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.
Dovekin said:
If I remember correctly, you had said One Bread, One Body was a teaching document with no legal force. I was pointing out that Catholic ministers will only judge by the norms established by the Bishops. I quoted the Directory, but could as well have quoted Canon law to that effect apparently. We agree, the norms established by the bishops of Britain and Ireland have a binding force? Even though you disagree with them?
Click to expand...
You don’t seem to understand. The word “norms” means laws.

A teaching document (which has no force of law) cannot and does not establish any norms.
 
Dovekin said:
My last comment was a response to your statement that you disagreed with the British and Irish bishops that people in mixed marriages may have a grave and pressing need to share communion. This was in response to your claims that “grave and pressing need” must refer only to war, famine, pestilence, etc.
Click to expand...
I will disagree with anything when it is wrong.

Your constant attempts to make a veiled accusation against me that somehow I am wrong because I disagree with someone who holds a higher ecclesiastical office is a petty and fallacious method of argument. I do not disagree with people, I disagree with what is said by those people; regardless of their status in comparison to my own.

The notion that being in a mixed marriage causes a “grave and pressing need” to receive Communion as intended in canon 844 is non-sensical. It’s quite literally absurd. As I’ve said before, the customary understanding of “grave necessity” is war, persecution, famine, natural disaster. These are not things people choose to bring upon themselves. Any claim (yes any one) that says that a mixed marriage is a similar situation as intended by canon 844.4 defies common sense.

In addition, canon 844.4 requires several conditions. ALL OF THEM must be met. Not just one, not just most of them. All of these conditions must be met.

The fact that an Anglican person chooses to attend a Catholic Mass with a spouse does not meet the conditions of the canon.

No bishops conference has the authority to disregard the conditions required in canon 844.4

As St John Paul II said, these conditions cannot be dispensed. That means that not even a bishop or even a conference of bishops can disregard these conditions, nor give anyone else permission to disregard them. See Ecclesia de eucharistia #46
 
Last edited:
When you consider as a Catholic, we are not able to approach communion when we are in a state of mortal sin, and Anglicans can partake one and all, this should come as no surprise to anyone.

The EO, like us, must go to confession before partaking of the Holy Meal.
 
My apologies. I meant no veiled accusation like that. It is not a question of authority, but of logical contradiction.

You have repeatedly said things like:
FrDavid96 said:
The notion that being in a mixed marriage causes a “grave and pressing need” to receive Communion as intended in canon 844 is non-sensical. It’s quite literally absurd.
Click to expand...
Furthermore, you have said canon law precludes incorporating that “absurdity” into canonical norms.

Apparently, the bishops of Britain and Ireland disagree with you, since they have incorporated that very idea into their norms. That is the disagreement I am asking about. I do not care if the norm is absurd, I am inclined toward that position myself. But if, as you say, it cannot be included in anyone’s norms, why can the norms for Britain and Ireland be what they are?

I have not discussed the other conditions because they are not controversial. We all agree they must be met, you, me, the bishops of Britain and Ireland, everybody.

My other post has a photo of the coverpage of One Bread, One Body with its subtitle “A teaching document… and the establishment of general norms…” This is an effort of at least three conferences, if I am not mistaken, which is unusual and probably why they issued both the teaching document and the legal one together? Idk
 
Dovekin said:
My apologies. I meant no veiled accusation like that. It is not a question of authority, but of logical contradiction.

You have repeatedly said things like:
40.png
FrDavid96:
The notion that being in a mixed marriage causes a “grave and pressing need” to receive Communion as intended in canon 844 is non-sensical. It’s quite literally absurd.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
There is no “logical contradiction” in what I’ve been saying.

Being in a mixed marriage (let’s say Catholic husband, Anglican wife, just as an example) in contemporary U.K. is in no way whatsoever an equivalent or anything approaching a similar situation as being in a war zone, or being in a country where Christians are persecuted, or being in a situation of natural disaster.

You call that a “logical contradiction”??? When I say the above.

So you apparently think that logic demands that the Anglican husband who attends a Catholic Mass with his wife on Sunday morning in London is in the same dire need to worship as a Christian as someone living in Iraq who can be killed just for being a Christian? Do you think these two situations are even remotely similar?

I was not aware that Anglicans who attempt to attend Anglican services in the U.K. today are in danger of being be-headed by the government. Maybe you know otherwise.
 
If you read what I wrote, you would know that I am not advocating any position.

The bishops of Brtain and Ireland have said “The Directory also envisages that a grave and pressing need may be experienced in some mixed marriages…” referring to the Directory on ecumenical principles. They have in fact in fact incorporated the idea into their norms on sacramental sharing.
FrDavid96 said:
It’s quite literally absurd. As I’ve said before, the customary understanding of “grave necessity” is war, persecution, famine, natural disaster. These are not things people choose to bring upon themselves. Any claim (yes any one) that says that a mixed marriage is a similar situation as intended by canon 844.4 defies common sense.
Click to expand...
The only reason we are discussing these norms is because they are influenced by our church’s profound agreement on the Eucharist. If you don’t see any contradiction between what the British and Irish bishops have done, and your position on “the customary understanding of “grave necessity,”” you are not likely to grasp the significance and impact of the ARCIC agreements. I am sorry I am unable to help you with that.
 
Dovekin said:
The only reason we are discussing these norms is because they are influenced by our church’s profound agreement on the Eucharist. If you don’t see any contradiction between what the British and Irish bishops have done, and your position on “the customary understanding of “grave necessity,””
Click to expand...
Oh, I see the contradiction all right. Except I’m not the one making it.

The idea that a mixed marriage is anything approaching “grave necessity” is the contradiction–it contradicts canon 844.4

A bishop’s conference can only apply canon 844.4. It’s clear that the teaching document “One Bread One Body” is at attempt to circumvent the canon, not apply it.
you are not likely to grasp the significance and impact of the ARCIC agreements. I am sorry I am unable to help you with that.
Click to expand...
Please refrain from such patronizing comments.

As I’ve said repeatedly, I do indeed grasp the significance of the ARCIC documents. What I do not do is to exaggerate them.

And do not think for one minute that convincing me to accept such an exaggeration is in any way “helping” me.

Unlike you, I am actually able to read the documents and understand what the Catholic side is saying and what is not being said. You, on the other hand, are unable to grasp the meaning behind not only what the Catholic side of the dialogue is saying, but also what is being left unsaid in those particular documents.

The Catholic Church knows and understands that Anglicans do not have valid Apostolic Succession and do not have valid consecrations of the Eucharist. No amount of your sophistry is going to change that.
 
Dovekin said:
http://thecatholicspirit.com/news/n...-communion-norms-address-interchurch-couples/
Click to expand...
You don’t get it do you?

You just refuse to understand.

The CODE OF CANON LAW IS BINDING on all Catholics.

The Code is binding even on bishop conferences. Bishop conferences can only apply the Code, they cannot change it (except where the code explicitly says they can).

I don’t care what you read on the internet.

The canon still requires a situation of “grave necessity” which the conference can define. It cannot, however, dispense from the requirement of “grave necessity” or similar to that.

And by the way, the article is completely WRONG in claiming that the Ecumenical Directory somehow allows for this. It does not. It merely repeats what canon 844.4 already says. It does not derogate from the canon.
 
Last edited:
No, I do not get it. The Code of Canaon Law, as administered by bishops and other authorities, is binding. Your particular interpretation of CIC is not binding, except perhaps on you.

At least we agree not to believe everything we read on the internet.
 
Dovekin said:
No, I do not get it. The Code of Canaon Law, as administered by bishops and other authorities, is binding. Your particular interpretation of CIC is not binding, except perhaps on you.

At least we agree not to believe everything we read on the internet.
Click to expand...
I’m not “interpreting” it. I’m simply reading it.

Your response is a non-answer.

You are also confused in that you seem to think that “administering” canon law means the ability to change it. That’s not the case.
 
FrDavid96 said:
Your response is a non-answer.
Click to expand...
I did not know anyone was keeping track.

I was highlighting a difference in judicial philosophy between us. You think the words mean what they mean, and no one can change that. I think the words mean what authorities say they mean.

In this instance, canon law has been understood as meaning that an interchurch marriage may have “grave and pressing needs” for couples to share the Eucharist. It is not how I would have understood it on my own, but bishops from Britain, Ireland, Germany, South Africa, Canada, USA… have understood it that way. I am guessing that all those norms were approved by the Vatican, so add those into that mix. My conclusion is that the “customary understanding” of “a grave and pressing need” is the understanding visible in those customs.

You have another source for what you say is the “customary understanding.” I do not know what your source is and you are pretty opaque about it.
FrDavid96 said:
I’m simply reading it
Click to expand...
Jesus said “Call no man father.” Simply reading, does that mean I cannot address you as “father”? I’d be happy to use any honorific you ask for, as long as it is not excluded by “simply reading” the Gospel.
 
Dovekin said:
I did not know anyone was keeping track.

I was highlighting a difference in judicial philosophy between us. You think the words mean what they mean, and no one can change that. I think the words mean what authorities say they mean.

In this instance, canon law has been understood as meaning that an interchurch marriage may have “grave and pressing needs” for couples to share the Eucharist. It is not how I would have understood it on my own, but bishops from Britain, Ireland, Germany, South Africa, Canada, USA… have understood it that way. I am guessing that all those norms were approved by the Vatican, so add those into that mix. My conclusion is that the “customary understanding” of “a grave and pressing need” is the understanding visible in those customs.

You have another source for what you say is the “customary understanding.” I do not know what your source is and you are pretty opaque about it.

Jesus said “Call no man father.” Simply reading, does that mean I cannot address you as “father”? I’d be happy to use any honorific you ask for, as long as it is not excluded by “simply reading” the Gospel.
Click to expand...
In so many different ways, this latest post of yours proves nothing beyond that you do not understand what you’re writing about, but you are just guessing (that’s your word, not mine). When you repeatedly say “I don’t know, but I guess…” that says a lot.

“Grave necessity” is a common phrase used in canon law. The customary understanding is “war, persecution, disaster (natural or manmade).” When canon law is formally taught, part of that instruction is to teach the vocabulary—the same as any other discipline. I don’t need to prove this point. Anyone who paid attention in the first few days of Canon Law 101 knows what ‘grave necessity’ means (at least generally what it means, because the term is intentionally open to similar situations).

The word “custom” (or variations, such as “customary”) is also a phrased used in the law. It does not mean what you think it means. It refers to legal precedent. It does not mean the same thing that it means in the context of everyday discussion.

And finally, your “guess” (that’s your own word) that those norms were approved by the Vatican is wrong. There is a procedure for submitting this sort of thing to the Holy See (not the Vatican, but I’ll give you a pass on that one). That procedure was not done. If it had been, the recognitio would appear on the document itself—which it does not. My point, in this paragraph, is that one cannot just take guesses at whether or not some canonical procedure was followed, and then post that guess as if it were a fact (which is what you do when you say “so add those into the mix.”)

That (again, last paragraph) is exactly what you’re doing incorrectly when you wrote this:
I am guessing that all those norms were approved by the Vatican, so add those into that mix.
Click to expand...
Guessing doesn’t cut it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top