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.
steido01 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’m cool with that! Also, I had many great experiences as a Lutheran having had the blessing to know many pious and humble Lutherans. Many of whom I have no doubt to see in Heaven if I make it there.
 
FrDavid96 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.
Click to expand...
As long as this is addressed to the people who say “Catholics teach this, Anglicans teach that.” I am fine with this. (I have never met anyone who claims to believe in consubstantiation, Anglican or Lutheran). That was my point originally, that our differences are not about teaching on the Eucharist. We do not share in Communion because of other issues, not because we have different teaching on the Eucharist.
 
FrDavid96 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The norm issued by the bishops of Britain and Ireland in 1997:

“Admission to Holy Communion and to the sacraments of Reconciliation and Anointing of the Sick may be given to baptised Christians of other faith communities if there is a danger of death, or if there is some other grave and pressing need. This may at times include those who ask to receive them on a unique occasion for joy or for sorrow in the life of a family or an individual. It is for the diocesan bishop or his delegate to judge the gravity of the need and the exceptional nature of the situation. The conditions of Canon Law must always be fulfilled. The exceptional nature and purpose of the permission should be made clear, and appropriate preparation should be made for the reception of the sacrament.”

Commentary on the norm says
“What, then, would be examples of such ‘grave and pressing need’? The 1967 Ecumenical Directory highlights people suffering persecution or in prison, but also mentions ‘other cases of such urgent necessity’. A later document made clear that such cases are not limited to situations of suffering and danger.”
“The Directory also envisages that a grave and pressing need may be experienced in some mixed marriages…”

These address the issue you raised. All I said is that bishops should take into consideration the “substantial agreement” when issuing norms, no matter how they define “grave and pressing need.” You did not address that at all, prefering to offer a controversial opinion on a marginally related issue.
 
I didn’t read all the posts.

I think anglicans can’t receive because they are not Baptized accordingly.

The Bizantines are, on the other hand. Thus, in theory, they can receive Communion, In theory…
 
Their baptism is fine and valid. It has to do with the many other doctrinal differences and the still significant barriers to communion between the RCC and Anglicans.
 
Last edited:
Wesrock said:
Their baptism is fine and valid. It has to do with the many other doctrinal differences and the still significant barriers to communion between the RCC and Anglicans.
Click to expand...
No, they are not.

Says Pope Leo XIII in his Bull called Apostolicae Curae.

https://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-x...cae-apostolicae-curae-13-septembris-1896.html

By the way, this is probably why Anglicans were being co-consecrated by Orthodox Bishops in the early 20th century. No valid Sacrament, no game…
 
Their baptism is fine and valid, as are the baptisms of most other protestant and so-called reformed groups. Their ordination is not valid.
 
Baptisms are valid if they follow the injunction in Matthew 28:

Baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Some Eastern Orthodox , since they include chrismation and Eucharist wth Baptism, made not adhere to that ancient rule. But most modern Christians acknowledge each others’ baptisms.
 
Aulef said:
Because…?
Click to expand...
“For a sacrament to be valid, three things have to be present: the correct form, the correct matter, and the correct intention. With baptism, the correct intention is to do what the Church does, the correct matter is water, and the correct form is the baptizing “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19).”
 
He said do this in remembrance of Him, I don’t recall Him saying that communion was just for the Catholics, the pope, Peter, etc etc… It’s for ALL believers.
 
kristaok said:
He said do this in remembrance of Him, I don’t recall Him saying that communion was just for the Catholics, the pope, Peter, etc etc… It’s for ALL believers.
Click to expand...
Jesus established the Catholic Church, not any other Church, and gave it authority in matters of faith morals. The New testament was written by the first Catholics. The Bible was compiled by the Catholic Church.
Jesus did not institute the Eucharist at the Last Supper by saying to do this in remembrance of me as a symbol of my body and blood. He told us clearly it really was his actual flesh and blood. His Real Presence is only there in the Eucharist at Mass in the Catholic Church. Protestants do it simply as a symbol which contradicts what Jesus said.
 
kristaok said:
Hogwash, pure Bologna.
Click to expand...
Which of my comments? Here is an easy one. Martin Luther and others founded Protestantism in the early 1500’s. The only Church before that was the Catholic Church and approximately 1200 years before Luther came along the Catholic Church decided what books would be together as the Bible. The Bible as we know it today has existed since the early to mid 4th century.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top