As an Anglican, what's stopping me participating in a RC Mass?

Obviously I realise that according to the rules of the RC church, Anglicans are not welcome at their table.



My question is, from an Anglican point of view, does the RC church have the authority to withhold the elements from a member of the Anglican Church? Do the rules apply?

 

The Articles of Religion condemn ker aspects of the RC Mass, such as Transubstantiation (Art. 28) and its oblationary power for both the living and the dead (Art. 31).

 

Do you mean that the Mass is not valid?

 

Interesting. My guess would be that the Roman Mass is considered a vald Eucharist by Anglican churches, but LL is right, of course, that there are concerns about what is involved in RC understanding of this sacrament and therefore — what, the intent, perhaps? I think we could start with the minister; I take it all would accept the validity of Roman orders, whatever the Romans may think of Anglican ones?

 

Thanks, Onlooker. So if the sacrament is valid, then there is no moral or theological ground for an Anglican not to receive it if they wish to, and presumably the RC Church has no authority to prevent that Anglican stepping up to the rail.

 

Well, don't take me as an authority on its validity — it would be good to get more informed opinion. But yes, my guess is that in Anglican eyes it is valid. But in RC eyes an Anglican is not a valid recipient. I hear that it is alleged that some RC priests allow Anglicans to commune, but it is officially against RC teaching; that is, unlike the Church of England, Rome does not practise open communion; she holds that only those who understand the sacrament as Rome understands it should present themselves. In those circumstances many Anglicans suggest that it would be inappropriate, discourteous, wrong, to "step up to the rail". At the very least, they say, the Anglican should discuss the matter with the priest in advance, so as to avoid involving him in what he might feel was an offence against his sacramental role.

 

I don't believe it to be a question of authority invested in the Church but rather conformity to truth. Even valid churches have valid or invalid sacraments insofar as they honor God, and thereby a heathenish practice even in a Church "with authority" from God is in sin. Such status is had by the Romish Mass, as being heathenish, idolatrous (worshipping the host), not to mention blasphemous (sacrificing our Lord upon the altar).

 

You see, asnac? Layman and Spherelink give opinions which are to be found within Anglicanism, and which have a prominent place in the story of Anglicanism. I think the opinions I've given can be found within Anglicanism, too. Perplexing, eh? Why, by the way, are interested in communing a la Rome?

 

I lament, many times, that we cannot receive the communion of the Body and Blood in Roman churches. Somehow if a person does not believe the Pope's claims, he is not "clean enough" inside to give thanks (Eucharist) with the Roman brethren.

Ecumenism and its coffee-breakfasts is nice, but Rome still says Anglicans have schism and heresy. Funny that Augustine had communion with Novatians and Donatists; though he thought them wrong, he prayed with them too. What a lesson!

As for you, personally, if you wish to receive communion in Roman churches, you should believe that the bread & wine is gone, disappeared, destroyed, and deleted from the universe, and only the Lord is there. This means you must worship each crumb.

Nothing is stopping you, except maybe your conscience? If you believe transubstantiation, maybe you should just be Roman?

 

Cross & Crook, should I understand from this that if the priest believes or expresses incorrect theology, and/or if the communicant doesn't agree with him, this impacts on the validity of the sacrament for the communicant?

 

A rainy Sunday morning, an RC church nearby and my own at an inconvenient distance. And for a change. And to see what the competition's up to. And a sense of rebelliousness - I was confirmed in my faith by a bishop in the apostolic succession and therefore feel ready (in a spirit of submission of course) to choose to receive the element(s) in any Christian church, no matter what that church thinks about me.

 

Dear brother asnac,

No, this is not so. I spoke from a position of Conscience, not validity. You ought to believe Transubstantiation before going up to receive what the Catholics call the transubstantiated Host of the Eucharist. If you do not personally believe it, receiving becomes an act of hypocrisy (inward belief not equal with outward action).

Interestingly, an Anglican priest here told me that he was allowed to concelebrate the Mass with a Catholic priest in this city during the 1990s. Rome has become much more strict and controlled in practice since then, however, and he has not been invited back.

It seems disrespectful to "pretend" to be Catholic, to go up and receive communion in that Church, when that very Church would bar you from communion if it knew that you were not one of them. Does that seem right to you?

 

As far as I know, until recently, an Anglican could receive the Roman communion on an occasional basis, eg for a special occasion or if there were no Anglican church within travelling distance. The Romans are liable to ask for chapter and verse in such instances, and all I can say is that I heard it on the radio. However on three separate occasions in 2004-07 a RC priest said I could receive their sacrament. One was on holiday, one at a funeral and one at a wedding. I consulted my Anglican Vicar who raised no objection.

Then it seems that the dead hand of the anti-Anglican Benedict intervened. In 2011 I was rudely refused communion by an English RC priest when I was on holiday in Cyprus. So last year, on holiday in Spain, I simply took RC communion. I consider myself a catholic and my conscience permits me to do so.

RCs are not permitted by their own Church to take Anglican communion, but some do and we welcome them.

 

Lots to think about: thank you for your response. On reflection, I don’t think it’s hypocrisy to take communion when I don’t agree with the minister’s view of it. I have had my doubts about the dogmas of certain Anglican priests but still have received communion, and have also received it in non-conformist churches, so it would be inconsistent for me not to accept communion from an RC priest on theological grounds.


There is a difference of course between accepting communion, and the point of my original question, which concerns actively seeking it. I take your point about disrespect. But I would not be ‘pretending’ to be anything. I would be me (a confirmed member of ‘one holy catholic and apostolic church’), in a place in which I have every right to be, seeking a sacrament which by grace I have the right to receive. Do you agree that the communion is God's gift, not the gift of the church or the priest? If the priest wishes to check my credentials he can do so, and ask me to stand down, and while it's a regret that he would probably find that awkward or embarrassing, that is the consequence of the RCs’ doctrine of not accepting the apostolic succession in the Anglican Church.

 

Mmmmm. I have no status in this, asnac, so you are in your rights to chuck me overboard. But. I understand what you are saying. But don't get into the position of saying "well, it's all the RC priest's fault". If you feel you have the right to take communion from his hands, fine. On the other hand they are his hands. Give some sympathy to his position and his beliefs. Whatever you may think, after all, it is his confection that renders the bread and wine into body and blood.

 

That's a fair point and perhaps what I'm suggesting is just too confrontational for such a solemn matter. I might not be approaching the altar wholly for the right reasons.

 

In a strange way it's the rude behaviour of the English RC priest in Cyprus that made me take the communion in a RC church on holiday the following year. I met him before the service and explained I was Anglican. He told me he would not let me have communion. When I asked for a blessing, he replied, "well, can't you bless yourself?," to which I replied, "no". I'd put five euro aside for the collection, but gave one cent. When I received a blessing, it was from the priest-in-charge, a pleasant Spaniard, who went out of his way to greet me afterwards and made me feel welcome. I went back into the church and put the five euro note into their collection box.

But my feelings were, and remain, that as a catholic I have the right to receive the sacrament, so rather than put the priest in an awkward position (and/or give him a chance to put me down), I just take it. I would not do so if there was an Anglican alternative on offer. As for transubstantiation, I do not deny it. My position is that of John Donne (and Elizabeth I), it's what God makes it.

I have recounted this to RCs in another forum and they don't like it. But they can't stop me and my conscience is clear.

I once took "communion" in an evangelical church. Someone passed round plastic phials of some sweet grape juice. I felt it was a travesty.

 

You know I'm not sure I could agree with that approach. If someone were to barge into a dinner party and start helping themselves to your food, it probably would be considered quite rude, whether you eventually welcomed them or not.

It's essentially deceit to go and take communion from someone who in conscience wouldn't offer it otherwise, no matter how entitled you think you are. I thought the idea was that as that wise man Job said at one point, that you take sorrow (and pain and rejection etc.) from God as much as pleasure and joy?

 

Yes, this point's been put to me by others. But remember, until recently I would have been allowed to take communion on an occasional basis in the event of there being no Anglican church nearby. Then, to take your dinner party analogy, through no fault of my own (or my direct host), I become liable to be turned away from a table where I was an occasional guest before. A priest who in conscience would have offered me the sacrament before is now told to change his conscience! In practice, from what I can gather, some RC priests will allow Anglicans to take communion in some circumstances, but discreetly. There is a parallel with divorced or gay RCs taking communion. I know a gay man who is a communicant RC (he lives with another gay man). But if he were to go to the altar wearing a "proud to be gay" sash, that might be a different matter.

 

Is it a parallel to equate a member who is at odds with their institution but a member nonetheless to someone who is completely outside and who has never really received a valid sacrament after baptism?

Even if it is a parallel to your thinking, does the fact someone else is being deceptive actually make it morally appropriate?

I know a few Anglicans who say they receive the Eucharist from RC churches, but they ask first, and thus keep the moral choice as being that of the minister...It tends, apparently to be English and Spanish Catholics who are the most against the practice...nevertheless your hiding your true identity is not giving the priest any opportunity to exercise his discretion, you've decided to abuse his trust instead.

But there's still the question of what 'right' you think you have to it in the first instance? The RC church has told you 'no' and you refuse to listen to them, why are you receiving communion from a church who's authority you apparently have no respect for anyway, as demonstrated by nicking their wafers?