Can a Catholic receive communion in an Episcopal church?
Cathy Caridi, J.C.L.
Q: I went to a co-worker’s funeral at an Episcopal church. It was amazing! The service was almost exactly like a Catholic Mass. At communion time, the pastor invited everyone present, both Episcopalians and non-Episcopalians, to receive communion. I didn’t know what to do. Is it okay for a Catholic to receive holy communion at an Episcopal church? -- Mary, Washington, DC
A: Canon 844.1 lays out the general rule: Catholics are to receive the sacraments from Catholic ministers, and Catholic ministers lawfully administer Catholic sacraments only to Catholics. The law on this issue is grounded in theology, since some non-Catholic Christian denominations have sacraments which the Catholic Church recognizes as valid, and others don’t. There are very specific provisions in other sections of canon 844 that pertain to receiving some sacraments in those non-Catholic Churches in which they are valid, but these provisions do not apply to the Episcopal Church, because the Catholic Church does not hold that the Eucharist is validly consecrated in an Episcopal service, no matter how similar to a Catholic Mass it may appear to be.
What does it take for a sacrament to be valid? The term “validity” refers to whether or not the external administration of the sacrament actually has spiritual effect. Sacramental validity requires the correct formula of words, the correct matter, and the right intention on the part of the minister of the sacrament who has the authority to administer it. Let’s take a child’s baptism as an example. You see a priest pour water (the valid matter for this sacrament) over the baby’s head, saying “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” which is the valid formula of words for this sacrament. You have no reason to doubt that the priest—who certainly has the ability validly to administer the sacrament of baptism—sincerely intends to baptize this child while doing this, so presumably his intention is right. It looks like the baby really was baptized, right?
But now let’s say that by some mix-up, it is discovered that the priest poured not water, but rubbing alcohol or some other clear liquid on the baby’s head instead. The baptism was invalid, because a valid baptism requires the use of water, and no substitutions are permitted. Using the wrong matter for the sacrament meant that the baby was not baptized at all, and the baptism would have to be done all over again. The action of the priest in this case had no effect.
In other words, when it comes to the sacraments, external appearances are not everything!
Now imagine that you yourself imitate a priest reciting the words of consecration at Mass. You might go through the same motions, use exactly the same words as the priest, and even have the proper intention, but of course you would not really be consecrating bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. While externally it might have looked just like a Catholic Mass, in reality no consecration took place—because only a validly ordained priest can celebrate Mass. He alone is the minister who can bring about a valid consecration of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ (c. 900.1), which may then be distributed to communicants. If you yourself were to administer holy communion, using the bread and wine from your own “Mass,” it would be invalid.
So to get back to the case of the Episcopal funeral you attended, the question that has to be addressed is this: is an Episcopalian cleric a validly ordained priest? If he is, and he uses the proper wording over the correct matter (unleavened wheat bread and wine), and has the intention to consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ, we will have to conclude that a consecration does in fact take place, and that he is then truly distributing holy communion as we Catholics understand it.
Let’s review very briefly the history of the Anglican Church (or the Episcopal Church, as it is known in the United States). In the 16 th century, King Henry VIII broke away from Rome and set up a separate church of England, of which he claimed to be the supreme head on earth. His daughter, Queen Elizabeth I, solidified this separation from the Roman Catholic Church by establishing an organized hierarchical structure under the Archbishop of Canterbury, who does not answer to the authority of the Pope.
Most Catholics are probably aware that Rome excommunicated both Henry and Elizabeth in turn. But it is perhaps less well known that in 1555, Pope Paul IV also determined that the clergy ordained in the new Anglican Church were not valid priests. Here’s why:
Before the break with Rome, it had been possible historically to trace the succession of English Catholic bishops in a continuous, unbroken line all the way back to the apostles. In other words, for centuries Catholic bishops were validly ordaining new Catholic priests, some of whom later were validly consecrated as Catholic bishops, who in turn ordained new priests, etc. This continued without interruption for generations.
But when the Church of England was established as an entity separate from the Roman Catholic Church, this apostolic succession was broken. In his Bull Praeclara carissimi, Pope Paul IV declared that neither Catholic form nor intention had been observed in the ordination of clergy for the new Anglican Church, so their ordinations were invalid.
Three centuries later, Pope Leo XIII set up a commission to examine once again the historical record on this very question. In his Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae, issued in 1896, Leo reaffirmed Paul IV’s finding that Anglican clergy are not validly ordained. Since invalidly ordained priests cannot validly be consecrated bishops, and invalidly consecrated bishops cannot validly ordain anyone to the priesthood, the Catholic Church’s position is that none of the clergy ordained in the Church of England today have been validly ordained in the Catholic sense of the term.
According to Catholic teaching, therefore, what happened when the Episcopal pastor at your co-worker’s funeral said the words of consecration over bread and wine? Nothing—because even if the wording, the matter, and the pastor’s intention were all valid (and we don’t have enough information here to determine whether they were or not), the fact remains he himself, as a non-priest, was unable to change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. The communion that he then distributed to the faithful was still merely bread and wine. This is why Catholics may not receive communion in Episcopal churches.
I should point out that many Episcopalians will protest heatedly against the Catholic Church’s interpretation of historical events concerning the validity of their clergy. They insist that there has been no break in apostolic succession whatsoever, and that their clerics are valid priests who say the same Mass that Catholic priests do. It is not the Catholic Church’s intention to insult or embarrass them, but it must hold firmly to Catholic sacramental theology. And although some Episcopalians, like the pastor you mentioned, may in good faith invite Catholics to receive their sacraments, we Catholics, firm in our own faith, should realize why we may not do so.
The author is a canon lawyer who practices law and teaches in the Washington, DC area. Her regular column on canonical questions that arise in the lives of everyday Catholics is distributed by Real Presence Communications (www.realpresence.org).
Seemingly innocent editorial changes may inadvertently affect legal accuracy. News organizations that wish to publish a column are therefore requested to print it in its entirety.
www.realpresence.org • © 2006 RPC