Eucharistic Theology in the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox & Anglican Church

[She]

I would like to start a discussion between Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans regarding the perceived validity of the Eucharist in those denominations. Why, for example, do the Roman Catholics believe that the Anglican sacrament is not valid? And why does receiving Holy Communion in an Anglican Church result in ex-communication by the Roman Catholic Church of a baptised Catholic? On the other hand, if a baptised Roman Catholic receives Holy Communion in an Eastern Orthodox Church, they are not ex-communicated. Why is that? Also, why do the Eastern Orthodox not allow Roman Catholics to receive Holy Communion? What is the EO view of the Roman Catholic sacrament?

 

[Father Rick]

RC's do not recognize the validity of AC sacraments per se because of a change in the wording of the rite of ordination by the AC that took place during the break from Rome. In the Edwardian ordinal, the AC rite of ordination does not specifically say that priests were being consecrated to celebrate the sacrifice of the mass. Therefore, the RC argued that they were not empowered to do so-- and thus AC apostolic succession (and consequently AC eucharist) would not be valid.

Now, on the other side of this, the current RC rites of ordination are now almost identical to the AC rite of ordination and do not include the specific mention of the sacrifice of the mass either (thanks to Vatican II).

Additionally, the RC does recognize OC lines of apostolic succession as being valid-- and there has been much co-consecration of priests/bishops since the Bonn Agreement of 1934, so at the present time the validity of any individual AC priest/bishop's lines of succession would have to be researched to determine whether or not that particular AC priest/bishop would be accepted by the RC.

 

[prodromos]

EO generally have no opinion on the validity of sacraments outside of their own communion.

John

 

[ByzantineDixie]

For the Orthodox, there is no Sacrament outside of the Church. The Cup cannot be divided.

 

[DeoJuvante]

The Eastern Orthodox say that only their Eucharist is valid. And they won't offer it to Roman Catholics or Anglicans.

The Roman Catholic Church says that their Eucharist is valid and so is the Eastern Orthodox Eucharist, but not the Anglican Eucharist. They will offer their Eucharist to the Orthodox but not to Anglicans. However, the Orthodox Church forbids its members from receiving communion in the Catholic Church, so it's a moot point.

Anglicans say that the Orthodox, Catholic and Anglican Eucharists are all valid and Catholics and the Orthodox are welcome to receive at Anglican altars. But the Catholic and Orthodox Churches forbid their members from receiving at Anglican altars.

In effect, these three churches only recognise their own Eucharist and that of 'stricter' (in terms of Eucharistic practice) churches and will also only offer their Eucharist to members of those 'stricter' churches. Which is ironic because, being 'stricter' churchers, they do not allow their members to receive at 'laxer' churches.

 

[DeoJuvante]

For the Orthodox, there is no Sacrament outside of the Church. The Cup cannot be divided.

Captain Subtext: "We are the One True Church. If you're Anglican or Catholic, you're not in it. No Eucharist for you."

 

[karen freeinchristman]

In effect, these three churches only recognise their own Eucharist and that of 'stricter' (in terms of Eucharistic practice) churches and will also only offer their Eucharist to members of those 'stricter' churches. Which is ironic because, being 'stricter' churchers, they do not allow their members to receive at 'laxer' churches.

This isn't true for the Anglican church. We offer our Eucharist to anyone who is baptised with water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We also allow our members even to receive at 'laxer' churches, i.e. Protestant churches, if they want to.

 

[DeoJuvante]

This isn't true for the Anglican church. We offer our Eucharist to anyone who is baptised with water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We also allow our members even to receive at 'laxer' churches, i.e. Protestant churches, if they want to.

That's true. But then, pretty much any statement about the Anglican Church is true, if you ask the right Anglican. (Incidentally, I say this as a proud Anglican.)

 

[karen freeinchristman]

That's true. But then, pretty much any statement about the Anglican Church is true, if you ask the right Anglican.

true!

 

[ps139]

RC's do not recognize the validity of AC sacraments per se because of a change in the wording of the rite of ordination by the AC that took place during the break from Rome. In the Edwardian ordinal, the AC rite of ordination does not specifically say that priests were being consecrated to celebrate the sacrifice of the mass. Therefore, the RC argued that they were not empowered to do so-- and thus AC apostolic succession (and consequently AC eucharist) would not be valid.

Now, on the other side of this, the current RC rites of ordination are now almost identical to the AC rite of ordination and do not include the specific mention of the sacrifice of the mass either (thanks to Vatican II).

Additionally, the RC does recognize OC lines of apostolic succession as being valid-- and there has been much co-consecration of priests/bishops since the Bonn Agreement of 1934, so at the present time the validity of any individual AC priest/bishop's lines of succession would have to be researched to determine whether or not that particular AC priest/bishop would be accepted by the RC.

Hey Father Rick

We do believe that some Anglican ordinations are sacramentally valid, therefore some consecrations may be sacramentally valid as well. The problem is, it is hard to know.

All of this despite the insistence by some Catholics that not a single Anglican ordination can be valid.... they do not know the whole story.

I know a Catholic priest who would genuflect when he went into his Anglican-priest-friend's church, as he believed (he had his reasons) that the tabernacle there truly housed the Lord.

 

[ps139]

Captain Subtext: "We are the One True Church. If you're Anglican or Catholic, you're not in it. No Eucharist for you."

Note, that she did not define the boundaries of the Church.

 

[Father Rick]

Hey Father Rick

We do believe that some Anglican ordinations are sacramentally valid, therefore some consecrations may be sacramentally valid as well. The problem is, it is hard to know.

All of this despite the insistence by some Catholics that not a single Anglican ordination can be valid.... they do not know the whole story.

I know a Catholic priest who would genuflect when he went into his Anglican-priest-friend's church, as he believed (he had his reasons) that the tabernacle there truly housed the Lord.

Hey PS

Haven't chatted with you in a while! Hope all is going well.







And now back to our regularly scheduled thread...

 

[Counter-Reformer]

Since Anglican Holy Orders are invalid as the Sacerdotal nature of the Priesthood has been removed and that Anglicans have begun to ordain woman, Anglicans as a whole (not those who have gone through Utrecht or the Orthodoxy) have lost thier apostolic succession. Therefore most of the Eucharists in the Anglican Communion would be not only ilicit but invalid as well.

 

[nikolayalexandroff]

There is an interesting opinion of the British Orthodox Bishop Kallistos (Ware):”In this context I would like to put especial emphasis on the word "fullness." Orthodoxy has the plenitude of life in Christ, but it does not have an exclusive monopoly of the truth. I did not believe then, nor do I believe now, that there is a stark and unmitigated contrast between Orthodox "light" and non-Orthodox "darkness." We are not to imagine that, because Orthodoxy possesses the fullness of Holy Tradition, the other Christian bodies possess nothing at all. Far from it; I have never been convinced by the rigorist claim that sacramental life and the grace of the Holy Spirit can exist only within the visible limits of the Orthodox Church. Vladimir Lossky is surely right to maintain that, despite an outward separation, non-Orthodox communities still retain invisible links with the Orthodox Church.” I have dug out it somewhere in the Web, and I share this point of view. But I'll never take Eucharist from RC or AC till official permission from my Church.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Since Anglican Holy Orders are invalid as the Sacerdotal nature of the Priesthood has been removed and that Anglicans have begun to ordain woman, Anglicans as a whole (not those who have gone through Utrecht or the Orthodoxy) have lost thier apostolic succession. Therefore most of the Eucharists in the Anglican Communion would be not only ilicit but invalid as well.

CounterReformer said, it best on how the RC church views the Eucharist of most of in the Anglican communion.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

As stated earlier, the RC church doesn't have a problem with Orthodox recieving communion in it's churches.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Since Anglican Holy Orders are invalid as the Sacerdotal nature of the Priesthood has been removed and that Anglicans have begun to ordain woman, Anglicans as a whole (not those who have gone through Utrecht or the Orthodoxy) have lost thier apostolic succession. Therefore most of the Eucharists in the Anglican Communion would be not only ilicit but invalid as well.

Because of the Sacerdotal nature of the Priesthood has been removed from the Anglican Holy Orders,as CounterReformers, I think this in effect means, that the Part of the Anglican Communion that does this, is in Apostasy, because, they reject the Sacerdotal Nature of the Priesthood, and have begun to ordain Women, which the Roman Catholic Church says, that it runs counter to the original way Christ estabilished the priesthood, and thus, is invalid.

 

[AngCath]

only two pages and "Validity of the Eucharist in the Anglican Church, Eastern Orthodox & Roman Catholic " has already become "Why Anglican Orders are invalid."
Great job everyone

 

[TomUK]

Perhaps i'm being a bit slow here. As far as i see it there are two possible scenarios here. 1. That Anglican orders are valid and as such we have a valid eucharist. 2. Our orders are invalid and as such we have an invalid eucharist. Let's explore those options for a second. If one is correct then Jesus Christ our Lord is truely present whenever a mass is celebrated in an Anglican Church. I can't really see that as being a sin. If 2 is correct then at best all that happens at an Anglican mass is simply a rather ornate reinactment of the Last Supper. Again i don't see how eating a piece of bread or drinking a sip of wine is a sin.

If i followed ps139's argument before he was saying that maybe some Anglican orders are valid but as we can't really tell which then it's best for us to just stay away. I think the opposite is true. If there is even the remotest chance that Jesus is present at the eucharist then i don't see how you could possibly want to stay away.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Below are two ponts that I am merely rreposting from above Orthodox posts and the third is a post RobNJ left in the TAW thread that linked us to this thread.

There is an interesting opinion of the British Orthodox [Archbishop] Bishop Kallistos (Ware):”In this context I would like to put especial emphasis on the word "fullness." Orthodoxy has the plenitude of life in Christ, but it does not have an exclusive monopoly of the truth. I did not believe then, nor do I believe now, that there is a stark and unmitigated contrast between Orthodox "light" and non-Orthodox "darkness." We are not to imagine that, because Orthodoxy possesses the fullness of Holy Tradition, the other Christian bodies possess nothing at all. Far from it; I have never been convinced by the rigorist claim that sacramental life and the grace of the Holy Spirit can exist only within the visible limits of the Orthodox Church. Vladimir Lossky is surely right to maintain that, despite an outward separation, non-Orthodox communities still retain invisible links with the Orthodox Church.” I have dug out it somewhere in the Web, and I share this point of view. But I'll never take Eucharist from RC or AC till official permission from my Church.

And I love this. Although the Orthodox Church has no need to speak of the validity and non-validity of Non-Orthodox Sacraments, I personally feel the above is very wise and I will not be surprised if I find out in heaven that in many Anglican Congregations and even Lutheran Congregations something very real takes place in their Eucharist. (and as for the RC... I will be very surprised if I were to find out that nothing happens in their Eucharist... so much that even suggesting that I would find this out sounds completely absurd to me). But again, all of this really has nothing to do with closed or not closed commmunion if you believe that Christ left us with a Visible Church which will always hold the fullness of the truth. If not all parties in here believe the same about the Nature of the Church and Who She is... then the particular subject of this whole thread seems to be putting the cart before the horse.

EO generally have no opinion on the validity of sacraments outside of their own communion.
John

I guess I would just add that although individuals certainly do hold opinions on this, they are nothing more than that... opinions. The OC, however, only holds that it is only in the OC where the Body and Blood of Christ are definitly fully present, and this is what we as Orthodox place our hope in. As for our Anglican friends we only trust in the grace of God that he holds you close to Him in His own particular way (and this, by the way, is very significant for it is only through God's Grace that anything Good or Salvific happens, in or outside of the Visible Church).

And this just offers some needed perspective (thanks RobNJ)

From the OCA website:

http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=107&SID=3

For Orthodox Christians, the Eucharist is a visible sign of unity; to receive the Eucharist in a community to which one does not belong is improper. If one does not accept all that the Church believes and teaches and worships, one cannot make a visible sign of unity with it. The Eucharist is the result of unity, notthe means by which unity is achieved. While many non-Orthodox see this as a sign that the Orthodox Church excludes non-Orthodox from the Eucharist, in reality the opposite is true. Because a non-Orthodox individual has chosen not to embrace all that Orthodox Christianity holds, the non-Orthodox individual makes it impossible for an Orthodox priest to offer him or her communion. It is not so much a matter of Orthodoxy excluding non-Orthodox as it is the non-Orthodox making it impossible for the Orthodox to offer the Eucharist.

Sometimes people argue, "But Father, I believe everything the Orthodox Church teaches." If this is indeed the case, then the question is not one of Eucharistic hospitality but, rather, "Then if you believe everything the Orthodox Church teaches, why haven't you become an Orthodox Christian?"

John