I don’t really understand how Episcopalians, Anglicans, or other Protestant branches are able to have Holy Communion. Can someone please explain this to me? Also, can someone direct me to a list of churches (other than the orthodox Churches in the East) that Rome allows to give Holy Communion that are not in the Latin Church or the Eastern Churches? Are there any other Protestant churches that are able to give Holy Communion or is it just Episcopalian/Anglican?
No protestant church gives valid communion. You are not to accept protestant communion either.
Episcopalians have a “holy Eucharist” but it is not holy, nor a Eucharist.
The Only churches that Rome gives valid communion, confession, etc, is the Orthodox Churches. (Other than themselves :P)
The answer is, simply, that the Catholic Church teaches they do not have valid Holy Orders and therefore do not have Holy Communion.
The Catholic Church allows for Catholics to receive the sacraments of Eucharist and Reconciliation in cases of emergency/necessity (see Canon Law) from those true particular Churches that have maintained valid apostolic succession and therefore valid Holy Orders.
However, not all such Churches will give these sacraments to Catholics.
The Orthodox Churches have valid Orders. There are some others, but thing become complex and therefore it is best to take this up with your diocese if you have an issue. Otherwise, you should be attending and receiving the Eucharist in your own Catholic Church.
There aren’t “any others” because there aren’t ANY. I am not sure where you’ve gotten this idea.
Protestant Churches have the Lord’s Supper on occasional basis [often quarterly] … but, view it as a memorial, not a Sacrament with ‘life-giving’ true presence, sustenance. It is offered in a solemn ceremony, and the prayers and scripture read on the occasion are of benefit to the celebrants. There certainly is some grace and spiritual value to the ceremony.
But, it is not the same as the Eucharist ‘todah’, the CC celebrates at every Mass.
Protestant churches, based on Martin Luther’s denial of apostolic succession, do not believe as well.
Only authorized churches that have authentic and actual Holy Communion are those churches who original founders were part of the 12 Apostles chosen by Christ. When Judas betrayed Christ and died, the apostles threw lots and picked someone else to take his place.
The churches and denominations that broke from Rome in the West broke as well from the same apostolic churches, and also denied most of the 7 sacraments, baptism being the most common rite still practiced in Christianity. Such denominations that have only one sacrament of baptism are based here in the USA, far from their Christian roots.
Of course, the Church recognizes the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox (and always has).
The Church recognized the Orders and Sacramental validity of the Polish National Catholic Church (PNCC) in 1996.
The reference to “separated churches in the West” in Dominus Iesus thought to be a reference to the Old Catholic Communion. There’s certinally no reason why the Old Catholics would not have valid Orders or Sacraments.
As of 1995, The Chaldean Church (an Eastern Church in full communion with Rome) and the Assyrian Church of the East allow mutual inter-communion “when necessity requires.” This is an implicit recognition of the validity of Assyrian Orders, as inter-communion would be impossible without valid Orders.
AFAIK, there are no other Churches whom Rome has recognized as having valid Orders.
Well actually, not all Protestants believe in memorialism. Lutherans especially reject it entirely and fully accept the real presence. They simply believe that terming it transubstantiation is a an attempt to understand a mystery that should remain a mystery. Some Anglicans also believe it to be a real presence.
Calvinists (depending on which ones) reject a real physical presence, but some have mentioned a “spiritual presence” which is supposed to be something more than memorialism.
Evangelicals all embrace memorialism.
I am not sure that I understand your question. Although we don’t recognise non-Catholic Holy Communion as valid, the other denominations are still Christians and believe in the Last Supper so why do you think they wouldn’t celebrate Holy Communion in a way that is pertinent to their belief? There are many liturgical books about the different approaches to the Eucharist comparing and contrasting Catholic/Anglican/Lutheran and Reformed approaches which make fascinating reading. There are also Catholic dialogues and agreements which document common understanding of certain elements of the Eucharist with Lutherans and Anglicans, but none of them allow Catholics to receive in other churches and vice versa (apart from a single agreement in France).
Protestants don’t have Holy Communion. They have wafers or whatever they want to call it.
Correct me if I"m wrong but isn’t it only the CC that has the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Lords Supper at the CC is totally different than any other Prostestant church.
First of all, I didn’t conjure this idea up out of thin air…and secondly, I was not offered, nor have I ever taken communion from anyone other than a Catholic priest. What I am referring to is this, which I found on a website while doing some charity work: holycomforter.org/our-parish/
It is an Episcopalian church that says this in their information section: "Holy Comforter is an Episcopal Church. We are part of Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. As Episcopalians we are organized into parishes, each in union with our Bishop. We participate in the larger Church through the Diocese of Chicago. Our Clergy and laity are involved in the diocesan ministry, and we annually share at least 20% of our parish budget for the work of the national and diocesan Church.
Holy Comforter is a Eucharistic-centered parish where the Holy Eucharist is celebrated each day. Our ministry begins daily at the altar. Our liturgy reflects the practices and theology contained in The Book of Common Prayer."
I don’t know anything about Episcopalians so the confusion given that passage above is obviously understandable.
Not all that confusing. We believe that we have valid holy orders and valid sacraments, and the Roman Catholics believe that we do not.
Then do you also believe that your Holy Eucharist is the same as the Catholic Holy Eucharist? Are there other Protestant denominations that believe the same thing?
The problem with the Episcopal Church is that it broke from apostolic succession. The Western churches that came out of Rome did not have the apostolic succession you see with those remaining with the Holy Father. The Orthodox Churches have 11 of the apostles as their founders. The Holy Spirit led Peter to Rome.
It is particularly crucial for churches come out from Rome maintain their communion and unity. Otherwise they lose the transmission of grace.
The Episcopal Church does not have valid communion. The Anglican Church is returning to Peter.
Keep in mind that there are also many other denominations that do practice Communion, but view it only as symbolic. They do not believe in the Real Presence as Catholics and the Orthodox do.
I don’t see why this was confusing. Perhaps it is because they use terminology such as bishop, diocese, parish, eucharist.
They may use these terms, but the Catholic Church rejects their validity in the case of the Anglican Communion.
Ok so you are saying that Episcopial churches do not have apostolic succession because they essentially broke from Rome…even though it is derived from the Anglican Church, which is derived from the bishops in England who were in the Catholic Church prior to the break, right? So apostolic succession died when they broke even though there was still a laying on of hands? I guess I just don’t understand this whole thing. I am a cradle Catholic and never once heard that there were Protestants who provided the Eucharist (I know you are saying it’s not valid Holy Euharist) but don’t see how they DON’T have apostolic succession when there was a clear laying on of hands?
Good point, I have always been aware of this…but Episcopials seem to think it is the real presence.
That is precisely why it was confusing. I didn’t know there were protestants who felt they had a valid Holy Eucharist, or even wanted it.