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

[PickyPicky]

Henry wanted not a divorce but an annulment. And it is thought probable that he did not die as a result of promiscuity.

As to being a tyrant, so he was. He was, after all, a 16th Century king, and they were all tyrants. Certainly people were executed for treason, but that is not unique to Henry’s rule: people were executed in Britain for treason up to 1946. I believe there are parts of the world where people can be executed for serious crimes even to this day.

I like the theory about the wigs, but I am unconvinced by it.

 

[steido01]

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?

Certainly, brother. I pray your pardon for misunderstanding the tone of your comment about Luther. I perceived your post as one of the “gotcha” style anti-Lutheran polemics all too common to this forum. I should have put a better construction on your words; forgive me.

When quoting the LCMS, be sure to quote the rest of their statements, so as not to be unfairly selective and misrepresentative of actual Lutheran teaching:

The LCMS does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that any individual Pope as a person, is to be identified with the Antichrist. The historic view of LCMS on the Antichrist is summarized as follows by the Synod’s Theological Commission:
The New Testament predicts that the church throughout its history will witness many antichrists (Matt. 24:5,23-24; Mark 13:6,21-22; Luke 21:8; 1 John 2:18,22; 4:3; 2 John 7). All false teachers who teach contrary to Christ’s Word are opponents of Christ and, insofar as they do so, are anti-Christ.
However, the Scriptures also teach that there is one climactic “Anti-Christ” (Dan. 7:8,11, 20-21, 24-25; 11:36-45; 2 Thessalonians 2; 1 John 2:18; 4:3; Revelation 17-18). . . Concerning the historical identity of the Antichrist, we affirm the Lutheran Confessions’ identification of the Antichrist with the office of the papacy whose official claims continue to correspond to the Scriptural marks listed above. It is important, however, that we observe the distinction which the Lutheran Confessors made between the office of the pope (papacy) and the individual men who fill that office. The latter could be Christians themselves. We do not presume to judge any person’s heart. Also, we acknowledge the possibility that the historical form of the Antichrist could change. Of course, in that case another identified by these marks would rise.
In a footnote, the Commission adds:
To the extent that the papacy continues to claim as official dogma the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent which expressly anathematizes, for instance, the doctrine “that justifying faith is nothing else than trust in divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that trust alone by which we are justified,” the judgment of the Lutheran confessional writings that the papacy is the Antichrist holds. At the same time, of course, we must recognize the possibility, under God’s guidance, that contemporary discussions and statements (e.g., 1983 U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue statement on “Justification by Faith”) could lead to a revision of the Roman Catholic position regarding Tridentine dogma.

To the LCMS, Joel Osteen or Creflo Dollar might very well also be identified as ‘Antichrist.’ It is an academic and theological label -a serious charge, no doubt- but not so different than calling Lutherans material heretics or schismatics.

 

[steido01]

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.

Many, including the LCMS. There have been 12 Rounds of official dialogue since 1964. The LCMS has taken part in all but Round X.

The focus of the dialogue had been fruitful until the more liberal bodies abandoned their Lutheranism altogether to essentially become generic liberal mainline Protestants. Now the dialogues are shifting toward more confessional Lutheran bodies, like the LCMS.

 

[undead_rat]

A Priest at St. Antony’s by the Lake informed me that 1. If I accepted the Catholic theology of communion, and 2. If I was unable to receive the same at an Episcopal church, then I would be permitted to receive communion at his Catholic Church.

 

[FrDavid96]

Do you believe that this is what the bishops and theologians of ARCIC-I meant when they said they had reached “substantial agreement”?

“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.”

What I am attempting to do is to explain that you are reading into the document words which the document itself does not say.

Read it carefully. It says “we have reached substantial agreement on the doctrine of the eucharist.” It says “on the doctrine of the eucharist.” That means belief about the Eucharist.

Both Catholics and Anglicans agree (for example) that only a validly ordained priest can consecrate the Eucharist. Where we disagree is in defining (or identifying) who is a validly ordained priest.

It must also be noted that the ARCIC documents are NOT official statements made on behalf of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church does not entirely agree with everything in those documents.

As evidence of that, see this paragraph

Conclusion: The above observations are not intended in any way to diminish appreciation for the important work done by ARCIC I, but rather to illustrate areas within the matters dealt with by the Final Report about which further clarification or study is required before it can be said that the statements made in the Final Report correspond fully to Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist and on Ordained Ministry.

From here http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...uni_doc_1991_catholic-response-arcici_en.html (emphasis added)
Although there is no paragraph number, it’s at the very end of the document.

That response was issued by the Pontifical Commission for Promoting Christian Unity, but there is no signature line printed on the web version. So I don’t know who signed it, but it was a higher authority than the ARCIC commission itself.

The impression you are giving is that it means Anglicans and Catholics agree that Catholics celebrate the Eucharist and Anglicans celebrate a simulation.

I am saying that we disagree on the question of precisely who can consecrate the Eucharist, although we agree in the general sense that it must be “a priest.” The Catholic Church does not agree (and has never stated) that Anglican Eucharist is validly consecrated.

 

[thistle]

A Priest at St. Antony’s by the Lake informed me that 1. If I accepted the Catholic theology of communion, and 2. If I was unable to receive the same at an Episcopal church, then I would be permitted to receive communion at his Catholic Church.

That is an exception only in danger of death where the person could not reach his own pastor and that person must sincerely believe in transubstantiation.

 

[FrDavid96]

A Priest at St. Antony’s by the Lake informed me that 1. If I accepted the Catholic theology of communion, and 2. If I was unable to receive the same at an Episcopal church, then I would be permitted to receive communion at his Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church says otherwise.

There are several other requirements which must be met in order for that to happen. Those requirements cannot be dispensed—meaning that not even a bishop can give permission to disregard them.

 

[Dovekin]

My comments have been about whether Catholics and Anglicans believe the same thing about the Eucharist. I am glad you agree wih me on that, instead of continually reasserting things about validity.

The Vatican response to the ARCIC-I agreements, whose address you posted, was followed by Clarifications (from ARCIC-II) that addressed the concerns raised. Cardinal Cassidy’s letter asserts that “new light” was was shown, and no further study is necessary, directly responding to the sentence you highlighted. (The Vatican does not have this letter on its website, looks like a clerical error)

In 1996 the Pope and he Archbishop of Canterbury issued a joint statement saying “We affirm the signs of progress provided in the statements of ARCIC I on the Eucharist and on the understanding of ministry and ordination, which have received an authoritative response from both partners of the dialogue.“ This gives the statements a bit more authority than I think you are acknowledging.

This thread has spent a great deal of time discussing the difference between Anglicans and Roman Catholics in Doctrine on the Eucharist, trans/consubstantiation, etc. I think it appropriate to bring this agreement up, given that they were accepted at the highest levels as showing we agree on what we believe about the Eucharist.

Now you can raise the question of validity again if you want. Maybe you can even find someone who disagrees with you about it.

 

[twf]

The texts of the Roman Rite often refer to the Eucharist as a “mystery”. This is very much a Catholic concept.

 

[Vanez]

Hi there,

Yes, Eastern Orthodox are allowed to receive Eucharist at a Roman Catholic Church if there’s no EO Church around. But the Roman Catholics or other Christians (also OO) are not allowed to receive it at the EO Church. Not fair, isn’t it?

 

[Ioana]

There is no “There is no other EO church around” rule. The only condition is that they must be properly disposed.

 

[Vanez]

oh oke. I always got various answers from the Orthodox brothers and sisters. Depending on who I ask, there are also those who got mad when I told them I was at other church (non EO church). An Orthodox priest once told me that we may receive, but first talk to the priest (which I find obvious and it shows respect). I have never received Eucharist at RC Church, though. Not that I don’t believe, but because I respect.

PS: I’m actually considering RC. The calling is strong, but please pray for me.

 

[steido01]

All false teachers who teach contrary to Christ’s Word are opponents of Christ and, insofar as they do so, are anti-Christ.

I’m not sure why you think the above statement is “Blasphemy,” though that is an interesting word. I’ve not understoood it to refer to anything but profaning God himself, not his servants. I’m not sure how you mean it here.

If you mean to call the pope God, then perhaps you can understand why Lutherans would find such a doctrine antichrist.

Perhaps you’re simply using that word flippantly in the manner of “I’m offended!” ? If so, I’ve got nothing to offer you; your communion calls mine heretical under anathema.

And yet we acknowledge each other to be Christian by baptism. Let us start there and approach Truth in humility, rather than sporting outrage and demanding obescience.

 

[AugustTherese]

I’m not sure why you think the above statement is “Blasphemy,” though that is an interesting word. I’ve not understoood it to refer to anything but profaning God himself, not his servants. I’m not sure how you mean it here.

If you mean to call the pope God, then perhaps you can understand why Lutherans would find such a doctrine antichrist.

Perhaps you’re simply using that word flippantly in the manner of “I’m offended!” ? If so, I’ve got nothing to offer you; your communion calls mine heretical under anathema.

The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ’s Church, the saints, and sacred things.

Your denomination’s rhetoric does not offend me. What offends me for the sake of the ignorant, is the followers of this denomination who are not informed of these confessions.

 

[AugustTherese]

And yet we acknowledge each other to be Christian by baptism. Let us start there and approach Truth in humility, rather than sporting outrage and demanding obescience.

I like that! :hugs:

 

[FrDavid96]

My comments have been about whether Catholics and Anglicans believe the same thing about the Eucharist. I am glad you agree wih me on that,

No. I certainly do not agree with you. I do not agree because you think the issue of validity can be somehow discussed apart from the discussion about the Eucharist. That’s impossible.

I merely agree that the ARCIC agreements say that Catholics and Anglicans agree MOSTLY when it comes to the theology of the Eucharist. We absolutely disagree on the question of whether or not Anglican services actually have the Eucharist. That’s hardly insignificant.

Also, we only agree to the extent that the ARCIC representatives actually represent Anglicanism. We both know that there are many Anglicans out there who would disagree even with the Anglican points that were made.

instead of continually reasserting things about validity.
…
Now you can raise the question of validity again if you want. Maybe you can even find someone who disagrees with you about it.

First of all, the ARCIC dialogues do not have the authority you keep trying to give them. They are nothing more than statements saying that Catholics and Anglicans agree on certain points. They have no authority in the sense of affecting any practical changes in the status of one group in relation to the other. More direct to the point of the thread here: they have no practical effect (absolutely none whatsoever) with regard to the question of whether or not Anglicans can be admitted to Holy Communion at a Catholic Mass. That is because, for Catholics, this issue is addressed in Church law (first Canon Law, and then, as applicable, in special law).

And yes, I will indeed keep bringing up the issue of validity. It is essential. I cannot stress that enough. The question of validity is absolutely and completely indispensable. No Catholic can receive anything other-than a validly consecrated Eucharist (not legitimately, I mean).

Nor can we separate the question of validity out of the overall topic of the Eucharist. That’s the very definition of absurd.

We simply do not agree as you are trying to make the situation appear.

 

[Dovekin]

I have only said that, according to Catholic and Anglican bishops and theologians, the two groups “substantially agree on the doctrine of the Eucharist. This was reviewed by leaders of both communities, at the highest levels, who affirmed that we substantially agree.

This was addressed to the discussion here of transubstantiation & consubstantiation, etc. Our starting point is no longer “We believe this, and they believe that” but “we agree.” The High Church Anglican who does not have access to a minister of his own community can in some circumstances ask a Roman Catholic priest for sacraments. If we agree on the Eucharist, it is an easier situation than if we disagree. And if we agree, bishops and their conferences can approach the question of guidelines for these situations differently. (See the recent discussion by the German bishops about “mixed marriages”)

Then we come to the real difficulties. If we agree on he doctrine of the Eucharist, can we really hold that the Anglican Eucharist is a simulation, invalid, or whatever expression of disbelief? ARCIC discussed this mostly in the next document on Ministry, and I am willing to leave it there. There are contradictions and tensions that havent been resolved.

You apparently dont like that. I wish you well if you want to resolve the difficulties that bother you. Denying their existence doesnt do anything for anyone, but I am not the person to help you deal with them. You are too belligerent, accusing me of doing things I have not done and arguing against things I hsve not said.

 

[steido01]

The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ’s Church, the saints, and sacred things.

Even with your definition, surely you’d agree that “All false teachers who teach contrary to Christ’s Word are opponents of Christ and, insofar as they do so, are anti-Christ.” (I can’t seem to find your post accusing Lutherans of blasphemy, so I can only go from what I recall of your post). It would seem that you simply disagree with the Lutheran application (to the Office of the Papacy) of the diagnosis, not that such a diagnosis (antichrist) exists. Look, we already found common ground to work from.

What offends me for the sake of the ignorant, is the followers of this denomination who are not informed of these confessions.

Would that ignorance and poor catechesis were prevalent in only my own communion. Unfortunately, it plagues both our houses along with every other, without exception. Such is life.

You have insinuated before that you think the average Lutheran would leave Lutheranism if they knew better what Lutherans confess. I have not experienced that to be the case at any of the six Lutheran churches where I’ve been a member or worked. The Lutheran Confessions are studied by laymen in the vast majority of congregations, among the best-selling books from Lutheran publishers, and freely available online for all to read. Lutherans have invited discussion on their Confessions since the Reformation – indeed, begged to present them at a promised “open council” that never took place at Mantua. If anything, when Lutherans learn their Catechisms and Confessions, they become even more assured of their doctrinal stances. I suspect there’s a similar effect for Roman Catholics. How many Roman Catholics have actually read Unam Sanctam’s claims of Papal Supremacy (stated with a prior-to unheard-of explicitness and force) or Exsurge Domine’s contention that burning heretics is the will of the Spirit? Yet those who do are generally not dissuaded from their side of the Tiber.

I really suggest we focus on what we have in common instead. Set aside any personal bad experiences in the Lutheran church. You will become a better Catholic for doing so.

 

[poche]

The Anglicans do not have a valid apostolic succession while the Orthodox do.

 

[FrDavid96]

I have only said that, according to Catholic and Anglican bishops and theologians, the two groups “substantially agree on the doctrine of the Eucharist. This was reviewed by leaders of both communities, at the highest levels, who affirmed that we substantially agree.

This was addressed to the discussion here of transubstantiation & consubstantiation, etc. Our starting point is no longer “We believe this, and they believe that” but “we agree.” The High Church Anglican who does not have access to a minister of his own community can in some circumstances ask a Roman Catholic priest for sacraments. If we agree on the Eucharist, it is an easier situation than if we disagree. And if we agree, bishops and their conferences can approach the question of guidelines for these situations differently. (See the recent discussion by the German bishops about “mixed marriages”)

No.
From the Catholic perspective, bishops conferences are forbidden from approaching this differently. The standard is universal. All they are permitted to do is to define “grave necessity” (which is the highest standard in Catholic law, except for imminent danger of death). Such situations are war, famine, persecution, natural disaster. The individual bishop conferences are permitted to define situations equivalent to those, but not to apply a different (certainly not lower) standard.

Then we come to the real difficulties. If we agree on he doctrine of the Eucharist, can we really hold that the Anglican Eucharist is a simulation, invalid, or whatever expression of disbelief? ARCIC discussed this mostly in the next document on Ministry, and I am willing to leave it there. There are contradictions and tensions that havent been resolved.

You apparently dont like that. I wish you well if you want to resolve the difficulties that bother you. Denying their existence doesnt do anything for anyone, but I am not the person to help you deal with them. You are too belligerent, accusing me of doing things I have not done and arguing against things I hsve not said.

We agree for the most part on the doctrine of the Eucharist. At least that’s true to the extent that the Anglican representatives actually represent their fellow Anglicans. We all know that there’s a vast diversity within Anglicanism itself on this topic.

Where we disagree about the Eucharist is the question: who can consecrate the Eucharist? That is, most certainly, a matter of substance. While we agree that it must be “a priest” we differ completely in the concrete question of who actually IS a priest.

So, while we believe about the Eucharist, we completely disagree on whether or not the Anglican community actually HAS the Eucharist. Of course, the Catholic Church’s belief is that Anglican communities DO NOT have the Eucharist.

No one can simply dismiss that as unimportant or not of any real substance.