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.
No it’s your problem, I don’t have one, I’m too busy taking communion
 
Lads calm down. Let us not turn this into a Catholic vs Protestant thing. It takes way too long to explain the doctrine of the Real Presence and convince somebody of it and convince them that you can’t just conjure up the Eucharist in your home as being a random lad. We won’t convince this mate of ours to become Catholic by condensing complicated facts and doctrines in an overly simplistic and slightly propagandist explanation. If you have any questions feel free to PM me kistaok or I’m sure anybody here who has shown interest in addressing your points. *that being said everyone take a big deep collective breath
 
Last edited:
I absolutely do believe in the real presence, but with that being said I believe in my bible and what it says… I’m free to take communion whenever I like in remembrance of Christ, I’m not bound by the traditions of men.
 
Ok. That is what you believe. Do you want me to explain why I disagree?
 
Ok. Then why did you post? (btw I a asking none of this to attack you)
 
Last edited:
You asked, I answered. I don’t want anyone’s traditions of men, I’ll pass. Me and my God and KJV Bible is good enough.
 
Why did you post a comment in the first place is what I mean. It is clear to me that no matter how many terms that sound good either you or I use there would be no point in expressing these opinions unless you wanted to engage which to me it seems like you are. Your initial reply was “anyone can take real Communion” but my question was about Communion in a Catholic church and either way even if I would’ve left it at “communion” you would’ve known what I was implying. If you want to further discuss this you can PM because I don’t want to hijack the thread. It is an interesting topic and believe it or not there are very very very very good counter arguments to what seem to be your beliefs about the Eucharist and you probably vehemently disagree, which is not something I’m attacking you for. I’m just trying to coherently disagree.
 
Last edited:
I’m perfectly fine taking my communion, I don’t really care what anyone says, thinks, or does against that, I know what the Bible says I’ve read it many times front to back.
 
Sis why do you feel the need to post about it then? To convert us? To respond to some impulse? To feel good? To engage? To try and persuade us or to hope that it will turn out to be some working of the Holy Spirit in us that speaks through your post? This is to me an indication that on a psychological level you probably do actually want somebody to engage you, so I will 🙂

a) Why is your interpretation of the Bible correct?
b) Even assuming it is, can any random person conjure up the Eucharist with a loaf of bread and some wine or not? Can anybody do it in any context? If not what are the conditions to be able to do it?
c) What is Communion according to your interpretation?
 
1 Corinthians 11:29 (KJV, even) says otherwise

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
 
kristaok25m
I’m perfectly fine taking my communion, I don’t really care what anyone says, thinks, or does against that, I know what the Bible says I’ve read it many times front to back.

No offense…but your opinion of what the Bible says is just one of the countless millions of Protestants who think their interpretation of the Bible is correct also…the Catholic church was founded by Jesus Christ…and he gave to Peter the keys to the kingdom…the authority to bind and to loose on earth and in heaven…and the promise he would send the Holy Spirit to guide the church…he specifically gave Peter charge to “feed my sheep”…from being a “fisher of men”…he became their shepherd…so really your views on what the Bible teaches…or what the Catholic church teaches and believes means diddly squat to Catholics…we have the promise by Christ that the Holy Spirit is with…and is guiding his church…you…do not
 
Dovekin said:
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.
Click to expand...
I have addressed it repeatedly.

I have explained several times now, that you give the ‘agreement’ documents far more authority than they actually have.

Validity of the Eucharist is hardly a “marginally related issue.” That’s absurd. You’re like someone who claims that the Titanic is a perfectly seaworthy vessel, while the mere fact that it can’t float is “marginally related.”

And just as you quoted the Catholic bishops: “The conditions of Canon Law must always be fulfilled.”

Each and every condition must be fulfilled, and not one of those conditions can be dispensed"

Those conditions are this:
Canon 884 §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.
Click to expand...
  • Danger of death OR “other grave necessity” (attending a friend’s wedding is not a “grave necessity.”)
  • Cannot approach a minister of their own faith (finding an Anglican minister in England is rather easy)
  • Seek on their own accord (so general invitations are unacceptable)
  • Manifest Catholic faith in the sacraments (including a belief in the necessity of the ordained priest—ie “validity”)
  • Must be properly disposed (which can only be evaluated on an individual basis, not a collective one.
46…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. And the opposite is also true: Catholics may not receive communion in those communities which lack a valid sacrament of Orders.
Click to expand...
Ecclesia de Eucharistia
 
kristaok said:
I’m perfectly fine taking my communion, I don’t really care what anyone says, thinks, or does against that, I know what the Bible says I’ve read it many times front to back.
Click to expand...
You might have read it but you clearly don’t understand it!
 
I agree substantially with what you say here. I don’t understand why you think I do not.

I am not addressing the question of validity because it is not relevant to the discussion of “Anglicans believe in consubstantiation, rather than transubstantiation.” If you can show how it is relevant to that, I will discuss it.

I would even consider discussing if validity is the same as a belief in the need of an ordained priest if you start a thread about it.

Similarly, all I said about establishing norms is that bishops should consider our “substantial agreement”, that is, if a volcano erupts and devastates a region, Catholic churches there should allow Anglicans to worship with us more freely than they would allow anabaptists who do not believe in clergy. Not that that should be the norm, just giving an idea of the kind of discussion it might impact. Like validity, I am not going to discuss what a “grave and pressing need” is, beyond wondering if it is the same as “a grave necessity.”
 
Lads with all due respect to everybody here let’s not be polarizing and make it seem more like “us” vs “them”.
 
Dovekin said:
I agree substantially with what you say here. I don’t understand why you think I do not.

I am not addressing the question of validity because it is not relevant to the discussion of “Anglicans believe in consubstantiation, rather than transubstantiation.” If you can show how it is relevant to that, I will discuss it.
Click to expand...
The topic of the thread Is “Why are high Chuch Anglicans not allowed to receive Communion in a Catholic Church but the Eastern Orthodox are?”

An essential element in the answer to that question is the topic of validity. Validity as it applies to the Eucharist as well as it applies to the priest.
I would even consider discussing if validity is the same as a belief in the need of an ordained priest if you start a thread about it.
Click to expand...
Nothing to discuss. No validly ordained priest means no validly consecrated Eucharist. That’s a given.
Similarly, all I said about establishing norms is that bishops should consider our “substantial agreement”, that is, if a volcano erupts and devastates a region, Catholic churches there should allow Anglicans to worship with us more freely than they would allow anabaptists who do not believe in clergy.
Click to expand...
That’s not how it works from the Catholic perspective. Either a community is a Church with valid clergy OR it is an ecclesial community lacking Apostolic Succession.

Ones belief in the Eucharist (for purposes of applying canon 844–and I’m limiting myself to that context since that’s the topic here) is evaluated on an individual basis. The individual person must believe in the totality of Catholic theology of the Eucharist.

We cannot (Rome has made that very clear) simply assume that anyone who identifies as Anglican is presumed to share Catholic belief about the Eucharist. That’s quite obvious as evidenced by the diversity within Anglicanism. As I keep saying, the members of the joint commission only represent some of Anglicanism, they do not represent all of Anglicanism.

Now, I will grant you that it’s more likely that someone who identifies as “high church” Anglican is more likely to share (most of) Catholic belief in Eucharist. Of course. That still doesn’t change the obligation of Catholic clergy to evaluate every individual person before applying canon 844. You’re looking for some way around this, and no such way exists. While it might be easier and faster to apply the standard, the standard itself remains unchanged (and since nothing here can be dispensed, also unchangeable).
Not that that should be the norm, just giving an idea of the kind of discussion it might impact. Like validity, I am not going to discuss what a “grave and pressing need” is, beyond wondering if it is the same as “a grave necessity.”
Click to expand...
Grave necessity is the standard. It does not change. It cannot be dispensed. The conference of bishops can define and apply it. They cannot change the standard.

Now, do “grave need” and “grave necessity” mean essentially the same thing? I would say yes. We are, after all, translating the Latin.
 
Last edited:
Dovekin said:
We do not share in Communion because of other issues, not because we have different teaching on the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
You’re mistaken, I’m afraid. We do differ in teaching on the Eucharist… at least, within some Anglican communities… in particular, the Church of England. I’ve been assured personally by a vicar of a C of E church that the communion bread is symbolic and is celebrated in remembrance only, so the Anglican communities do not have a universal understanding.

Edit: just so you know, this church considered itself ‘high church’ also.
 
Last edited:
The 1988 Lambeth Conference, an instrument of communion within the Anglican Communion, stated in Resolution 8:
“The provinces gave a clear “yes” to the Statement on “Eucharistic Doctrine.”

Comments have been made that the style and the language used in the Statement are inappropriate for certain cultures. Some provinces asked for clarification about the meaning of anamnesis and bread and wine “becoming” the body and blood of Christ. But no province rejected the Statement and many were extremely positive.

While we recognise that there are hurts to be healed and doubts to be overcome, we encourage Anglicans to look forward with the new hope which the Holy Spirit is giving to the Church as we move away from past mistrust, division and polarisation.

While we respect continuing anxieties of some Anglicans in the areas of “sacrifice” and “presence”, they do not appear to reflect the common mind of the provincial responses, in which it was generally felt that the Elucidation of “Eucharistic Doctrine” was a helpful clarification and reassurance. Both are areas of “mystery” which ultimately defy definition.

But the Agreed Statement on the Eucharist sufficiently expresses Anglican understanding.”
———-

That some Anglicans do not accept the ARCIC agreements is unquestioned. It is one of the issues raised in later statements, like the one on Authority. But the Lambeth Conferences of 1988 and 1998 both affirmed that the ARCIC agreement on the Eucharist “expresses Anglican understanding.” If someone disagrees, they are not expressing the consensus opinion of the bishops of the Anglican Communion.
 
Dovekin said:
The 1988 Lambeth Conference, an instrument of communion within the Anglican Communion, stated in Resolution 8:
“The provinces gave a clear “yes” to the Statement on “Eucharistic Doctrine.”

Comments have been made that the style and the language used in the Statement are inappropriate for certain cultures. Some provinces asked for clarification about the meaning of anamnesis and bread and wine “becoming” the body and blood of Christ. But no province rejected the Statement and many were extremely positive.

While we recognise that there are hurts to be healed and doubts to be overcome, we encourage Anglicans to look forward with the new hope which the Holy Spirit is giving to the Church as we move away from past mistrust, division and polarisation.

While we respect continuing anxieties of some Anglicans in the areas of “sacrifice” and “presence”, they do not appear to reflect the common mind of the provincial responses, in which it was generally felt that the Elucidation of “Eucharistic Doctrine” was a helpful clarification and reassurance. Both are areas of “mystery” which ultimately defy definition.

But the Agreed Statement on the Eucharist sufficiently expresses Anglican understanding.”
———-

That some Anglicans do not accept the ARCIC agreements is unquestioned. It is one of the issues raised in later statements, like the one on Authority. But the Lambeth Conferences of 1988 and 1998 both affirmed that the ARCIC agreement on the Eucharist “expresses Anglican understanding.” If someone disagrees, they are not expressing the consensus opinion of the bishops of the Anglican Communion.
Click to expand...
Which, if it proves anything at all, merely shows that Anglicans are willing to engage in inter-communion (ie across provinces and otherwise geographically) with EACH OTHER.

It still does not change the answer to the question which was posed as the topic of this thread.

Catholics cannot engage in inter-communion (ie sharing in a Eucharistic celebration) with Anglicans.

Only under certain very limited circumstances (which depends on the individual person, not the community) can Catholic ministers legitimately administer Holy Communion to non-Catholics.
 
FrDavid96 said:
The topic of the thread Is “Why are high Chuch Anglicans not allowed to receive Communion in a Catholic Church but the Eastern Orthodox are?”

An essential element in the answer to that question is the topic of validity. Validity as it applies to the Eucharist as well as it applies to the priest.
Click to expand...
The really odd thing is that that is my point. “The high Church Anglican” is not allowed to receive Communion because they do not have a valid ministry, not because their teaching on the Eucharist is different from ours.

I cannot make head nor tails of the rest of your note. What norms can bishops decide? Why should they consult other, noncatholic groups (844 §5)? I am not talking about what is or is not a grave need, but you seem to exclude choice/ decisions for the bishops in setting the norms they are clearly allowed to set.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top