Yeah, but doesn’t Catholic doctrine as a whole consider the doctrine of transubstantiation a neccesary belief in regard to the sacrament? It’s one of the Catholic objections that Epicopalians consider transubstantiation to be “playing mystical hocus-pocus* with a real promise of Christ.” That’s just my understanding, but if Catholics say, “You have to believe in transubstatiation for the sacrament to be valid”, and Episcopalians say “We don’t believe in transubstantiation”, then from a Catholic standpoint, the Episcopal sacrament isn’t valid.
The issue that prevents Roman Catholics from receiving communion in an Episcoal (or Anglican) church is not the repestive views of the Eucharist, but the validity of the consecration.
The Roman Catholic Church holds that in order for the consecration to occur, it must be performed by an ordained priest. The concept of a sacrament of Holy Orders, administered by a bishop, reflects this view. Every Roman Catholic bishop was ordained by the laying-on hands of another bishop, back through time such that we can trace the hands that have conferred the sacrament back to Christ Himself and his laying on hands of the Apostles - “apostolic succession”. And a priest may be created only by a validly ordained bishop.
While the Anglican/Episcopal tradition retains this view, and holds that their apostolic succession is valid, the Roman Catholic view is that succession was broken. When Henry VIII broke away form the church, seized church property, and “converted by the sword” priests and bishops in England, Scotland, and Wales to the Church of England, and when Edward VI replaced the rite of ordination, the line of apostolic succession was injured.
It is, of course, conceivable that a given Anglican priest was ordained by a bishop that was ordained by a bishop that was ordained by a bishop that was validly ordained… but there is no certainty of this.
For more detail, see Pope Leo XIII’s 1896 On the Nullity of Anglican Orders.
For this reason, a Roman Catholic may not request or receive communion in an Anglican or Episcopal church.
- Rick
Finally, a subject I know something about!
It’s correct to say that all baptized Christians are welcome to receive Holy Communion in Episcopal churches. Even so, when I recognize visitors in our congregation (there aren’t that many of us so it isn’t hard) I always make an announcement at the beginning of the liturgy explaining our approach. I always also make it a point to mention that while all baptized Christians are welcome, we never encourage anyone who is visiting to break the discipline of their own denomination. There are also some Epsicopal parishes that require communicants to affirm the Real Presence, although not necessarily Transubstantiation.
It’s likely that the service you attend will be quite similar to the one you are used to, but be aware that there are some parishes where the expression of the faith in worship is a lot more unstructured. If you attend a Saturday night worship you might be visiting the service in which the parish the parish does it’s “contemporary” liturgy.
As I understand it, the problem from the Catholic side is not differing Eucharistic theology, but the validity of Anglican orders.
The Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on this question is, as Polycarp says, unbalanced; unsurprisingly it gives the Catholic view on this question more fully than the Anglican. Besides, it dates from 1908 or thereabouts; both Anglicans and Catholics have developed their theology of priesthood somewhat since then.
Be that as it may, the current official line from Rome is still that Anglican orders are not regarded as sacramentally valid. Since sharing in an Anglican eucharist implies accepting the validity of Anglican orders, it is not generally permitted.
AS so often, the pastoral reality on the ground is not always in accordance with the view from Rome. Many Catholics do take communion at Anglican services, and consider it appropriate to do so.
Q on Transubstantiation: aren’t there branches of the Anglican Communion (such as the Oxford Movement) whose beliefs really are those of Rome on this point? There seems to be such a broad range of beliefs within Anglicanism that it may depend on the particular church.
I’m no theologian, but my understanding is that Anglican and Catholic thinking on the Eucharist are very close. Both churches accomodate a range of thinking, and the ranges overlap but are not identical. In particular the Catholic understanding of transubstantiation has moved on somewhat from where it was at the Council of Trent, and is now much more congruent with Anglican thinking than formerly. As long ago as 1979 the Anglican/Roman Catholic International Commission produced an agreed statement on the Eucharist in which they reached “substantial agreement” on the doctrine.
That’s been my experience too (as an RC). I’ve always regarded the Anglican/Episcopalian church – at least the “high” faction – much as I’d view the Eastern Orthodox churches – that is, very close to Roman Catholicism in its view of the sacraments and other basic doctrine and differing primarily in its view of the Pope’s authority. (Yes, there are distinctions between the RC understanding of transubstantiation and the Anglican view of the “Real Presence,” but (1) they’re not that different, particularly when compared to the “Protestant” understanding and (2) if the priest in question has been validly ordained, it doesn’t matter what he personally believes.)
As for the validity of Anglican Orders, I seem to recall that Catholic canon law even permits Catholics to avail themselves of Anglican/Episcopal services and sacraments “in extremis,” that is, when no Roman Catholic priest is available, officially acknowledging that they must have at least some validity.
Most Catholic priests I know seem to hold a similar view and, despite the unresolved theological issues, have no pastoral problem in permitting Anglican/Episcopalians to receive communion or, in many cases, even in participating in joint “inter-communion” services with Anglican/Episcopalian clergy.
That is absolutely incorrect. There is no such reasoning as the Anglican sacraments have “some validity.” And canon law does not permit a Roman Catholic to receive communion from an Anglican or Episcopal minister, no matter the gravity of the situation.
Canon 844, § 1 tells us (bolding mine):
The exceptions are:
844 § 2:
This is probably what you were thinking of, tullius, but the article clearly states that the sacraments must be valid in the church in question. This is true of the Orthodox Churches, Polish National Church and some few others. Of course, the Eastern Rite churches are Catholic. But because of the invalidity of Anglican orders, the sacrament is not valid. As canon 900, §1, tells us, the only minister who can bring into being the sacrament of the Eucharist is a validly ordained priest.
844 § 3 provides that Catholic priests may administer penance, communion, and anointing of the sick to members of the eastern Churches not in full communion with the catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed. 844 § 4 provides that if there is a danger of death or if, in the judgment of the diocesan Bishop or of the Episcopal Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other Christians not in full communion with the catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.
Finally, Can. 861 § 2 provides that, with respect to the sacrament of baptism only, for a grave reason any person with the requisite intention may administer the sacrament.
- Rick
OxyMoron and UDS,
It’s true that there are some Anglicans whose Eucharistic understanding is pretty much indistinguishable from that of the Roman church. It really does depend on which side of the discussion you approach it from – I’m not a Roman Catholic, so I won’t presume to state that position, but from the Anglican side I’ll assert that our orders are valid, therefore what happens at the Eucharist is the same thing that happens in a Roman church. Some Anglicans will describe that as Transubstantiation, others will not. It’s a common understanding among Anglo-Catholics, but it’s also there among Evangelicals too.
As I mentioned before, although I personally believe that the full benefit of the Sacrament is there for anyone who will receive it in our church, I won’t encourage anyone to violate their own church’s teachings by receiving here. Actually, this is less an issue with visiting Roman Catholics than with members of some other Protestant denominations. These occasions most often arise at weddings and funerals when guests from different backgrounds are more likely to be present in larger proportions than on Sunday morning. Depending on the person’s particular Protestant background, some find our prayers and liturgical movements pretty objectionable. Not too long ago we hosted a funeral at which a pastor from another denomination was invited to read some of the Lessons. He did, but I couldn’t help noticing that the poor guy didn’t look real happy at the Eucharistic liturgy. Still, he was a gracious visitor.