? about The Episcopal Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter peace2u2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

peace2u2

Guest
Hello. I’m not sure if I posted in right forum, but here is my question,

Last night as I passed my local Episcopal Church, I noticed that they have a new sign which instead of reading “Sunday Services” now reads, “Holy Eucharist” and the times.

I checked out their website and was surprised to see a man dressed in “priest” clothes and calls himself “Father” and calls himself a priest.

Is the Episcopal Church in full communion with the Catholic Church?

And is it ok, for me, a Catholic, to go to Sunday service there and receive “Holy Eucharist”?

Thanks.
 
peace2u2 said:
Hello. I’m not sure if I posted in right forum, but here is my question,

Last night as I passed my local Episcopal Church, I noticed that they have a new sign which instead of reading “Sunday Services” now reads, “Holy Eucharist” and the times.

I checked out their website and was surprised to see a man dressed in “priest” clothes and calls himself “Father” and calls himself a priest.

Is the Episcopal Church in full communion with the Catholic Church?

And is it ok, for me, a Catholic, to go to Sunday service there and receive “Holy Eucharist”?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
It probably means the church got a new pastor of the High Church or Anglo-Catholic strain. These types of Anglicans focus more on the Eucharist than on services of the Word and may have a proper belief in the Holy Eucharist.

However, Anglicans/Episcopalians do not possess valid holy Orders, so their Eucharists are invalid. You cannot go and receive their Communion as they are Anglican, not Catholic.
 
The Episcopal Church is the the Anglican Church in the United States.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Communion

They are not in comunion, nor do they have valid orders, so their Priests are not real Priests, nor do they have the power to confect the Holy Eucharist.

The Episcopalians/Anglicans are a Protestan Church that seperated during the Reformation under Henry VIII, although unlike many other Protestant churches they kept a lot of the trappings of Catholicism.

And no you may not recieve communion there.
 
peace2u2 said:
I checked out their website and was surprised to see a man dressed in “priest” clothes and calls himself “Father” and calls himself a priest.
Click to expand...
Why not? The Church has no exclusive right to the word priest, nor to the uniform worn by our priests.
peace2u2 said:
Is the Episcopal Church in full communion with the Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
No.
peace2u2 said:
And is it ok, for me, a Catholic, to go to Sunday service there and receive “Holy Eucharist”?
Click to expand...
No.

Do you really not know these things?
 
JuantheTuba said:
The Episcopal Church is the the Anglican Church in the United States.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Communion

They are not in comunion, nor do they have valid orders, so their Priests are not real Priests, nor do they have the power to confect the Holy Eucharist.

The Episcopalians/Anglicans are a Protestan Church that seperated during the Reformation under Henry VIII, although unlike many other Protestant churches they kept a lot of the trappings of Catholicism.

And no you may not recieve communion there.
Click to expand...
^^ this is a great answer.
 
On the same line about looks, I went to a Lutheran wedding a few years ago and wondered what a Catholic priest was doing up there. I turns out many Lutheran ministers like to dress as Catholic priests also.🤷
 
katy said:
On the same line about looks, I went to a Lutheran wedding a few years ago and wondered what a Catholic priest was doing up there. I turns out many Lutheran ministers like to dress as Catholic priests also.
Click to expand...
One could also say Catholic priests like to dress like Presbyterians. As I understand it the clerical collar that most priests wear these days are a Presbyterian invention.
 
exnihilo said:
One could also say Catholic priests like to dress like Presbyterians. As I understand it the clerical collar that most priests wear these days are a Presbyterian invention.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Catholic priests only started wearing them after Vatican II when the more traditional cassock fell out of favor. While there were certainly antecedents of the clerical collar in use by clergy in Rome before the clerical collar, as such, was invented, it was, nevertheless, a Scottish Presbyterian who invented it.

Quoth the Bard: “If it ain’t Scottish…”
 
The argument goes that Anglicans ost validitu between 1550 and 1662 because the Church of England’s post Reformation Ordinal was supposedly defective.

A cursory reading of the Preface of said Ordinal would render a different conclusion:

“IT is evident unto all men, diligently readinge holye scripture, and auncient aucthours, that from the Apostles tyme, there hathe bene these orders of Ministers in Christes church, Bisshoppes, Priestes, and Deacons, which Offices were evermore had in suche reverent estimacion, that no man by his own private aucthoritie, might presume to execute any of them, except he were first called, tried, examined, and knowen, to have such equalities, as were requisite for the same. And also by publique prayer, with imposicion of handes, approved, and admitted thereunto. And therfore to the entent these orders shoulde bee continued, and reverentlye used, and estemed in this Church of England…”
 
Indifferently said:
The argument goes that Anglicans ost validitu between 1550 and 1662 because the Church of England’s post Reformation Ordinal was supposedly defective.

A cursory reading of the Preface of said Ordinal would render a different conclusion:

“IT is evident unto all men, diligently readinge holye scripture, and auncient aucthours, that from the Apostles tyme, there hathe bene these orders of Ministers in Christes church, Bisshoppes, Priestes, and Deacons, which Offices were evermore had in suche reverent estimacion, that no man by his own private aucthoritie, might presume to execute any of them, except he were first called, tried, examined, and knowen, to have such equalities, as were requisite for the same. And also by publique prayer, with imposicion of handes, approved, and admitted thereunto. And therfore to the entent these orders shoulde bee continued, and reverentlye used, and estemed in this Church of England…”
Click to expand...
Call GKC! Call GKC!

Quite right, Indifferently, except I think what the Pope/his advisor objected to was not the splendid words you quote so much as the words which had been excised under the Edwardian Ordinal.
 
Picky_Picky said:
Call GKC! Call GKC!

Quite right, Indifferently, except I think what the Pope/his advisor objected to was not the splendid words you quote so much as the words which had been excised under the Edwardian Ordinal.
Click to expand...
The Reformers - quite rightly - wanted to re-focus the nature of the priestly office. The pastoral and preaching role oc priests had been ignored snd the sacerdotsl role emphasized. Priests were explicitly not abolished in England - they were merely reminded of the fulness of the task before them.
 
Indifferently said:
The Reformers - quite rightly - wanted to re-focus the nature of the priestly office. The pastoral and preaching role oc priests had been ignored snd the sacerdotsl role emphasized. Priests were explicitly not abolished in England - they were merely reminded of the fulness of the task before them.
Click to expand...
Picky is right. The judgment was not so much on the term “priest”, though that was considered a clue. It was on what was taken to be the deliberate suppression of the reference to offering the Eucharistic sacrifice from the then current form. This is a not contemptible point, but it isn’t a slam-dunk, either, as Hughes shows in STEWARDS OF THE LORD.

GKC
 
GKC said:
Picky is right. The judgment was not so much on the term “priest”, though that was considered a clue. It was on what was taken to be the deliberate suppression of the reference to offering the Eucharistic sacrifice from the then current form. This is a not contemptible point, but it isn’t a slam-dunk, either, as Hughes shows in STEWARDS OF THE LORD.

GKC
Click to expand...
It is worth pointing out that popular superstition at the time had turned the Sacrifice of the Mass into “sacrifices of masses”, which was abetted by various abuses (private masses, priests offering at diverse altars in the same cathedral, etc).
 
Indifferently said:
It is worth pointing out that popular superstition at the time had turned the Sacrifice of the Mass into “sacrifices of masses”, which was abetted by various abuses (private masses, priests offering at diverse altars in the same cathedral, etc).
Click to expand...
Anglican opinion, of course. Catholics see nothing innately wrong about priests offering mass privately or there being multiple masses in one building. We’ve moved away from the latter for pastoral reasons, not theological. And since we’ve got the divinely appointed umpire (pope) for deciding which side of such disputes is correct, you’ll pardon me for not agreeing with you! 😉 (All in good fun, of course!)

Neither of these examples demonstrates a belief in ‘multiple sacrifices.’ Rather they demonstrate the belief that celebrating mass is an infusion of Grace for the celebrant, for the faithful attending and for the entire world. However many masses are celebrated, they are all united with the one sacrifice at Calvary. I like to imagine it as a wormhole through time and space that connects Christ on the cross with Christ as the host. More wormholes are simply better than fewer!
 
Indifferently said:
It is worth pointing out that popular superstition at the time had turned the Sacrifice of the Mass into “sacrifices of masses”, which was abetted by various abuses (private masses, priests offering at diverse altars in the same cathedral, etc).
Click to expand...
Among the things that Fr. Hughes discusses in the book cited.

GKC
 
manualman said:
Or you can simply read the catholic reasoning for yourself. Block out some time, because it takes rather more than a “cursory” reading. (As do all issues of real substance!)

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm
Click to expand...
Which will certainly tell you what Leo signed, over the words of Cardinal Mazella and/or Monsignor Merry del Val and Dom Francis Gasquet, with the Latin assist by Mgr Vincenzo Tarozzi.

But for the history of what happened and why, the sad tale of personalities, politics, theology and history, one needs to read more. As always, I suggest Hughes’ 2 books and Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION. Fr. George Tavard’s A REVIEW OF ANGLICAN ORDERS is also worth reading.

The subject is, as are many things in history, complicated. It’s been a hobby (as I occasionally say) for about 12 years+ for me. Rather more than a cursory reading, as you say: highly recommended approach.

GKC
 
peace2u2 said:
Hello. I’m not sure if I posted in right forum, but here is my question,

Last night as I passed my local Episcopal Church, I noticed that they have a new sign which instead of reading “Sunday Services” now reads, “Holy Eucharist” and the times.

I checked out their website and was surprised to see a man dressed in “priest” clothes and calls himself “Father” and calls himself a priest.

Is the Episcopal Church in full communion with the Catholic Church?

And is it ok, for me, a Catholic, to go to Sunday service there and receive “Holy Eucharist”?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
You would be warmly welcomed at the altar of any Anglican/ Episcopal church if you believe that Christ is fully presence in the Eucharist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top