Episcopal Church

[mikew262]

This thread is primarily addressed to former Catholics who joined the Episcopal Church, or for present Catholics who are former members of the Episcopal Church. However, others may join in.

I find myself being drawn to the Episcopal Church, in fact I went to one of their services yesterday. As a life long Catholic, it would be hard to leave the Catholic Church, but I find the Episcopal Church to possibly be a better fit for me and my present way of thinking. I constantly pray on it and ask God to lead me to where he thinks I should be.

I personally believe that if you are a Christian, you have the same chance as any other Christian in getting to Heaven someday; whether you are a Catholic or Protestant is secondary. Even if you are a different faith altogether doesn’t necessarily disqualify you, but that is a topic for a different thread. I know this thinking will alarm some of the hard core Catholics who hang on this forum, but that is how I feel.

Comments from the type of folks I addressed this too in the first paragraph?

 

[jesusluv]

I understand exactly what you mean. The same thing happened to me a couple years back. To speak the truth, I haven’t been to a RC mass since. Just be ready for a huge backlash for even having those thoughts on this forum though.

 

[GKC]

If, upon examining the beliefs, or lack of same, of the Episcopal Church (and be sure and do it carefully), you find that they more adequately express your view of historic Christianity, then certainly, that’s the place for you. I’m an orthodox, traditional Anglican, myself, and I wouldn’t approach the Episcopal Church closer than a handful of furlongs.

GKC

*Anglicanus Catholicus *

 

[emeraldcoast]

God Bless!

 

[FickleFreckled]

You don’t say why you’re considering leaving the RC, but if it’s not something fundamental, you might see if there’s a parish in your area that used to be Episcopal or Anglican and is now Roman Catholic.
we hve a formerly-Anglican parish here where the priest, his wife and all the families became Catholic together. They’re called “Anglican usage”, having
a special dispensation to continue using the Anglican Mass. They also used to use a lot of Anglican music, which I loved, but recently I was disappointed to find a lot of Gregorian Chant. I don’t know whether it’s permanent; I don’t go there often. You should be where you are best promoted to live a Christian life. Have you talked to any formerly-Episcopal Catholic priests to see why they switched to RC? Whatever you decide, God bless you in your search.

 

[GKC]

You don’t say why you’re considering leaving the RC, but if it’s not something fundamental, you might see if there’s a parish in your area that used to be Episcopal or Anglican and is now Roman Catholic.
we hve a formerly-Anglican parish here where the priest, his wife and all the families became Catholic together. They’re called “Anglican usage”, having
a special dispensation to continue using the Anglican Mass. They also used to use a lot of Anglican music, which I loved, but recently I was disappointed to find a lot of Gregorian Chant. I don’t know whether it’s permanent; I don’t go there often. You should be where you are best promoted to live a Christian life. Have you talked to any formerly-Episcopal Catholic priests to see why they switched to RC? Whatever you decide, God bless you in your search.

Outside of Texas, Anglican Use parishes tend to be rare, and fleeting.

GKC

 

[chris_molter]

This thread is primarily addressed to former Catholics who joined the Episcopal Church, or for present Catholics who are former members of the Episcopal Church. However, others may join in.

I was born and raised Episcopalian and converted to Catholicism in my late 20s. I was an aspirant to Holy Orders in TEC prior to conversion, so I was pretty involved in what was going on.

I find myself being drawn to the Episcopal Church, in fact I went to one of their services yesterday. As a life long Catholic, it would be hard to leave the Catholic Church, but I find the Episcopal Church to possibly be a better fit for me and my present way of thinking. I constantly pray on it and ask God to lead me to where he thinks I should be.

It sounds like you’re a ‘cultural Catholic’. You share many beliefs with the Church, but dissent on others, yet you stay because that’s where you were raised and what you’re familiar with. Am I off base? (I’m not trying to be accusatory or judgemental, just open and accurate)

Also, the beliefs in TEC vary wildly, even moreso than in most other Anglican churches. It’s easy to ‘fit in’ somewhere in TEC because of this variety.

I personally believe that if you are a Christian, you have the same chance as any other Christian in getting to Heaven someday; whether you are a Catholic or Protestant is secondary. Even if you are a different faith altogether doesn’t necessarily disqualify you, but that is a topic for a different thread. I know this thinking will alarm some of the hard core Catholics who hang on this forum, but that is how I feel.

Well, I don’t know about using “chance” as a way to discuss salvation, but the Church doesn’t teach much differently than you’re saying here. Perhaps revisiting your own Catholic faith would help you see if you really want to start looking outside the Church for a place to worship.

There are a lot of great people in TEC. My family is still Episcopalian. Emeraldcoast is a great person on the boards here. There are also, like any church, a fair share of nasty folks as well. I have a rather low opinion of the TEC hierarchy, myself. My old Episcopal Church was wonderful and faithful and disagreed strongly with the direction the national church has been taking. That being said, I couldn’t remain in a church that supports abortion, doesn’t have a coherent eucharistic theology, and was sprinting down the path towards becoming not much more than Unitarian Universalism with somewhat better liturgy.

If Anglicanism (as opposed to what Episcopalianism is becoming, which is NOT Anglicanism) interests you, I’d suggest talking to GKC or Contarini on here. They could probably point you towards a local Anglican parish (not in communion with TEC).

 

[GKC]

I was born and raised Episcopalian and converted to Catholicism in my late 20s. I was an aspirant to Holy Orders in TEC prior to conversion, so I was pretty involved in what was going on.

It sounds like you’re a ‘cultural Catholic’. You share many beliefs with the Church, but dissent on others, yet you stay because that’s where you were raised and what you’re familiar with. Am I off base? (I’m not trying to be accusatory or judgemental, just open and accurate)

Also, the beliefs in TEC vary wildly, even moreso than in most other Anglican churches. It’s easy to ‘fit in’ somewhere in TEC because of this variety.

Well, I don’t know about using “chance” as a way to discuss salvation, but the Church doesn’t teach much differently than you’re saying here. Perhaps revisiting your own Catholic faith would help you see if you really want to start looking outside the Church for a place to worship.

There are a lot of great people in TEC. My family is still Episcopalian. Emeraldcoast is a great person on the boards here. There are also, like any church, a fair share of nasty folks as well. I have a rather low opinion of the TEC hierarchy, myself. My old Episcopal Church was wonderful and faithful and disagreed strongly with the direction the national church has been taking. That being said, I couldn’t remain in a church that supports abortion, doesn’t have a coherent eucharistic theology, and was sprinting down the path towards becoming not much more than Unitarian Universalism with somewhat better liturgy.

If Anglicanism (as opposed to what Episcopalianism is becoming, which is NOT Anglicanism) interests you, I’d suggest talking to GKC or Contarini on here. They could probably point you towards a local Anglican parish (not in communion with TEC).

Thanks for thinking of me. I’d be happy to talk, but I don’t try to sheep-steal from the RCC. If one can affirm the Roman particulars, then Rome is a good place for them.

Contarini is no rustler either, but he is TEC.

GKC

 

[mikew262]

It sounds like you’re a ‘cultural Catholic’. You share many beliefs with the Church, but dissent on others, yet you stay because that’s where you were raised and what you’re familiar with. Am I off base? (I’m not trying to be accusatory or judgemental, just open and accurate)

Yes, right or wrong, that’s probably a fairly accurate description of me at this point in life.

 

[1ke]

I converted to the Catholic Church from the Episcopal church in my mid-twenties.

The doctrinal confusion of the EC pushed me out the door. As has been pointed out-- they are little more than Unitarian at this point. A plethora of conflicting beliefs all co-existing in one “communion”… it’s right out of Orwell (doublethink).

That is not the Church that Christ went to the cross for.

 

[emeraldcoast]

I converted to the Catholic Church from the Episcopal church in my mid-twenties.

The doctrinal confusion of the EC pushed me out the door. As has been pointed out-- they are little more than Unitarian at this point. A plethora of conflicting beliefs all co-existing in one “communion”… it’s right out of Orwell (doublethink).

That is not the Church that Christ went to the cross for.

 

[benedictgal]

My question would be this. Why would you want to leave the one, True Church, founded by Jesus Christ, and head to a splinter group founded by King Henry VIII on the basis of his inability to get an annulment?

The Church is a divine institution. Inasmuch as the administration is human, we have the guarantee of Christ, Himself, that the gates of hell would not prevail against her.

I would suggest that the OP read the document, Dominus Iesus, written by the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, in his official capacity as Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

adoremus.org/910-00DomJesus.html

Part of the problem is that perhaps we’ve been exposed to so many liturgical abuses and misrepresentations of the Faith that we have lost a genuine appreciation for the beauty of the Church.

Please read the document. It should prove to be a real eye-opener.

 

[spoiltvictorian]

My question would be this. Why would you want to leave the one, True Church, founded by Jesus Christ, and head to a splinter group founded by King Henry VIII on the basis of his inability to get an annulment?

The Church is a divine institution. Inasmuch as the administration is human, we have the guarantee of Christ, Himself, that the gates of hell would not prevail against her.

I would suggest that the OP read the document, Dominus Iesus, written by the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, in his official capacity as Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

adoremus.org/910-00DomJesus.html

Part of the problem is that perhaps we’ve been exposed to so many liturgical abuses and misrepresentations of the Faith that we have lost a genuine appreciation for the beauty of the Church.

Please read the document. It should prove to be a real eye-opener.

I’m not Anglican. But, I do know that annulments were the thing to do back then, and Henry expected his to be granted as the annulments of other princes and kings were granted. Also, Henry was interested in theology like many kings were back then, even though he also found time to party. His reasons to side with the English Reformers were not purely theological, or necessarily correct, but he did have theological reasons to do what he did.

 

[benedictgal]

I’m not Anglican. But, I do know that annulments were the thing to do back then, and Henry expected his to be granted as the annulments of other princes and kings were granted. Also, Henry was interested in theology like many kings were back then, even though he also found time to party. His reasons to side with the English Reformers were not purely theological, or necessarily correct, but he did have theological reasons to do what he did.

However, there were no valid reasons for his wanting to divorce Queen Catherine of Aragon. In fact, what he wound up doing was not only breaking away from the authentic Church founded by Jesus Christ, but, also unleashing a horrendous blood bath that took the lives of martyrs like Sts. Thomas More, Cardinal Fisher, et al.

Something else to consider is that the Episcopal Church in the United States is not, well, united. There are divisions over the issue of just who should be ordained. In fact, it was the issue of women’s ordinations that led to some entire parishes, along with their clergy, converting to Catholicism. There are other issues facing the Anglican communion that are at the point of ruining that ecclesial community.

Another thing is the fact that leaving the Catholic Church will, in effect, cut one off from the sacraments, especially that of the Holy Eucharist. Because the Church does not recognize the validity of Anglican/Episcopalian ordinations, whatever “sacraments” they attempt to confect are not valid, not real.

In closing, I would also suggest that the OP read an article written by the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus. Even though the OP speaks of the Episcopalian Church, I believe that what Fr. Neuhaus wrote (since he was a Lutheran minister who converted to the Church and was subsequently ordained a priest) may contribute to the OP’s situation.

firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1284

Here is a snippet of what he wrote to his Lutheran friends:

When in 1990 I was received by the late John Cardinal O’Connor into full communion with the Catholic Church—on September 8, the Nativity of Our Lady—I issued a short statement in response to the question Why. With Lutheran friends especially in mind, I said, “To those of you with whom I have traveled in the past, know that we travel together still. In the mystery of Christ and his Church nothing is lost, and the broken will be mended. If, as I am persuaded, my communion with Christ’s Church is now the fuller, then it follows that my unity with all who are in Christ is now the stronger. We travel together still.”

When Cardinal Newman was asked at a dinner party why he became a Catholic, he responded that it was not the kind of thing that can be properly explained between soup and the fish course. When asked the same question, and of course one is asked it with great frequency, I usually refer to Newman’s response. But then I add what I call the short answer, which is simply this: I became a Catholic in order to be more fully what I was and who I was as a Lutheran. The story that follows may shed some light on that short answer.

In the statement of September 8, 1990, I also said:

I cannot express adequately my gratitude for all the goodness I have known in the Lutheran communion. There I was baptized, there I learned my prayers, there I was introduced to Scripture and creed, there I was nurtured by Christ on Christ, there I came to know the utterly gratuitous love of God by which we live astonished. For my theological formation, for friendships beyond numbering, for great battles fought, for mutual consolations in defeat, for companionship in ministry—for all this I give thanks. . . . As for my thirty years as a Lutheran pastor, there is nothing in that ministry that I would repudiate, except my many sins and shortcomings. My becoming a priest in the Roman Catholic Church will be the completion and right ordering of what was begun all those years ago. Nothing that is good is rejected, all is fulfilled.

The rest of the article is a good, solid read.

 

[spoiltvictorian]

“To those of you with whom I have traveled in the past, know that we travel together still. In the mystery of Christ and his Church nothing is lost, and the broken will be mended. If, as I am persuaded, my communion with Christ’s Church is now the fuller, then it follows that my unity with all who are in Christ is now the stronger. We travel together still.”

Love it! So true.

 

[GKC]

However, there were no valid reasons for his wanting to divorce Queen Catherine of Aragon. In fact, what he wound up doing was not only breaking away from the authentic Church founded by Jesus Christ, but, also unleashing a horrendous blood bath that took the lives of martyrs like Sts. Thomas More, Cardinal Fisher, et al.

Something else to consider is that the Episcopal Church in the United States is not, well, united. There are divisions over the issue of just who should be ordained. In fact, it was the issue of women’s ordinations that led to some entire parishes, along with their clergy, converting to Catholicism. There are other issues facing the Anglican communion that are at the point of ruining that ecclesial community.

Another thing is the fact that leaving the Catholic Church will, in effect, cut one off from the sacraments, especially that of the Holy Eucharist. Because the Church does not recognize the validity of Anglican/Episcopalian ordinations, whatever “sacraments” they attempt to confect are not valid, not real.

In closing, I would also suggest that the OP read an article written by the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus. Even though the OP speaks of the Episcopalian Church, I believe that what Fr. Neuhaus wrote (since he was a Lutheran minister who converted to the Church and was subsequently ordained a priest) may contribute to the OP’s situation.

firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1284

Here is a snippet of what he wrote to his Lutheran friends:

The rest of the article is a good, solid read.

I do not argue with your basic sentiments. But historically, you are not correct. Henry sought a decree of nullity, not a divorce, and such an action was commonplace, in his day, and at his social level (and below). He had, in his causa, a quite adequately reasoned position, though there was an even stronger one, not used (an undispensed impediment against the justice of public honesty). In any usual case, his petition would have been granted. But one of the principles being the aunt of the Holy Roman Emperor was not any sort of usual case.

Canonically, Henry’s case was as strong as would have been required at the time. Historically, his concern about his dynasty and his scruples over the Levitical prohibition was sincere. History is complicated.

And opinions vary on a few of your points.

I’d stay away from the Episcopal Church, all the same.

GKC

 

[benedictgal]

I do not argue with your basic sentiments. But historically, you are not correct. Henry sought a decree of nullity, not a divorce, and such an action was commonplace, in his day, and at his social level (and below). He had, in his causa, a quite adequately reasoned position, though there was an even stronger one, not used (an undispensed impediment against the justice of public honesty). In any usual case, his petition would have been granted. But one of the principles being the aunt of the Holy Roman Emperor was not any sort of usual case.

Canonically, Henry’s case was as strong as would have been required at the time. Historically, his concern about his dynasty and his scruples over the Levitical prohibition was sincere. History is complicated.

And opinions vary on a few of your points.

I’d stay away from the Episcopal Church, all the same.

GKC

Snce when does not being able to produce a male heir count as legitimate grounds for an annulment? Furthermore, historical records indicate that Queen Catherine of Aragon was a faithful wife and devoted to both her husband and the people.

Nonetheless, none of these are sufficient grounds to break away from Rome and establish one’s own ecclesial community, or, jump from Peter’s barque and go elsewhere.

 

[Contarini]

This thread is primarily addressed to former Catholics who joined the Episcopal Church, or for present Catholics who are former members of the Episcopal Church. However, others may join in.

I find myself being drawn to the Episcopal Church, in fact I went to one of their services yesterday. As a life long Catholic, it would be hard to leave the Catholic Church, but I find the Episcopal Church to possibly be a better fit for me and my present way of thinking. I constantly pray on it and ask God to lead me to where he thinks I should be.

But perhaps you are overlooking the possibility that God has already led you, and you just don’t like it. Why would you want to base an incredibly important decision (given the role of the Church in Christianity) like what church to join on something as ephemeral and uncertain as your “present way of thinking”?

Maybe both you and the Catholic Church need each other precisely because it isn’t a good fit for your “present way of thinking.”

Caveat: I myself obviously did join the Episcopal Church (from low-church nondenominational Protestantism, but after several years of considering Catholicism). I’m not sure I would do it if I had it to do over again, though. (Not sure does not mean “sure that I wouldn’t.”) And my efforts to persuade my wife to stay Methodist (based on the above arguments) seem to be failing–she’s seriously considering becoming Episcopalian as well.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

If Anglicanism (as opposed to what Episcopalianism is becoming, which is NOT Anglicanism)

I would strongly dispute this claim. But of course it all depends on what you mean by “Anglicanism.”

We are as yet still fully in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. We certainly consider ourselves Anglican. And many of the new groups who call themselves “Anglican” are far less faithful to the Anglican liturgical tradition than we are (this in contrast to GKC’s “Continuers,” who use a Prayer Book much closer to that of Cranmer than ours).

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Snce when does not being able to produce a male heir count as legitimate grounds for an annulment? Furthermore, historical records indicate that Queen Catherine of Aragon was a faithful wife and devoted to both her husband and the people.

Nonetheless, none of these are sufficient grounds to break away from Rome and establish one’s own ecclesial community, or, jump from Peter’s barque and go elsewhere.

You do not understand the history. The impediment/dispensation/nullity system as it evolved, and as it existed in the 16th century, was designed to do two things simultaneously: to allow the Church to maintain control of the sacrament of marriage, and to permit the making a breaking of dynastic marriages, as required by* realpolitick*. The system was developed to accommodate both. Hence the far-flung net of possible impediments, primarily of consanquinity, and of affinity, that were taken in hand by Trent, Session XXIV.

What Henry sought to do was a commonplace. See his sister Margaret’s degree of nullity, granted at about the same time Henry submitted his causa. I reccommend Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII, and Kelley’s THE MATRIMONIAL TRIALS OF HENRY VIII, for the history of the system, and of how Henry was trapped in it.

GKC