of the Anglican Catholic Church.

For a more in-depth treatment of this subject, see The Catholicity of Anglican Reform in the Apologetics section of this website.

It only proves that they claim to be Catholic. It doesn’t make them in-reality Catholic.

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, they’re not Catholic.

 

[FrDavid96]

Are they in communion with Rome? That’s what I’m trying to figure out.

No. They are not; not the self-named “Anglican Catholic Church” (ACC in this thread).

Keep in mind though, that the Anglican-use Catholic parishes (under the jurisdiction of the local Latin rite bishops) and the Anglican heritage Ordinariates, are in every way Catholic and in full and complete Communion with the Pope and the entire Church.

 

[steido01]

Consider reading:

1. Luther’s sermons on John, where he acknowledges the true church to “also exist under the Papacy.”
2. The Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, which explains the Lutheran understanding of “Antichrist” (not some ‘Left Behind’ nonsense) and their reasons for applying this term to the Papacy.
3. The note Philip Melanchthon wrote at the bottom of the Treatise (which he wrote), which outlined the circumstances by which Lutherans could willingly return to the Pope’s authority.
4. Round V of the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogues, where both Catholics and Lutherans acknowledge that the accusation of “Antichrist” was not uncommon and that even Catholic Saints had hurled it at popes in the past.

 

[blackforest]

While you appear decidedly erudite and knowledgeable on this topic, and I’m certainly open to learning more, the mocking,rolling eyes are unwarranted and rather mean-spirited. Where we’re all Christians discussing Christianity, would you mind removing them in the interests of maintaining civil dialogue?

I received my information from the LCMS (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod).

As to the Antichrist we teach that the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 John 2:18, have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his dominion.

I applaud the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogues for what they’ve accomplished. Which branches of Lutherans were involved? I’m familiar only with ELCA involvement; they’ve done a lot of work with our parish.

 

[Dovekin]

If the bread and wine are not consecrated by a validly ordained priest, then there is no Communion (no Eucharist, no Body of Christ, etc. etc. whatever other synonyms we might choose to use).

It either “is” the Eucharist or “is not.” There is no third option.

Do you believe that this is what the bishops and theologians of ARCIC-I meant when they said they had reached “substantial agreement”? The impression you are giving is that it means Anglicans and Catholics agree that Catholics celebrate the Eucharist and Anglicans celebrate a simulation.

“We believe that we have reached substantial agreement on the doctrine of the eucharist. Although we are all conditioned by the traditional ways in which we have expressed and practised our eucharistic faith, we are convinced that if there are any remaining points of disagreement they can be resolved on the principles here established.”

 

[BoyGenius]

After Henry VIII broke the CoE from the Catholic Church, many in Britain developed severe anti-Catholic hatred.

King Henry VIII did something far worse and more deadly than the Eastern Orthodox. Namely, he put people to death who did not submit to him, that he was head of the church, by an act of parliament, and the law. He did it for power and vanity. He went through enumerable wives and relationships through the parliamentary process to declaring him head of the Church, in order to divorce and disband the King’s Coronation oath. Which thus also put at front against the Magna Carta. He was, in other words, a tyrant.

But so are every sinner who falls into sin and justifies it. I am included. But, when we fall, the best thing is to get up, go to Christ in His Church, and seek reconciliation as the Prodigal Son sought his father out. Which, sadly, King Henry VIII, nor Judas Iscariot seek out. Both ended in a terrible death. One from sexual sins. The other from despair.

The rupture by the Anglican church, sadly, put a precedent in English history. But, one thing noble did stand. Queen Victoria. Not a perfect queen (as if there were in the history of the world, a perfect queen in human terms.) But, nonetheless, she brought the dignity and respect to woman back into the realm. Wherefore King Henry’s legacy did not. She was quite reasonably a rebellious queen to his legacy. My view of Queen Victoria is that she showed the sign of reconciliation, humility, and recovery of the English soul. It was in the Victorian age, the Oxford movement and John Henry Newman. It was the progeny that led to Hllaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterton. And of course Charles Dickens.

The best of England, I believe, came out of the Victorian era. Women were more celebrated and dignified. Certainly could had been afforded more rights. But, nonetheless, as men wore wigs in both Parliament and Magistration. For men wore those wigs to symbolize how often women who are outside of the affairs of men (i.e. not being caught up and involved in their brutish exercises) often have a far better judgement and opinion than men have. For it is because women had stayed out of politics, they did not sell their souls to the devil as men were oft to do. Thus, why they wore wigs celebrating that women served better a judgement than men have.