Alright to attend an Episcopal Church?

[JimR-OCDS]

Pope St. Gregory the Great would not have followed Luther. He was a Saint and would have did what Saints do -live holy lives faithful to the Church…and often they work to reform that which is amiss.

I didn’t say he would.

He could have though.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Yes, while the Church does say that outside of her there is no salvation, there are a few exceptions that the Church gives the possibility for.

Those exceptions are more broad than you’re interpretation is.

Jim

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Those exceptions are more broad than you’re interpretation is.

Jim

I don’t think so. This is from the Baltimore Catechism.

Anyone who knows the Catholic religion to be the true religion and will not embrace it cannot enter into Heaven. If one not a Catholic doubts whether the church to which he belongs is the true Church, he must settle his doubt, seek the true Church, and enter it; for if he continues to live in doubt, he becomes like the one who knows the true Church and is deterred by worldly considerations from entering it.

Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has never–even in the past–had the slightest doubt of that fact–what will become of him?

If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved… But if ever he committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more difficult. A mortal sin once committed remains on the soul till it is forgiven…It is to be feared either he would not know of this necessary means of regaining God’s friendship, or he would be unable to elicit the necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus the mortal sin would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of God.

If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church. I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found, except in the case of infants or very small children baptized in Protestant sects.

I do not speak here of pagans who have never heard of Our Lord or His holy religion, but of those outside the Church who claim to be good Christians without being members of the Catholic Church. Catechism 4 question 121

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I don’t think so. This is from the Baltimore Catechism.

OK so now start reading the current Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Jim

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

OK so now start reading the current Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Jim

I did, and I don’t see anything that contradicts what is written in the Baltimore Catechism. It is presenting the same possibility of receiving salvation outside of the Church as the Catechism is. I don’t see the current Catechism saying it is easy to go to Heaven outside of the Church nor that it is common.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Such is not the way the Church would discuss the possibility of salvation of those who are not in full communion with the Church.

I find the Catholic Church quite confusing on how it discusses this.

I see all the time that the Catholic Church does not judge anyone to hell because they do not know what is in a heart at the moment of death. Fair enough.

But then I see for instance:

In CCC 837 “Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but in body not in heart.”

And in CCC 846 “Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.”

So this appears to me to be saying if a Catholic does not persevere in charity, whatever that means to the Catholic Church, they are not saved.

And it is not clear to me what “knowing” means. If someone is aware of what the Catholic Church teaches, is that knowing? CCC 1859 refers to feigned ignorance and it not diminishing sin. So is being aware but not believing or not being convinced amount to feigned ignorance? Or if one is aware but does not believe or is not convinced, do they get a pass?

And yet the Catholic Church judges people unworthy to receive the Eucharist in their current state and says they are in mortal sin and will go to hell if they die in their current state.

 

[Bookcat]

Yes, while the Church does say that outside of her there is no salvation, there are a few exceptions that the Church gives the possibility for.

No they are not “exceptions” but rather further explanation of what that teaching means…

Those who are saved are still saved by Jesus and in relation to the Church…even if they have never heard of the Church…

 

[ProVobis]

I was referring to Latin since it is the ecclesiastical language of the Church. An ecclesiastical language is just a language that a certain church employs. After practice, I am sure they can get the hang of it. Myself, as a non musical person, find the melodies of Gregorian Chant a lot easier to sing both along to and by myself. Anyway, I wasn’t concerned with the popularity of it in the Church rather than the fact that the Church uses it in traditional Masses and it is not typically seen among Protestants even if they are having a traditional service.

To be fair, they do incorporate some Latin hymns in Anglican worship. They may even have some like “Ubi caritas” on youtube.

And let’s not forget there were people like Agatha Christie and other Anglicans who were at least partially responsible for not letting the Latin Mass die.

 

[ProVobis]

That doesn’t make a service more sacred than in the vernacular.

Unless you’re talking about Ecclesiastical Latin or Church Slavonic, which almost by definition, are sacred.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

To be fair, they do incorporate some Latin hymns in Anglican worship. They may even have some like “Ubi caritas” on youtube.

And let’s not forget there were people like Agatha Christie and other Anglicans who were at least partially responsible for not letting the Latin Mass die.

That’s very interesting. I know that most Protestants don’t use Latin so I assumed Anglicans didn’t either. It’s nice to see that they share our use of Latin.

 

[ProVobis]

That’s very interesting. I know that most Protestants don’t use Latin so I assumed Anglicans didn’t either. It’s nice to see that they share our use of Latin.

I thought it was interesting that the mayor of London is pushing the idea of more Latin education in the public schools.

Boris Johnson hits out at 'absurd decline of Latin in state schools’

Mayor urges London state schools to teach Latin

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

I thought it was interesting that the mayor of London is pushing the idea of more Latin education in the public schools.

Boris Johnson hits out at 'absurd decline of Latin in state schools’

Mayor urges London state schools to teach Latin

That is interesting. I sure hope his idea catches on since learning Latin will definitely benefit Catholics and it can help people in different fields as well.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Unless you’re talking about Ecclesiastical Latin or Church Slavonic, which almost by definition, are sacred.

Language doesn’t define what is sacred, words of the language regardless of what language is used, does.

The Mass celebrated in Japanese is just as sacred as the Mass celebrated in Latin.

Jim

 

[ProVobis]

Language doesn’t define what is sacred, words of the language regardless of what language is used, does.

Mass is sacred, that’s not in dispute. But can you say Shakespeare, for example, translated into Japanese is just as good as the original? I think you would have a whole lot of English teachers who would be quite upset with your argument.

But we’re sort of getting off-topic here. I attended my niece’s memorial at a Lutheran Church (very similar to an English Mass) as well as attended various concerts at various Protestant churches. I found the company warm, and hold no criticisms. I fulfill my obligation at Latin, and sometimes Spanish and English, Masses.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Mass is sacred, that’s not in dispute. But can you say Shakespeare, for example, translated into Japanese is just as good as the original? I think you would have a whole lot of English teachers who would be quite upset with your argument.

Shakespeare in Japanese to a person who only understands Japanese, will be as beautiful as a person who understands the same in Latin, but Sakespeare is poetry.

The Mass isn’t poetry, but the mystical experience of Jesus being present in the Holy Eucharist.

This is the center of the Mass and it is not bound by the language which is used.

After all, the language of God is silence.

Jim

 

[Bookcat]

I see all the time that the Catholic Church does not judge anyone to hell because they do not know what is in a heart at the moment of death. Fair enough.

We simply do not know…what is yes in their heart…what grace may do in even the last moment…if they will reject or accept this or that etc…Tis not something we can know per se.

But then I see for instance:

In CCC 837 “Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but in body not in heart.”

Yes correct. The person even though they are in the Church…but they are not in a state of grace…they are not in charity. For they committed mortal sin and have not been returned to life.

And in CCC 846 “Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.”

Yes correct. Such is knowingly rejecting Christ…etc

So this appears to me to be saying if a Catholic does not persevere in charity, whatever that means to the Catholic Church, they are not saved.

Correct. Mortal sin yes “kills charity”. To deliberately commit a mortal sin yes removes charity from the person etc etc. And thus unless they are returned to life - which would by nature include charity their choice will remain fixed in that mortal sin. And thus not be saved. (if such continues to their earthly death…)

And it is not clear to me what “knowing” means. If someone is aware of what the Catholic Church teaches, is that knowing? CCC 1859 refers to feigned ignorance and it not diminishing sin. So is being aware but not believing or not being convinced amount to feigned ignorance? Or if one is aware but does not believe or is not convinced, do they get a pass?

A person can be “aware” of what the Church teaches and still not know the Church is the Church - but invincibly mistake it for just some human organization…etc

The feigned ignorance is yes a real possibility - but just because someone knows of the teachings of the Church does not mean that they are acting in “feigned ignorance”.

I would not say they “get a pass” for God knows what they know or do not know and if they say deliberately decided not to seek to find out etc etc etc.

Can someone be responsible for their lack of knowledge or lack of seeking or lack of cooperation with the graces they did have etc? Yes.

But God will know them…better than they know themselves. God will know what they are responsible for or not…God will know if they just wanted to justify their “choices” in life by going to new Christian community that did not hold to the serious demands (including moral) of following Jesus…God will know if they were given such a twisted version of the Faith (not the Faith really!) by say an abusive Father that they were never able to see the Church really…God will know if they …well God will know (knows!) everything…and will judge accordingly.

And yet the Catholic Church judges people unworthy to receive the Eucharist in their current state and says they are in mortal sin and will go to hell if they die in their current state.

As to the Eucharist -the Catholic is to examine themselves as to being conscious of mortal sin or not …or if there are other reasons that prevent them from worthy reception of the Eucharist…are they in full communion with the Church, have they fasted an hour…etc

Are there certain public sins where the Church is going to not allow them to receive? Sure. Such is for* their good* and* the good of others around them*…

St. Paul was very serious about eating and drinking condemnation on oneself in receiving the Eucharist unworthily… And the Church continues to be…for the good of the person themselves and for the good of the body - the Church.

Hope that helps.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Happily, there have been many positive and forward developments since the publication of The Baltimore Catechism, especially in our relations with other Christians and with non-Christians. We are not today where we were in the 19th century.

The documents Unitatis Redintegratio and Nostra Aetate respectively help to orient the contemporary person both to the Church’s present initiatives and self-understanding regarding our relations with those who are outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church – and then there are the subsequent documents and other pronouncements from the Holy Father or from other organs of the Holy See. These subsequent developments have emerged across the past 50 years as the fruit of those two foundational texts as well as the various personal initiatives of the Popes.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

*It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church. (UR, extract from Par. 3)

1. We must get to know the outlook of our separated brethren. To achieve this purpose, study is of necessity required, and this must be pursued with a sense of realism and good will. Catholics, who already have a proper grounding, need to acquire a more adequate understanding of the respective doctrines of our separated brethren, their history, their spiritual and liturgical life, their religious psychology and general background. Most valuable for this purpose are meetings of the two sides - especially for discussion of theological problems - where each can deal with the other on an equal footing - provided that those who take part in them are truly competent and have the approval of the bishops. From such dialogue will emerge still more clearly what the situation of the Catholic Church really is. In this way too the outlook of our separated brethren will be better understood, and our own belief more aptly explained. (UR)*

For those of us who have had the privilege to live some aspect of the mandate of paragraph 9 of Unitatis Redintegratio, one can speak not only of the advances we ourselves have witnessed in the work for Christian unity but also of how inappropriate it is to use terminology and categories that have been moved beyond…thanks be to God.

Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis, by what they have said or written – and even more by what they have done – have provided a heroic and prophetic witness to the work of the Spirit for Christian Unity. It is a great blessing to be involved in these initiatives in this very special moment in the Church’s history and as we look toward the future.

Much good is being done at many levels and one does well to be aware of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, a dicastery of the Holy See currently headed by His Eminence, Kurt Cardinal Koch…

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_pro_20051996_chrstuni_pro_en.html

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Happily, there have been many positive and forward developments since the publication of The Baltimore Catechism, especially in our relations with other Christians and with non-Christians. We are not today where we were in the 19th century.
…

For those of us who have had the privilege to live some aspect of the mandate of paragraph 9 of Unitatis Redintegratio, one can speak not only of the advances we ourselves have witnessed in the work for Christian unity but also of how inappropriate it is to use terminology and categories that have been moved beyond…thanks be to God.

…

What has the Church changed in her teaching that makes the Baltimore Catechism no longer correct? What is the terminology that we shouldn’t use any longer?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The quote from the Baltimore Catechism cited:

*If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church. I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found, except in the case of infants or very small children baptized in Protestant sects.

I do not speak here of pagans who have never heard of Our Lord or His holy religion, but of those outside the Church who claim to be good Christians without being members of the Catholic Church. Catechism 4 question 121
*
Saint John Paul II in Ut Unum Sint:
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint.html
[conclusion par. 17] At the conclusion of the Council, Pope Paul VI solemnly sealed the Council’s commitment to ecumenism, renewing the dialogue of charity with the Churches in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople, and joining the Patriarch in the concrete and profoundly significant gesture which “condemned to oblivion” and “removed from memory and from the midst of the Church” the excommunications of the past.

/…/

1. It happens for example that, in the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount, Christians of one confession no longer consider other Christians as enemies or strangers but see them as brothers and sisters. Again, the very expression separated brethren tends to be replaced today by expressions which more readily evoke the deep communion — linked to the baptismal character — which the Spirit fosters in spite of historical and canonical divisions. Today we speak of “other Christians”, “others who have received Baptism”, and “Christians of other Communities”. The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism refers to the Communities to which these Christians belong as “Churches and Ecclesial Communities that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church”. This broadening of vocabulary is indicative of a significant change in attitudes. There is an increased awareness that we all belong to Christ. I have personally been able many times to observe this during the ecumenical celebrations which are an important part of my Apostolic Visits to various parts of the world, and also in the meetings and ecumenical celebrations which have taken place in Rome. The “universal brotherhood” of Christians has become a firm ecumenical conviction.

/…/

[conclusion of par. 43] … I have thanked God “for what he has already accomplished in the other Churches and Ecclesial Communities and through them”, as well as through the Catholic Church. Today I see with satisfaction that the already vast network of ecumenical cooperation is constantly growing. Thanks also to the influence of the World Council of Churches, much is being accomplished in this field.

/…/

1. The relationships which the members of the Catholic Church have established with other Christians since the Council have enabled us to discover what God is bringing about in the members of other Churches and Ecclesial Communities. This direct contact, at a variety of levels, with pastors and with the members of these Communities has made us aware of the witness which other Christians bear to God and to Christ. A vast new field has thus opened up for the whole ecumenical experience, which at the same time is the great challenge of our time. Is not the twentieth century a time of great witness, which extends “even to the shedding of blood”? And does not this witness also involve the various Churches and Ecclesial Communities which take their name from Christ, Crucified and Risen?

Such a joint witness of holiness, as fidelity to the one Lord, has an ecumenical potential extraordinarily rich in grace. The Second Vatican Council made it clear that elements present among other Christians can contribute to the edification of Catholics: “Nor should we forget that whatever is wrought by the grace of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of our separated brothers and sisters can contribute to our own edification.”

/…/

1. In a theocentric vision, we Christians already have a common Martyrology. This also includes the martyrs of our own century, more numerous than one might think, and it shows how, at a profound level, God preserves communion among the baptized in the supreme demand of faith, manifested in the sacrifice of life itself. The fact that one can die for the faith shows that other demands of the faith can also be met. I have already remarked, and with deep joy, how an imperfect but real communion is preserved and is growing at many levels of ecclesial life. I now add that this communion is already perfect in what we all consider the highest point of the life of grace, martyria unto death, the truest communion possible with Christ who shed his Blood, and by that sacrifice brings near those who once were far off (cf. Eph 2:13).

While for all Christian communities the martyrs are the proof of the power of grace, they are not the only ones to bear witness to that power. Albeit in an invisible way, the communion between our Communities, even if still incomplete, is truly and solidly grounded in the full communion of the Saints—those who, at the end of a life faithful to grace, are in communion with Christ in glory. These Saints come from all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities which gave them entrance into the communion of salvation*.

/…/

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

The quote from the Baltimore Catechism cited:

…

The Baltimore Catechism doesn’t support enmity between the Catholic Church & Protestant churches nor is it saying that Protestants aren’t considered Christians, which can be seen when it says, “…because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell”. The Holy Father is stating how it is possible to have people in Heaven that were Protestants, and this is what the Baltimore Catechism is saying as well, but this doesn’t negate the fact that mortal sin still applies to non-Catholics and that they can be culpably ignorant.

To make it seem like it is just as easy to get to Heaven as a Protestant as it is Catholic, or that the number of those damned in non-Catholic churches is negligible, would not be correct. After all, the dogma of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus still is as relevant today as it was when the Baltimore Catechism was written, and the Pope didn’t refute it in his writings. We may have learned to be more charitable to Protestants and to see the good that can be found in their churches (just as Catholics should learn from the modesty of Mohammedans), but we haven’t tossed out our dogmas and we haven’t made their churches equal to the true Church outside of the fact that they share some of our teachings and have valid Baptisms. More stress is applied today to the possibility of invincible ignorance, which is presented in the Baltimore Catechism, but it would be against charity to make it seem non-consequential whether someone is Catholic or not since it endangers the salvation of others.