Communion in RC and Anglican churches - a question

[Bloodybridget]

This is just something I've been puzzling over. I don't have any religious faith now, but I grew up RC, went to Catholic schools and was pretty well indoctrinated in that religion.

So, in the RC sacrament of Holy Communion, the belief is that the host and wine are turned into the body and blood of Christ - the doctrine of transubstantiation. In Anglican tradition, communion is simply a commemoration of the Last Supper and of Jesus giving his life, his human body and blood, to redeem mankind. This is how I understand it, others might see it differently.

So (let's just say that the RC doctrine is "true"): if a Roman Catholic takes communion at a Catholic Mass, he or she is actually taking in Christ's flesh and blood - what about if they take communion at an Anglican service? The words said by the priest/celebrant are the same. Is the act of transubstantiation performed by the celebrant, so RC priests can do it but Anglicans can't? Or, if Jesus created the ritual with his own words, does any ordained minister repeating those words make it happen? Or is it in the belief of the communicant - so if you believe it, it is, and if you don't, it isn't? Suppose a Catholic takes communion in an Anglican church believing it to be a Catholic church (this happened to Italian parents of someone I know) - have they not had the "real thing"?

Sorry this is quite long!

Very interesting question. I am Catholic, well I go to mass and pick and choose what I take from it. I struggle with the transubstantiation.

I suppose it is a belief, not a magic spell so if you believe an Anglican priest counts then it counts. If not it doesn't. I am sure there will be someone along with a more technical answer, I am interested to hear it.

I also was raised Catholic, my family are still church goers, I am not.

From my understanding, reformed churches don't practise valid mass, as far as the RC church is concerned. So Catholics shouldn't receive communion in them. In the church's eyes, only its clergy are in direct line from the early church. In strict circumstances it's permissible to receive Eucharist in an Orthodox church. But this isn't usual practice.

Thanks for both responses. LL83, it's good to get a view from someone who is practising but sceptical. Grucius I didn't know, or had forgotten, what the RC church says about communion in other churches so thanks for pointing it out. But I wonder what they would say about how transubstantiation actually works?

The theology of it is that God is omnipotent and could choose to do this. Whether God does cost to do this?....I don't have an answer for you. Transubstantiation, if true, would be the action of God, not of the priest.

This is important because part of the theology of communion is about understanding that the priest is themselves a fallible human being. And that the priest's fallibility doesn't negate the act of communion....it is God who acts in communion, and the priest is just their non perfect representative.

CofE theology is very broad. And there are people in my church who do believe in transubstantiation, and feel able to take communion there. It helps that the priest understands how they feel and treats the communion elements as if it might be true, so as not to be a stumbling block to others' faith.

Choose.....not "cost" 

Oh that's interesting, Wyrbread, I didn't know that some Anglicans do believe in transubstantiation. So if you (not "you") do believe in it, then you'd presumably think that when a celebrant in any denomination performed the communion ritual, transubstantiation would happen, because God would make it happen?

Sorry I misspelt your name, Wrybread.

Hi, Roman Catholic here. Obviously everyone has their own specific beliefs, and Anglicanism is the very definition of a broad church. Some will believe in transubstantiation, others will believe in consubstatiation, still others that they are simply using bread and wine as very simple symbols only.

From the Catholic perspective, only a validly ordained priest can effect the change to the elements of bread and wine that means they become literally Christ. It's very much a case of God working through the man, but we believe that the material actions and words are very important, so the physical things matter as well as the spiritual.

In the context of RC belief about this, Anglicans do not have 'valid' orders, which simply means that the apostolic authority of the Anglican church was lost during the Reformation from the RC perspective, therefore transubstantiation does not take place.

It's not a value judgement that Anglican priests aren't good enough or anything, it's a simple lack of specific procedure. If I received communion in an Anglican church, I would not have received the Body and Blood of Christ, though I wouldn't at all suggest that means that Christ was not present in that church.

All of which sounds very harsh and blunt, but I'm trying to explain clearly so that it's not muddled. I support ecumenical work to bring churches together, but part of that involves being honest about where we differ.

I'm happy to clarify further if I've confused you.

Ah, thanks very much, FloralBunting! That does explain the RC perspective very well. I wonder if they did ever spell it out like that to us at school; it does sound somewhat familiar now you've said it. So Anglicans who do believe in transubstantiation or consubstantiation (which I just had to look up) must believe that Anglican clergy do have "valid orders". I wonder how much of an issue that is within Anglicanism, and is there a correlation between how "high" a particular church is and how prevalent the belief?

All really interesting and I'm glad I asked the question here.

C of E priest here.

Eucharistic theology - the what might be going on when the priest of whatever denomination says the words of the Eucharistic prayer is complicated. This wiki article gives a good list of the main stands en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_theology

In practice the C of E welcomes anyone who would normally take communion in their own church to take communion in a C of E service. The Orthodox church only allows those who are Orthodox to take communion. The RC church only allow Roman Catholics. I've been to requiem masses and have gone up for a blessing as I'm very obviously not a RC. The clerical collar worn by a woman gives that away!

In terms of who recognises other denomination's priests it is similar. The Orthodox Church do not recognise Roman Catholic ordination. The Roman Catholic Church do not recognise Anglican (C of E in England. ) As a female C of E priest some parts of the Anglo Catholic wing of the C of E do not recognise my ordination to the priesthood as Rome doesn't. However Rome doesn't recognise their ordination either so I always get confused at that point.

And breathe....

When I say the Eucharistic Prayer I am stood between heaven and earth and the prayer is that the Holy Spirit comes onto the bread and wine. Something happens. How it happens is a mystery but what I see in myself and in others is that regular receiving of holy communion seems to be part of the process where people draw closer to God.

Although I don't believe in transubstantiation I currently have about 10 wafers on my desk carefully wrapped in tissue paper. They fell out of the container they were in when I went to the care home. I will burn them later or bury them in consecrated ground. I couldn't throw them in the bin.

It's complicated.

Thank you very much for that, mostlydrinkstea - very clear and helpful, and your words on what you see as happening when you say the prayers have really moved me. I'll read the Wikipedia article.

I take communion in a Church of Scotland church. I don’t believe in transubstantiation- the wine patently does not turn into blood in my mouth - but I see it as an outward and visible sign of an internal, invisible grace. It’s a solemn sacrament which Jesus asked us to do in remembrance of Him, and I find it uplifting and reinforcing of my faith to share the moment with my fellow worshippers.
I like the c of e vicar’s interpretation above, that the Holy Spirit enters the elements of communion - that seems to more closely reflect how I feel about it too.

what about if they take communion at an Anglican service?

Doesn't work. Anglicans don't have the magic. The magic (grace) is passed on through the laying on of hands when a priest is ordained.

The (Catholic) bishop putting the hands on had the magic passed to him by a previous bishop. This follows an unbroken chain back to Peter known as apostolic succession. He first passed the magic on by putting hands on the bishops he ordained.

Other Catholic churches (e.g. orthodox) have intact apostolic succession, so they have the magic. Many high CofE believe in transubstantiation and follow the same liturgy, but their apostolic succession is broken (bloke called Henry, liked killing priests) so they are not drinking real blood because the magic doesn't work.

Anglicans would argue that they have an ideological apostolic succession, so their magic (if they believe in it, most anglicans don't) works fine.

Thanks Babdoc and DonQuixote, "outward sign of inward grace" is a phrase I remember from childhood.

There's also the point that Orthodox and Catholic are not supposed to receive communion in another denomination anyway. Orthodox (generally) don't recognize Catholic validity, but Catholics do (generally) recognize Orthodox validity, which makes things a touch more complicated, but there can be very limited inter communion between them.

Not so for other denominations, like Baptist or Anglican. So what this practically means is that I don't receive communion when I visit my husband's church, not because I'm not welcome to, they have an open table for all professing Christians, but because receiving communion is a great many things, one of which is a public statement that one believes what the church presenting the communion also believes about it.

So Dh's church believes it is merely symbolic, no more. I agree with them in that situation, but if I received that communion, I would be publicly acknowledging it as a valid Eucharist, so I don't. All very confusing for the onlooker, I've no doubt. But religion is a complicated old thing.

Oh yes, very complicated, I can see, FloralBunting. A lot of thinking required if you're a practising Christian! And I suppose people also have to consider the doctrines of their particular denomination, alongside what they might think God actually wants, which might not be exactly the same.

Catholic here. Married to a C of E priest.

Floral bunting has said what I would say very clearly. So I won't repeat it.

Catholics are not allowed to recieve communion in non-Catholic (except Orthodox) churches.
Though Anglican churches usually say, "if you normally recieve communion in your own church, then you are welcome to recieve here."

BloodyBridget, that is the case for some in their view of denominational rules for some churches, yes.

Catholicism, on the whole, is one of the churches that is pretty firm about the authority of Doctrine. Other denominations have much more scope for a difference of opinion and personal conscience differences - Anglicanism is probably the best example of a church like that.

But authority is a big thing in Catholicism, it's one of the distinctive features of it, really. You will, obviously, get individual Catholics who disagree with church Doctrine, but by and large, we tend to go along with the idea of 'a well formed conscience' which is very connected to official doctrine.

Because it's so many years since I was a practising Catholic, I sometimes think certain teachings might have changed, that maybe it's not as cut and dried as it used to be. But it sounds as though Eucharistic doctrine is the same. Many thanks again to everyone who has commented, you've all been very helpful and informative.

I took my first communion back in C if E for a while on Sunday and the Archdeacon did say' This is the body and blood of Christ' and on offering the wine said' the blood of Christ' - in contrast to Baltist and other churches where I have been and they say in remembrance of him

I'm quite surprised on one level to hear that some Anglicans believe in transubstantiation - I thought the difference between transubstantiation and consubstantiation was a major point in reasons for the Reformation. OTOH, I have been in some high Anglican churches which didn't seem that different from Roman Catholic, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

I thought the difference between transubstantiation and consubstantiation was a major point in reasons for the Reformation.

It was, but not the English reformation. That driven by doctrinal disputes over burning monks to nick their cash and getting divorced a lot.

The upshot was a CofE that was basically Catholic with the king replacing the pope, but with many of its most ardent members being near calvinist in their views. Several centuries of bickering and two civil wars leaves us with the current status.

Letitgo2018, well yes, the church my DP attends is a very low Anglican, almost Baptist in set up, and they absolutely do not believe that the bread and wine are anything other than bread and wine. But they still say 'The body of Christ' or 'The blood of Christ' when they hand over the elements.

I won't repeat what's already been said, but in the OP you were asking about people who go to one denomination thinking it to be another. Catholic theology makes a distinction between the grace of the sacrament and the sacrament itself. This means that people who devoutly receive what they believe to be the Eucharist (whether because they are Italians and don't know what church they're in, or because they're Anglicans and believe in the validity of the Eucharist in that church or for whatever other reason) may receive the grace of union with Jesus (and potentially the deeper reality [I'm trying to translate the term 'sacramentum tantum' into layman's English, I appreciate it's not the best translation] of union with the Body of Christ, i.e. the Church), without having actually physically received the sacrament itself. It's similar to the theology of how one can make a spiritual communion if unable to actually receive communion.

Oh thanks Fink for that information. So many interesting responses to my question. If the RE lessons I had at school (every single day till I was about 15) had been as interesting, I might have passed the O-level!