attending a non-catholic church for convienance?

[CMatt25]

I haven’t seen anybody here not accept the Church’s teaching on who is a Catholic. . . so I fail to understand why you’re claiming this is something ‘you’ have lived with (since you then say ‘but I live with it. . .’)

Tantum, you and Jm apparently have missed some ppl saying such in the past but that’s ok. Peace.

 

[LilyM]

Catholics look differently than TEC ppl so the TEC ppl would know someone was Catholic? And I’m pretty certain TEC ppl hold more than one view on what they believe Communion represents. They are probably not monolithic in their reasoning. So I’m not sure how a TEC person can read a Catholic’s mind on what the Catholic, who they might not even know is Catholic, is thinking about it all Sigh.

Matt, as I said to begin with, it’s not simply about what Episcopalians believe their communion represents. For one thing communion is an objective truth and state rather than simply a subjective one. For another, it is also about what we as Catholics believe (and are taught) that receiving communion in a particular church means and represents.

More importantly, as many many here have told you, it’s about causing scandal and promoting syncretism and relativism.

Christian denominations are NOT the same as or equal with each other. The Truth is NOT fragmented or partial in this fashion. By advocating receiving communion in non-Catholic denominations you are promoting the idea that they are both equal to and the same as Catholicism, when they simply aren’t either.

 

[CMatt25]

By advocating receiving communion in non-Catholic denominations you are promoting the idea that they are both equal to and the same as Catholicism, when they simply aren’t either.

Hi Lily, I tried to explain how someone might not view a non-Catholic denomination’s Communion as equal to or the same as Catholicism’s. I did say someone might only think of it as breaking bread with fellow Christians and not at all the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Lutheranteach]

With respect, Matt. . .not wishing to ‘push’ or to seem like an inquisitor, I simply cannot understand how a person can profess to be Catholic yet ignore Canon Law and publically question at best and deny at worst Church teachings?

It is like saying, “I’m a vegatarian” yet when in the company of vegatarians insisting on being served meat, saying that as a vegetarian eating meat is perfectly acceptable, and insisting that you be accepted as a ‘perfect’ vegetarian and that **all the other vegetarians **accept YOUR actions as legitimate for a **vegetarian. **

You still have not addressed the Canon Law that I was careful to present.

Canon Law is not like the tray at the cafeteria–take some of this, ignore what you don’t like here, and make ‘substitutions’ as you see fit.

Neither is Catholicism a kind of indifferent or relative faith to be seen as 'one of many viable options but only just so ‘much’ or so ‘far’ as the individual chooses. . .

And yet for, I am guessing, 85% of American Catholics it is. They pick and choose every day and often do so with the full knowledge of DREs and priests.

 

[CMatt25]

And yet for, I am guessing, 85% of American Catholics it is. They pick and choose every day and often do so with the full knowledge of DREs and priests.

Luth, perhaps even some of those priests pick and choose too?

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Matt, it is a historical fact that the Church founded by Jesus Christ was the same Catholic Church that is here today being led by Pope Benedict XVI, who is the 266th Successor of Peter, in a straight and unbroken line of succession.

By contrast, there is no line of succession going from any Apostle to any Bishop of the TEC, not even in a crooked line, because the line of succession that did exist was deliberately broken by King Edward VI - he did this by changing the wording of the Ordination ceremony to leave out any indications of Apostolic Succession, and by changing what it was that the person was being ordained to do.

Oddly enough the Holy Spirit still works through these Christians, and very strongly at times. He very often convicts people of Christ through these non-Catholic Christians. I still haven’t met any Catholic priest (or Protestant pastor), with the foresight and wisdom of my original Protestant pastor. He was outstanding in the area of wisdom and prophecy. Although I admit Bishop Fulton Sheen may have been his Catholic equal, based on a couple of his books and the single DVD I have of one of his retreats. As far as I know he never took the eucharist once in the full sense of the word, yet God certainly worked through him.

Therefore they have the right to be called Christians, and that means we hold Christ in common. I see no conflict with someone going to an Anglican or Baptist church (or even Presbyterian, and I’ve got very good personal reasons to feel cynical about some Presbyterians), if need be, without taking communion.

In fact I think some traditional Catholics could learn a thing or three from some of the better Protestant pastors.

 

[blazerdave]

Matt, it is a historical fact that the Church founded by Jesus Christ was the same Catholic Church that is here today being led by Pope Benedict XVI, who is the 266th Successor of Peter, in a straight and unbroken line of succession.

By contrast, there is no line of succession going from any Apostle to any Bishop of the TEC, not even in a crooked line, because the line of succession that did exist was deliberately broken by King Edward VI - he did this by changing the wording of the Ordination ceremony to leave out any indications of Apostolic Succession, and by changing what it was that the person was being ordained to do.

Is it just me, or do WAY TOO MANY threads turn into a bashing of Anglican orders? I wish people didn’t feel the need to do so with such frequency. And our bishops do have Polish National Catholic Church consecrations in our line too.

But as for the topic at hand: It is a real tragedy that reconciliation, forgiveness, and reunification have made such little progress over the past few centuries that we’re still wrestling with these things. I won’t pretend to understand the Catholic point of view about attending one of our churches. But as an Anglican, it’s really, truly sad that it’s a “sin” for a Catholic to worship with us.

 

[blazerdave]

Oddly enough the Holy Spirit still works through these Christians, and very strongly at times. He very often convicts people of Christ through these non-Catholic Christians. I still haven’t met any Catholic priest (or Protestant pastor), with the foresight and wisdom of my original Protestant pastor. He was outstanding in the area of wisdom and prophecy. Although I admit Bishop Fulton Sheen may have been his Catholic equal, based on a couple of his books and the single DVD I have of one of his retreats. As far as I know he never took the eucharist once in the full sense of the word, yet God certainly worked through him.

Therefore they have the right to be called Christians, and that means we hold Christ in common. I see no conflict with someone going to an Anglican or Baptist church (or even Presbyterian, and I’ve got very good personal reasons to feel cynical about some Presbyterians), if need be, without taking communion.

In fact I think some traditional Catholics could learn a thing or three from some of the better Protestant pastors.

Thank you, sir. This was well said.

 

[CMatt25]

Is it just me, or do WAY TOO MANY threads turn into a bashing of Anglican orders? I wish people didn’t feel the need to do so with such frequency. And our bishops do have Polish National Catholic Church consecrations in our line too.

But as for the topic at hand: It is a real tragedy that reconciliation, forgiveness, and reunification have made such little progress over the past few centuries that we’re still wrestling with these things. I won’t pretend to understand the Catholic point of view about attending one of our churches. But as an Anglican, it’s really, truly sad that it’s a “sin” for a Catholic to worship with us.

Dave, it’s not just you and it’s really truly sad to me too :sad_yes: that it’s a sin for me to worship with you. Peace.

 

[blazerdave]

I’d like to add, too, that we’re as much to blame as anybody for the state of things. I’m the first to admit it. But yeah, it’s such a shameful tragedy…at my former Anglican parish, a woman from Guatemala worshiped with us a few times and absolutely loved it. Not sure how she found us; she had just moved into town and didn’t know anybody. But I’d rarely seen such fervor and commitment to Christ. She worshiped and made friends with us until she found out from other Catholics in the community that it was forbidden for her to do so. Haven’t seen or heard from her since. I guess when you put a human face on it, the cost just seems so much higher. I always love to argue the theoretical. I’m drawn too easily into discussions over the events of the 11th or 16th centuries and who was “right” or the “True Church.” But back in reality, it’s people like my Guatemalan friend who pay the price. Lord have mercy upon us.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It’s simple, Dave—trash Anglicans as a bunch of illegitimate goons with no real orders. You’re right, it’s on here daily. By doing so, it makes the individual feel triumphalistic and proud, and pity for the lost Anglican.

You are correct that the “Dutch Touch” Utrecht consecrations with the Old Catholics in the early 20th century reinfused apostolic succession just in case Apostolicae Curae was true, which I happen to think it wasn’t. The Catholic Church has not addressed Anglican orders since Apostolica Curae, and for good reason. Given the Catholic approach to sacraments and apostolicity, they’d have to acknowledge the orders as valid. Catholics in CAF who say Anglicans have invalid orders are not learned or educated in that subject. They just read a tract from CA or heard it somewhere or just read Apostolicae Curae and were satisfied with a papal decree prior to later developments. I think it’s very telling that so many of these Anglican priests going to Rome don’t get re-ordained?

As far as co-worship, I do understand why that doesn’t take place and why there is still the divide. Imputation vs. infusion, purgatory, indulgences, works vs. faith, papal supremacy, papal infallibility, Mary, so many issues divide Catholics and Anglicans. They are not ready yet to reconcile and worship side by side. Even if Anglicans do have valid orders, and I think they do, the theology and dogmas don’t line up between the two hemispheres. I agree it’s sad. I think there’s plenty of blame on both sides. The Anglican Communion has, in the lamest way, allowed women’s ordination, the ultimate monkey wrench in the gears to screw up any serious talks. I appreciate the Catholic reluctance to proceed with that feminist sacerdotal agenda going on. The Orthodox want nothing of it either, understandably. The idiocy of Rowan Williams in his ham sandwich wimpy approach to running the AC hasn’t helped…what a wimp…And the Anglicans view Pope B16 as just trying to steal away priests and parishes via ordinariates instead of dialogue. It’s a mess…

Is it just me, or do WAY TOO MANY threads turn into a bashing of Anglican orders? I wish people didn’t feel the need to do so with such frequency. And our bishops do have Polish National Catholic Church consecrations in our line too.

But as for the topic at hand: It is a real tragedy that reconciliation, forgiveness, and reunification have made such little progress over the past few centuries that we’re still wrestling with these things. I won’t pretend to understand the Catholic point of view about attending one of our churches. But as an Anglican, it’s really, truly sad that it’s a “sin” for a Catholic to worship with us.

 

[LilyM]

As far as co-worship, I do understand why that doesn’t take place and why there is still the divide. Imputation vs. infusion, purgatory, indulgences, works vs. faith, papal supremacy, papal infallibility, Mary, so many issues divide Catholics and Anglicans. They are not ready yet to reconcile and worship side by side. Even if Anglicans do have valid orders, and I think they do, the theology and dogmas don’t line up between the two hemispheres. I agree it’s sad. I think there’s plenty of blame on both sides. The Anglican Communion has, in the lamest way, allowed women’s ordination, the ultimate monkey wrench in the gears to screw up any serious talks. I appreciate the Catholic reluctance to proceed with that feminist sacerdotal agenda going on. The Orthodox want nothing of it either, understandably. The idiocy of Rowan Williams in his ham sandwich wimpy approach to running the AC hasn’t helped…what a wimp…And the Anglicans view Pope B16 as just trying to steal away priests and parishes via ordinariates instead of dialogue. It’s a mess…

Amen! Worshipping side by side and communing together, quite simply, implies a level of community and unity that we just don’t share by any reasonable definition of the term. Not placing blame, it’s simple fact.

Not that union is impossible or not achievable, but a lot of work would need to be done.

 

[ElizabethPH]

Dave, it’s not just you and it’s really truly sad to me too :sad_yes: that it’s a sin for me to worship with you. Peace.

It’s not a sin for you to go to a protestant service. But it doesn’t fulfill your Sunday obligation as a Catholic.

 

[rooney]

by the way. i attended the anglican church. i did not recieve and never considered doing so. i will confess skipping morning mass next time i get the chance. and the school event was all but unavoidable. i am doing a fellowship with the honors program that i might have lost if i was any later than i was. i had to set up sound tec, food, and open doors. it was semi akward there because i was the only one not to recieve. i just prayed with the less than ten other people there. i introduced myself by name to the priest and when asked why we had not met by a parishoner I let the women know who I was and we had a common aquaintence. (including that I am catholic)

i like having sunday as a day of prayer and at least i did pray. i don’t think i make any statement about their practices by attending. I mean the differences are not many anyhow. I certainly still consider the Pope as my leader, not the English royalty.

i had visited a bunch place of worship once for a sociology research project. when i attended ceremonies at a church of latter day saints they assured me that i was welcome even though i was clearly just there to take notes. i used to travel in an rv with my parents as a kid and they would sometimes go to whatever church we could find in the area in stead of spending all day looking for a rcc since there was no laptops to look stuff up those days.

history wise. didn’t the anglican church only form when king henry wanted a divorce. not because he was unhappy with the form of worship?

 

[jmcrae]

And yet for, I am guessing, 85% of American Catholics it is. They pick and choose every day and often do so with the full knowledge of DREs and priests.

Speaking as a Catechist, the reason we “let people get away” with things that are not full expressions of our faith is that, first of all, the fact that someone self-identifies as Catholic is a sign that they are on the journey of conversion - a journey that takes many steps.

We aren’t leaving those people in that situation, however - the family who only occasionally goes to Mass on Sundays is encouraged to go more frequently, but in the meantime, yes, we accept their efforts, and you will never see anyone being publicly scourged on the Church steps, yes, even if they are a C&E Catholic living with three or more sex partners.

This *doesn’t *mean that we don’t take the Sunday Obligation seriously, or that we don’t take any of our other teachings seriously, but rather, that we realize that people are not going to be bullied into making their Sunday obligation or into doing any of the other things that Catholics are required to do - we have to coax and entice them, and show them how their lives would be improved by doing these things. Mentioning that we missed them last Sunday, rather than lecturing them, for example.

Eventually, they will get there - in the meantime, we encourage them in their struggles.

In a medium like the Forums, one has to be somewhat more direct, because there isn’t the ongoing relationship in which things can unfold gradually - and, also, one assumes that when people are asking direct questions on the Forum, that they are interested in truthful, direct answers.

 

[jmcrae]

Is it just me, or do WAY TOO MANY threads turn into a bashing of Anglican orders?

I am not “bashing” - I am pointing out the historical facts of the case.

Do you believe that King Edward VI did not fully intend to break you away from the Apostolic Succession, so as to establish a “spiritual” form of Christianity?

 

[CMatt25]

by the way. i attended the anglican church. i did not recieve and never considered doing so.

Good for you to want to pray and worship. And you’re going to confess when you get a chance so there ya go. And as I pointed out you had never said you were going to receive. I merely was asking why if someone did feel called to commune with fellow Christians and of course didn’t mind disobeying Canon to do so, then why they could not since TEC welcomes all baptized Trinitarian Christians to the altar. An the onslaught came forth. I was not encouraging anyone to do anything they did not want to do one way or the other. And no, you hardly made a statement by attending, other than the statement you wanted to pray in worship. God bless you and peace.

 

[Hiskid1973]

i expected to attend a 6:30pm Catholic mass today.
i did remember untill after the morning masses were over that I need to be at a school event by 7 to set up.
the 6:30pm is the only catholic mass left that i am in walking distance of (no car).
i think i am going to attend a 5:30 mass at the episcopal church;
does this fullfill my sunday obligation?
should i confess not attending catholic mass before i recieve again?

Just what is a “sunday obligation” ?

 

[jmcrae]

Good for you to want to pray and worship. And you’re going to confess when you get a chance so there ya go. And as I pointed out you had never said you were going to receive. I merely was asking why if someone did feel called to commune with fellow Christians and of course didn’t mind disobeying Canon to do so, then why they could not since TEC welcomes all baptized Trinitarian Christians to the altar. An the onslaught came forth. I was not encouraging anyone to do anything they did not want to do one way or the other. And no, you hardly made a statement by attending, other than the statement you wanted to pray in worship. God bless you and peace.

No one should ever “want” to disobey the Church, since the Church is the means of grace for eternal life in Heaven with Jesus Christ.

Disobedience to the Church is not something to be taken lightly, since Jesus said, “What you (the authority of the Catholic Church) bind on earth is bound in Heaven; what you release on earth is released in Heaven.”

Somehow, there is this idea out there that God disagrees with the Church, or that “God will understand” when we disobey the Church. However, the Scriptures are very clear. God ratifies every law of the Church, no matter how small, and He will not be mocked.

 

[choy]

I think you meant to say Christian. I thought the Capital C Catholic Church came a little after the Last Supper. Missed the Last Supper by about 70 yrs.

The combination “the Catholic Church” (hē katholikē ekklēsia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnisans, written about the year 110.

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Catholic

just because the name Catholic Church didn’t exist back then, doesn’t mean the Church itself didn’t exist back then

Jesus founded what was to become recognized as the Catholic Church on Peter. that was the Catholic Church right there.

think of it this way, its rare that some humans have names at the moment of their conception. sure, some people know what they will name their kids even before they get married. but most don’t get their names until close to the day they were born. some even don’t get their names final after they were born. that doesn’t mean you didn’t exist in the last 9 months, just because you didn’t have that name