cappie Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Episcopalian Eucharist ROME, MAY 30, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university. Q: My cousin will be ordained this summer as a priest in the Episcopal Church (High Church). At her first mass, may I receive communion from her? -- J.L., Silver Spring, Maryland A: Pope John Paul II answered this question in his encyclical "Ecclesia de Eucharistia," No. 30: "The Catholic Church's teaching on the relationship between priestly ministry and the Eucharist and her teaching on the Eucharistic Sacrifice have both been the subject in recent decades of a fruitful dialogue in the area of ecumenism. We must give thanks to the Blessed Trinity for the significant progress and convergence achieved in this regard, which lead us to hope one day for a full sharing of faith. Nonetheless, the observations of the Council concerning the Ecclesial Communities which arose in the West from the sixteenth century onwards and are separated from the Catholic Church remain fully pertinent: 'The Ecclesial Communities separated from us lack that fullness of unity with us which should flow from Baptism, and we believe that especially because of the lack of the sacrament of Orders they have not preserved the genuine and total reality of the Eucharistic mystery. Nevertheless, when they commemorate the Lord's death and resurrection in the Holy Supper, they profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and they await his coming in glory' (Vatican II, 'Unitatis Redintegratio,' No. 22). "The Catholic faithful, therefore, while respecting the religious convictions of these separated brethren, must refrain from receiving the communion distributed in their celebrations, so as not to condone an ambiguity about the nature of the Eucharist and, consequently, to fail in their duty to bear clear witness to the truth. This would result in slowing the progress being made towards full visible unity. Similarly, it is unthinkable to substitute for Sunday Mass ecumenical celebrations of the word or services of common prayer with Christians from the aforementioned Ecclesial Communities, or even participation in their own liturgical services. Such celebrations and services, however praiseworthy in certain situations, prepare for the goal of full communion, including Eucharistic communion, but they cannot replace it. "The fact that the power of consecrating the Eucharist has been entrusted only to bishops and priests does not represent any kind of belittlement of the rest of the People of God, for in the communion of the one body of Christ which is the Church this gift redounds to the benefit of all." From this it is clear that while one may attend a relative's ordination as an Episcopal minister, a Catholic should refrain from receiving communion. If this ceremony were to take place on a Sunday, it would not substitute for Sunday Mass. For a Catholic, participating at Mass and receiving Communion should be the zenith of life in the Church toward which all other activities are ordained and from which they receive their strength. Receiving Communion expresses the Catholic's union of heart, mind and soul to Christ and his Church. Our "Amen" before receiving Christ's Body affirms our belief in all that the Church teaches with respect to this sublime mystery. It also affirms our belief in Christ's incarnation, passion, death and resurrection which is the Eucharist's foundation. Christ's Church makes the Eucharist. [b]Because it is such a strong statement of faith, we could say that a Catholic is never more Catholic than when receiving the Lord. And this is why we can never partake of the Eucharist in another ecclesial community which does not have the fullness of the Eucharist and the priesthood.[/b] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birgitta Noel Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Bravo Cappie! What an excellent Q & A! Thanks for posting it : Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KatS Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Yes, thanks for this post : I think it will help with a lot of people's questions regarding communion services @ other churches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brendan1104 Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Plain and simple: No apostolic succesion, no valid rites, no Eucharist! And please remember Anglican/Episcopalian orders were all declared invalid by the pope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Actually, the priests that were ordained in the Church then converted to Anglicanism during the 1534 schism were valid priests, and their Eucharist was valid. I think the original Ordination Rite of the Anglican church during Henry VIII's reign was valid, and was not invalid till the rites were reformed. Also, any Catholic priests who were ordained during Mary I's reign were valid and even if they converted to Anglicanism during the reign of Anti-queen Elizabeth their Masses were still valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catholicinsd Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 [quote name='StThomasMore' post='995517' date='Jun 2 2006, 01:57 PM'] Anti-queen Elizabeth [/quote] Say what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desertwoman Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 I was thinking the same thing with the anti-queen statement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 anti-pope = imposter pope anti-queen = imposter queen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest phatdaddy Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 [quote name='Birgitta Noel' post='993339' date='May 31 2006, 12:36 AM'] Bravo Cappie! What an excellent Q & A! Thanks for posting it : [/quote] Yes, Thanks Cappie. There is no substitute for truth stated with clarity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomProddy Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 (edited) Why does anti-St. Thomas More think Elizabeth I was an anti-queen? Edited June 4, 2006 by RandomProddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maria Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 Dunno. By the time she was born, wasn't Catherine dead? Not even the priest-martyrs denied her queenship. Anyway, I read an old book by an Anglican-priest-turned-Catholic-(priest? can't remember). He made the argument that, you know, an esential part of holy orders is the orders/authority. Not a new argument, even then, but something about the way he presented it... Anyway, that was the reasonning that persuaded him to accept the ruling that Anglican orders are invalid, because the qualifications are not only proper matter, form, and an ordained minister: there has to be the chain of authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catholicinsd Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 [quote name='StThomasMore' post='995562' date='Jun 2 2006, 02:51 PM'] anti-pope = imposter pope anti-queen = imposter queen [/quote] Yes, but she wasn't an imposter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cappie Posted June 5, 2006 Author Share Posted June 5, 2006 Pius V, April 27, 1570: POPE PIUS V'S BULL AGAINST QUEEN ELIZABETH I OF ENGLAND: He that reigneth on high, to whom is given all power in heaven and earth, has committed one holy Catholic and apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, to one alone upon earth, namely to Peter, the first of the apostles, and to Peter's successor, the Pope of Rome, to be by him governed in fullness of power.... [T]he number of the ungodly has so much grown in power that there is no place left in the world which they have not tried to corrupt with their most wicked doctrines; and among others, Elizabeth, the pretended Queen of England and the servant of crime, has assisted in this, with whom as in a sanctuary the most pernicious of all have found refuge.... [S]he has followed and embraced the errors of the heretics. She has removed the royal Council, composed of the nobility of England, and has filled it with obscure men, being heretics; oppressed the followers of the Catholic faith; instituted false preachers and ministers of impiety; abolished the sacrifice of the mass, prayers, fasts, choice of meats, celibacy, and Catholic ceremonies; and has ordered that books of manifestly heretical content be propounded to the whole realm and that impious rites and institutions after the rule of Calvin, entertained and observed by herself, be also observed by her subjects.... We, seeing impieties and crimes multiplied... and recognising that her mind is so fixed and set... are compelled by necessity to take up against her the weapons of juctice.... [W]e do out of the fullness of our apostolic power declare the foresaid Elizabeth to be a heretic and favourer of heretics, and her adherents in the matters aforesaid to have incurred the sentence of excommunication and to be cut off from the unity of the body of Christ.... [b][We] deprive the same Elizabeth of her pretended title to the crown.... We charge and command all and singular the nobles, subjects, peoples and others afore said that they do not dare obey her orders, mandates and laws. Those who shall act to the contrary we include in the like sentence of excommunication....[/b] Given at St. Peter's at Rome, on 27 Apr 1570 of the Incarnation; in the fifth year of our pontificate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 [quote]Dunno. By the time she was born, wasn't Catherine dead?[/quote] no, HM Catherine of Aragon Queen of England was not dead at the time of Elizabeth's conception or birth. [quote]Why does anti-St. Thomas More think Elizabeth I was an anti-queen?[/quote] I think she was an antiqueen because of of the bull HH Pope St. Pius V. Moreover, she was a bastard which makes her unable to be queen anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catholicinsd Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 [quote name='StThomasMore' post='996674' date='Jun 4 2006, 07:04 PM'] no, HM Catherine of Aragon Queen of England was not dead at the time of Elizabeth's conception or birth. I think she was an antiqueen because of of the bull HH Pope St. Pius V. Moreover, she was a bastard which makes her unable to be queen anyway. [/quote] Well, seeing as how St. Edward's Crown was placed on her head, Elizabeth Tudor was queen. P.S. Queen Elizabeth wasn't a love child, not that there's anything wrong with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now