Attending Episcopal services

[Usbek_de_Perse]

An interesting question: will there be a unified book of Divine Worship for the Anglican Use?

Several observations are in order: First, it is the Book of Common Prayer, not the “Book of Prayers”. All English speakers should pay proper deference to a text that is as responsible as Shakespeare and the King James Bible for the beauty of the English language.

Next, it is important to understand that Anglican churches are usually constituted nationally, so we have the Church of England, the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Church in Wales, the Church of Ireland, the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, now sometimes called TEC (the Episcopal Church). All these churches base their worship on the Prayer Books of the Church of England, especially those of 1549, 1559, and 1662, but there have been significant changes, especially between the Scottish Church and the Church of England. (The established church in Scotland is the Church of Scotland, which is Presbyterian. The Scottish Episcopal Church is not an “established” church the way the Church of England is. When the Queen travels to Scotland, she is a member of the Church of Scotland, officially).

The Episcopal Church received its first episcopal orders not from the Church of England, but from the Scottish Episcopal Church. They also chose to adopt the prayer book from the Scottish Church. This has been revised several times since the American Revolution, most recently, and most radically, in 1979. The 1979 prayer book contains services in both traditional language and in more modern language. It is, for this and other reasons very long, having as many pages as the Arabian Nights (1,001).

It was this book that was adopted for Anglican Use, and retitled the Book of Divine Worship. (The Episcopal Church has never copy-written any of its prayerbooks). Therefore, the book contains both modern language and traditional language services. This includes the Psalter in both contemporary and traditional language. The Anglican Use version has no ordinal or confirmation service, yet still manages to be 974 pages long. Interestingly, the Book of Divine Worship includes the beautiful and very traditional Anglican service of Holy Matrimony, whose words ring with unmatched beauty. The traditional service was dropped from the Episcopal Church’s 1979 Book of Common Prayer.

It is a Catholic Church, which consists primarily of Anglicans who have converted to the Catholic Church, and which use thier previous Book of Prayers and liturgical format (with minor modifications). They are not numerous ( I believe there are several in the US). However, they are likely to become more numerous as the Pope recently provided a clear structure for Anglicans/Episcopalians to convert in groups and retain most of their heritage. If one were to go to an Anglican/Episcopalian service, one would find it to be very similar to the Mass.

The actual structure will be a bit different, as they will not be part of the diocese in which they physically reside, but will be in what is called an Ordinariate. There are currently 5 bishops - 3 active and 2 retired, as well as a number of groups of laity (and presumably some priests) in England who will be joining the Church this Easter. Ordinations of the clergy will be at Pentecost.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You agreed with me on every essential point. I wonder, however about whether it is actually considered a sin to take communion in non-Roman catholic churches. I always thought it was discouraged but not actually sinful. After all, it is not a black mass, worship of the devil, or an expression of non-Christian faith. You may, for whatever reasons, question the validity of the sacrament, but I don’t think that taking such communion is even considered sinful by the Roman catholic church. After all, even Cardinal Ratzinger felt that Christ was as present in a Lutheran Lord’s Supper as in a Catholic Mass.

I would, of course, be glad for an edifying response.

Yes, it is sinful. Allow me:

Canon 844 §1 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to catholic members of Christ’s faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from catholic ministers, except as provided in §§2, 3 and 4 of this canon and in canon 861 §2.

Canon 844 §2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
Canon 844 §3 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the eastern Churches not in full communion with the catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed. The same applies to members of other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid eastern Churches so far as the sacraments are concerned. Canon 844 §4 If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgement of the diocesan Bishop or of the Episcopal Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other christians not in full communion with the catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.

---

There you go, right from canon law.

And please do remember that according to Catholic understanding, Lutheran and Episcopal churches do not possess a Eucharist which is valid by CATHOLIC UNDERSTANDING.

---

That means we understand that to a Lutheran, his communion is valid for him, and for an Episcopalian, his communion is valid for him. We are simply saying that as Catholics, we cannot hold that communion as valid by our Catholic understanding, and it would be a falsehood for us to say that those communions are ‘equivalent’ or ‘equally valid in Catholic understanding’ for a Catholic to licitly receive them.

We are talking not about whether an Episcopalian would ‘share’ with a Catholic, but whether a Catholic may, by Catholic understanding and Catholic law, ‘receive’ that communion. As is carefully delineated above, in the majority of cases, virtually 99.9% of the time, he MAY NOT DO SO.

 

[GKC]

Yes, it is sinful. Allow me:

Canon 844 §1 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to catholic members of Christ’s faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from catholic ministers, except as provided in §§2, 3 and 4 of this canon and in canon 861 §2.

Canon 844 §2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
Canon 844 §3 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the eastern Churches not in full communion with the catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed. The same applies to members of other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid eastern Churches so far as the sacraments are concerned. Canon 844 §4 If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgement of the diocesan Bishop or of the Episcopal Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other christians not in full communion with the catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.

---

There you go, right from canon law.

And please do remember that according to Catholic understanding, Lutheran and Episcopal churches do not possess a Eucharist which is valid by CATHOLIC UNDERSTANDING.

---

That means we understand that to a Lutheran, his communion is valid for him, and for an Episcopalian, his communion is valid for him. We are simply saying that as Catholics, we cannot hold that communion as valid by our Catholic understanding, and it would be a falsehood for us to say that those communions are ‘equivalent’ or ‘equally valid in Catholic understanding’ for a Catholic to licitly receive them.

We are talking not about whether an Episcopalian would ‘share’ with a Catholic, but whether a Catholic may, by Catholic understanding and Catholic law, ‘receive’ that communion. As is carefully delineated above, in the majority of cases, virtually 99.9% of the time, he MAY NOT DO SO.

Well put.

GKC

 

[Like]

I am trying to find out if missing Catholic Mass to attend EpiscopalMass is a sin or is it ok as the two are so similar and you still receive Communion?

Since when does attending a service in the Episcopal Church constitute a mortal sin (or any other kind of sin)? It may not satisfy a Roman catholic’s “Sunday Obligation”, but there is no sin in attending. I’m not even sure that receiving holy communion in any non-Roman church constitutes a sin.

Also, it is not a sin for an Episcopalian to attend a Roman catholic mass. If the Episcopalian in question comes from a parish with a strong liturgical background, he/she may find the average RC service slightly more edifying than a Baptist church, but he/she is free to attend.

It shows lack of proper deference to Roman sensibilities if one should take communion without prior arrangement. I never do, out of respect.

I answered the question as asked, not what you left out of the OP’s question (missing Mass)!

 

[OraLabora]

Since when does attending a service in the Episcopal Church constitute a mortal sin (or any other kind of sin)? It may not satisfy a Roman catholic’s “Sunday Obligation”, but there is no sin in attending. I’m not even sure that receiving holy communion in any non-Roman church constitutes a sin.

Also, it is not a sin for an Episcopalian to attend a Roman catholic mass. If the Episcopalian in question comes from a parish with a strong liturgical background, he/she may find the average RC service slightly more edifying than a Baptist church, but he/she is free to attend.

It shows lack of proper deference to Roman sensibilities if one should take communion without prior arrangement. I never do, out of respect.

The OP asked if it was OK to attend an Anglican service in lieu of Catholic Mass, and it isn’t. It is not sinful to attend as an observer if one meet’s one’s Sunday obligation in the approved manner (attendance at any RC Church or any of the other 22 Churches in communion with Rome).

That said I see the words “mortal sin” bandied about here with impunity. Mortal sin requires three conditions:

1. grave matter;
2. full knowledge;
3. full consent.

Clearly if the OP is asking the question here, he didn’t have full knowledge so up until this point he was not sinning mortally. One could argue he still doesn’t have full knowledge as this site isn’t an authoritative source of teaching or the teaching may be poorly explained; although if he asked “ask an apologist” and a priest answered, he would be getting it with authority. One could also argue that if he doesn’t understand the reasons his culpability could be mitigated as well. Lastly, if had, say, a spouse that forbade him from attending or coerced him into not attending, his consent wouldn’t be full.

So I wish that when people here were talking about a grave sin, they would limit themselves to the words “grave sin” or “grave matter”. That implies the potential to be mortal. It doesn’t guarantee it, and only God knows the true state of a penitent’s soul.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

I hate to beat a dead horse, so I am assuming that there is some life left in the beast.

Where, in the citation of Roman catholic canon law does it state that receipt of holy communion from a non-Roman church whose orders are at least in question is actually sinful? I don’t see it there. Unless there is a general provision that breaking canon law is ipso facto sinful.

I should point out that many Anglican clergy have orders that would pass muster under Apostolicae Curae. These include some whose episcopal orders came through Orthodox, Old Catholic, and even possible Roman lines. Even if the RC position under Apostolicae Curae were correct, many Anglican clergy would still be considered to have valid orders. I am not sure how many, that is, what proportion of male Anglican clergy.

Yes, it is sinful. Allow me:

Canon 844 §1 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to catholic members of Christ’s faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from catholic ministers, except as provided in §§2, 3 and 4 of this canon and in canon 861 §2.

Canon 844 §2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

 

[bayernfan]

And please do remember that according to Catholic understanding, Lutheran and Episcopal churches do not possess a Eucharist which is valid by CATHOLIC UNDERSTANDING.

---

That means we understand that to a Lutheran, his communion is valid for him, and for an Episcopalian, his communion is valid for him. We are simply saying that as Catholics, we cannot hold that communion as valid by our Catholic understanding, and it would be a falsehood for us to say that those communions are ‘equivalent’ or ‘equally valid in Catholic understanding’ for a Catholic to licitly receive them.

All of this sounds so relativistic, I cannot believe the Church teaches this. Do you have any citations or documents that say such.

Objectively, all of those non-Catholic “communions” are wrong and blasphemous.

 

[ProVobis]

ewtn.com/expert/answers/intercommunion.htm

Canon 844 (c.671 in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)

1. Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments to Catholic members of the Christian faithful only and, likewise, the latter may licitly receive the sacraments only from Catholic ministers with due regard for parts 2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and can. 861, part 2.

1. Whenever necessity requires or genuine spiritual advantage suggests, and provided that the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, it is lawful for the faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid.

1. Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned.

1. If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians who do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed.

1. For the cases in parts 2, 3, and 4, neither the diocesan bishop nor the conference of bishops is to enact general norms except after consultation with at least the local competent authority of the interested non- Catholic Church or community.

In keeping with the sacramental meaning of the Eucharist this canon reserves the sacraments to Catholics, that is, those who are in communion with the Church. It then addresses the question of Catholics receiving the sacraments from non-Catholics. It sets the following strict conditions:

a. necessity or genuine spiritual advantage
b. when the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided
c. it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister
d. a church which has valid sacraments

This last condition is the key one, since it eliminates ALL the Reformation churches (Anglican, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist etc.), none of whom have valid sacred orders, and therefore, a valid Eucharist. The possibility of a Catholic receiving from the minister of another church, when the first three conditions are fulfilled, is limited to the Orthodox Churches, other Oriental Churches, Old Catholics, Polish National and others whose sacraments are recognized by the Holy See. As paragraph 3 notes, the members of those churches may likewise receive from a Catholic minister, when they ask and are disposed.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

All of this sounds so relativistic, I cannot believe the Church teaches this. Do you have any citations or documents that say such.

Objectively, all of those non-Catholic “communions” are wrong and blasphemous.

It is NOT relativistic.

While they are not valid according to Catholic understanding (certainly not valid for a Catholic), the fact is, according to Episcopal understanding they are offering what for THEM is a valid Eucharist. Depending on the congregation (high or low) the eucharist can be literal (but not valid for a Catholic because Anglicans lack valid orders **by CATHOLIC UNDERSTANDING), **or ‘symbolic’ for the low church, again lacking validity FOR CATHOLICS due to both lack of valid orders and lack of valid understanding of the Eucharist.

For the Lutheran consubstantiation, it is extremely SIMILAR to the Catholic understanding, but not 100%–and Lutherans likewise lack valid orders by CATHOLIC UNDERSTANDING.

There are no other churches (aside from those which were listed in the relevant sections of canon law such as the Orthodox) who offer a Eucharist which is valid BY CATHOLIC UNDERSTANDING or whose priests HAVE VALID ORDERS BY CATHOLIC UNDERSTANDING.

This is not relativism. I totally myself believe and understand the Catholics to have the correct position and understanding. . .but until the non-Catholic Christian becomes a Catholic himself or herself, the sacraments in his or her church are indeed acceptable FOR THEM.

**After all, we accept a Trinitarian baptism as valid whether it is in a Catholic or non-Catholic Christian church. (For a baptism does not require administration by someone with VALID ORDERS.) Same thing with a marriage (again, not requiring someone with VALID ORDERS.) That means that we accept that non-Catholic Christians may administer VALID SACRAMENTS provided those sacraments have valid matter (in baptisms and in marriages). In so far as their understanding of the Eucharist goes, their sacrament is valid for them. . .but not for us. **

 

[bayernfan]

It is NOT relativistic.

This is not relativism. I totally myself believe and understand the Catholics to have the correct position and understanding. . .but until the non-Catholic Christian becomes a Catholic himself or herself, the sacraments in his or her church are indeed acceptable FOR THEM.

Relativism:
The theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them; A specific such theory, advocated by a particular philosopher or school of thought
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/relativism

Yes, it IS relativistic. There is but ONE Truth, and ONE CHURCH. That is God’s Church, the CATHOLIC CHURCH.

For them it is not right. They may THINK they are right, but they are in fact wrong. There is but one Truth - Jesus Christ.