Episcopalian/ Anglican services

[Mystagogy]

Thanks to all for facts, insights, opinion, discussion, and explanations.

As the tone of this thread has become too tense for me, I, the Original Poster am bowing out. (I understand the tension, the deeply held feelings, etc. – I just don’t have a lot of room for them now.)

Please, anyone having information/opinions directly for/to me, please feel free to post me privately.

God bless, all.

 

[cothrige]

Well, I suppose that technically we would regard the Congregationalists and other Puritan-derived traditions as schismatic, and maybe the Methodists too. The Anglo-Catholics of the 19th century certainly did. However, most Anglicans don’t think that way these days. The recent splits are different because they are, well, recent, and also because the schismatics are claiming the label “Anglican” for themselves. (No one thinks that a Methodist or a Congregationalist is a “real Anglican.”) Therefore, Episcopalians are justified in pointing out that groups such as the “Continuers” are in fact in schism from the Anglican Communion and certainly from the Episcopal Church. Of course, the current situation is complicated given the strained relationship between the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. People who go into schism from the Episcopal Church these days generally enter into a relationship with some other part of the Anglican Communion. Hopefully this situation will be resolved eventually.

Thanks for clarifying this for me, and what you say above does make sense to me. But perhaps you will consider clarifying something a bit further. Is it technically possible within the Anglican Communion for there to exist more than one Anglican Church in one area, e.g. the United States? Does that bear on how these parishes and dioceses are viewed by Episcopalians even though, as you say, they have “enter[ed] into a relationship with some other part of the Anglican Communion?”

Of course, I’d like it to be resolved by us all entering into communion with Rome. . . .

Edwin

Does the wink mean you are kidding? If not, I find the suggestion intriguing. Are you saying that you are actually hopeful that the Anglican Communion will actually enter into a communion with Rome? I take it that you are not yourself in communion with Rome, and so I wonder are you hoping that the Anglican Communion will adjust in some way and seek union, or are you hoping that Rome will? Just curious, and I hope you don’t take that question the wrong way.

Thanks for the info, btw.

 

[LDNCatholic]

That is fine. I am sure you will not take offense when an Eastern Orthodox person regards Catholic sacraments the same way. They do not, as I understand it, consider Roman Catholic orders or sacraments valid. In addition from their point of view the RCC departed from the Catholic Church in schism. So I do not imagine they would reverence your flat bread either

Not in the slightest. They are free to believe as they wish and as I said earlier in this thread (first page I believe) I have invited many non Catholic Christians and non Christians to Mass with me, explained to them why we do what we do, and told them that if that makes them uncomfortable they should not kneel, genuflect, stand, or join in any of the prayers. However some of the Orthodox people I know, all three Greek Orthodox, recieve the Eucharist at our church. I also have spotted them at midnight Mass, they choose to come to the Catholic church rather than their own (however that may just be a matter of distance).

So as you see Anglicans…Orthodox see you. I hope you do not take offense either.

None whatsoever.

As GKC notes many Anglican (esp Continuing) do have valid orders since the Edwardian ordinal was fixed (if it was ever broken) a long…long time ago AND many Anglican clergy have valid lines through the Old Catholics who were in communion with the Anglican Communion and whom the RCC recognize.

Do they have valid orders according to the Catholic Church or according to their own views? I’m not asking to be rude, I genuinely want to know.

Even if they did however, I would assume that their church is like the Orthodox Church for us, we cannot recieve their Eucharist in lieu of our own when a Catholic Church is within reasonable travelling distance. I still would not recieve if I were at a ceremony at such a church.

However, in practical terms that would be difficult for any Catholic to figure out before service so just follow the RCC guidance and do not take part in Anglican sacraments. No need as someone suggested to make a big show of yourself (draw attention) by walking out in the middle of the Eucharist as that would be rude and uncharitable. Just don’t take part…make a spiritual communion, etc.

Yep, my sentiments exactly. I would not walk out, but I would not kneel when they kneeled though, and I would not worship as they do. I could quite happily sit there, take it all in, join in with some of the common prayers, etc. Just as I invite my non Catholic Christian friends to do at Mass.

PS I have a great deal of respect for the RCC (theology, etc). I think Fr. Corapi and Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen are fantastic. I even pray the rosary.

I know, I’ve read your posts Reverend. It’s sad Protestants like yourself aren’t in the majority.

 

[LDNCatholic]

Oh and my mistake. The local Anglican church I mentioned still rents out the new church (even though it has been consecrated) for, according to them "social functions, dances, recitals, concerts, fairs and theatrical productions’’.

They also rent out the old church, erected in the Crusades, for the same purpose but a smaller capacity.

This must be wrong, by Anglican standards too. Surely what this vicar is dong crosses some kind of line?

 

[Contarini]

Thanks for clarifying this for me, and what you say above does make sense to me. But perhaps you will consider clarifying something a bit further. Is it technically possible within the Anglican Communion for there to exist more than one Anglican Church in one area, e.g. the United States?

I’m not sure I’d say that it’s impossible, but it’s something that really goes against our ecclesiology (well, Catholic ecclesiology historically, although your Communion seems fine with it in the case of the Eastern Catholic churches). In Europe I believe there are both C of E and Episcopalian parishes, but that’s an exceptional case due to the fact that we don’t have a regular province in Continental Europe (except in Spain and Portugal where there’s some sort of reformed church with episcopal polity with which we are in full communion). Until the recent disorders, it was accepted that (as the Fathers taught) there should in principle be one bishop in one place. That’s what the “conservatives” don’t get. They are right to point out the departures the liberals have made from traditional Christian sexual morality and some other theological points, but they seem blind to their own radical breach with historic Catholic polity. Many of the American conservatives currently involved in “realigning Anglicanism” seem to have a basically American Protestant ecclesiology whereby the Church is just an instrument for evangelization, and the more churches competing with each other for souls the better the harvest.

Does the wink mean you are kidding?

No, it means that I know how wishful this is and how odd many people find the sentiment!

If not, I find the suggestion intriguing. Are you saying that you are actually hopeful that the Anglican Communion will actually enter into a communion with Rome?

I am called to hope for the unity of Christians, and that certainly includes union with the occupant of the See of Peter.

I take it that you are not yourself in communion with Rome, and so I wonder are you hoping that the Anglican Communion will adjust in some way and seek union, or are you hoping that Rome will?

I have no doubt that repentance is called for from all of us in order to reach unity. I know how unlikely it is that Rome will repent in any way that requires altering defined dogmas, and since I’m not at all sure that Rome’s claims of infallibility are wrong I can’t even hope for such a repentance wholeheartedly. That leaves other forms of repentance on your part, and all forms of repentance on ours (together with dialogue and mutual clarification which may make, indeed has made, doctrinal alteration less necessary than we used to think in many cases).

I don’t know if Canterbury will ever be in communion with Rome. I think it’s not at all impossible. It seems highly unlikely that the Episcopal Church as currently constituted or some institutional descendant thereof will ever be part of such a union.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Not in the slightest. They are free to believe as they wish and as I said earlier in this thread (first page I believe) I have invited many non Catholic Christians and non Christians to Mass with me, explained to them why we do what we do, and told them that if that makes them uncomfortable they should not kneel, genuflect, stand, or join in any of the prayers. However some of the Orthodox people I know, all three Greek Orthodox, recieve the Eucharist at our church. I also have spotted them at midnight Mass, they choose to come to the Catholic church rather than their own (however that may just be a matter of distance).

None whatsoever.

Do they have valid orders according to the Catholic Church or according to their own views? I’m not asking to be rude, I genuinely want to know.

Even if they did however, I would assume that their church is like the Orthodox Church for us, we cannot recieve their Eucharist in lieu of our own when a Catholic Church is within reasonable travelling distance. I still would not recieve if I were at a ceremony at such a church.

Yep, my sentiments exactly. I would not walk out, but I would not kneel when they kneeled though, and I would not worship as they do. I could quite happily sit there, take it all in, join in with some of the common prayers, etc. Just as I invite my non Catholic Christian friends to do at Mass.

I know, I’ve read your posts Reverend. It’s sad Protestants like yourself aren’t in the majority.

As I’ve pointed out, on occasion, the RCC position on Anglican orders is that stated in Apostolicae Curae. . Anglican orders, according to the RCC, are null and void.

GKC

 

[cothrige]

I’m not sure I’d say that it’s impossible, but it’s something that really goes against our ecclesiology (well, Catholic ecclesiology historically, although your Communion seems fine with it in the case of the Eastern Catholic churches).

Yes, interesting point. I have also wondered about our multiplicity of sees, dioceses and bishops of various rites. It does seem contrary to any historical understanding of the Church.

In Europe I believe there are both C of E and Episcopalian parishes, but that’s an exceptional case due to the fact that we don’t have a regular province in Continental Europe (except in Spain and Portugal where there’s some sort of reformed church with episcopal polity with which we are in full communion). Until the recent disorders, it was accepted that (as the Fathers taught) there should in principle be one bishop in one place. That’s what the “conservatives” don’t get. They are right to point out the departures the liberals have made from traditional Christian sexual morality and some other theological points, but they seem blind to their own radical breach with historic Catholic polity. Many of the American conservatives currently involved in “realigning Anglicanism” seem to have a basically American Protestant ecclesiology whereby the Church is just an instrument for evangelization, and the more churches competing with each other for souls the better the harvest.

I would agree with your observations about the historic understanding of bishops, sees and churches. However, doesn’t a strict interpretation of that concept seem contradictory in the case of the Episcopal Church? What I mean is that the Episcopal Church has always seemed very comfortable with the existence and operation of many separate Churches within the areas occupied by their own bishops, and I believe has always intercommunicated with all of them. There are Lutherans, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, Baptists, Catholics, Orthodox and so on. I am aware of no belief by Epsicopalians that, at least in the case of most of these organizations, any of these are less than fully Christian. I also cannot remember having heard it said that their existence contravenes any Epsicopalian idea of what constitutes the Church or how it should exist. Coming from my point of view it would seem that the Episcopal Church already embraces a fully “Protestant ecclesiology,” to borrow your phrase, and so the charge of schism at other Anglicans just seems to kind of come out of left field.

I don’t want to imply anything by that regarding a judgment of the Episcopal Church. It just seems kind of strange to me to take a stand on historical or traditional ecclesiological interpretations regarding Anglicans, but at the same time ignore that there are Orthodox bishops in the same area, or Lutheran bishops (assuming that is the term they use) and so on.

No, it means that I know how wishful this is and how odd many people find the sentiment!

I am called to hope for the unity of Christians, and that certainly includes union with the occupant of the See of Peter.

I have no doubt that repentance is called for from all of us in order to reach unity. I know how unlikely it is that Rome will repent in any way that requires altering defined dogmas, and since I’m not at all sure that Rome’s claims of infallibility are wrong I can’t even hope for such a repentance wholeheartedly. That leaves other forms of repentance on your part, and all forms of repentance on ours (together with dialogue and mutual clarification which may make, indeed has made, doctrinal alteration less necessary than we used to think in many cases).

I don’t know if Canterbury will ever be in communion with Rome. I think it’s not at all impossible. It seems highly unlikely that the Episcopal Church as currently constituted or some institutional descendant thereof will ever be part of such a union.

Edwin

Many thanks for the clarification on that. You seem to have a very healthy perspective on our relations, if I may be so bold as to say so. And I agree that lately reconciliation between Rome and the Episcopal Church would seem a very remote possibility. I don’t think Rome would ever give ground on much of what now separates us, and it certainly seems that the Episcopal Church is just as firm these days. Thankfully, with God all things are possible, otherwise it wouldn’t be worth even considering as an option.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The reason why you have female “priestesses” is because of feminism and not theology.

There is no possible way that any female on this planet, no matter where her orders came from, EVEN FROM A DISSIDENT CATHOLIC BISHOP, can consecrate bread and wine into the Lord’s Precious Body and Blood. It starts out as bread and wine and it remains as such. You might as well join the baptists when it comes to the “Lord’s Supper”

We don’t have priestesses, we have female priests. Your meanness is noted, and spare me, the explanation. I know what your church teaches, and quite obviously you agree with it.That of course objectively means nothing at all.

Quite the contrary, there is rather solid theological and more importantly terrific biblical evidence for women in positions of teaching and preaching. Pity you have either ignored it or are unaware. But then it matters not I guess since you must adher to what you are required to believe.

Wouldn’t the world be just grand if everything I believe could be objectively true just because I said so? You seem to think somehow it is. But then I’m guessing this is not the world you would envision, yet it is what it is. Apparently your subjective truth is not carrying the day so far.

I guess you didn’t get it the first time. Your opinion is of no matter to my parish certainly. Did you get any call from us asking for your permission to confect the bread and wine? I rather doubt it.

I continue to be puzzled why some and a very small some RC’s cannot get that we understand what they believe.

 

[jay29]

We don’t have priestesses, we have female priests. Your meanness is noted, and spare me, the explanation. I know what your church teaches, and quite obviously you agree with it.That of course objectively means nothing at all.

There is no such thing as a female priest. The notion is simply a mockery of the true priesthood founded by Christ himself. A female wearing a collar is chilling, but one wearing a miter is horrendous:

http://www3.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Australia+First+Female+Bishop+Ordained+Perth+fS8__WmkI9kl.jpg

Quite the contrary, there is rather solid theological and more importantly terrific biblical evidence for women in positions of teaching and preaching. Pity you have either ignored it or are unaware. But then it matters not I guess since you must adher to what you are required to believe.

Prove it. Show me the biblical and Traditional proof of a “female priesthood” Also show me where Christ approved of homosexual acts, gay marriage, and abortion while you are at it.

Wouldn’t the world be just grand if everything I believe could be objectively true just because I said so? You seem to think somehow it is. But then I’m guessing this is not the world you would envision, yet it is what it is. Apparently your subjective truth is not carrying the day so far.

I stand firm that there is no such thing as a female priesthood.

I guess you didn’t get it the first time. Your opinion is of no matter to my parish certainly. Did you get any call from us asking for your permission to confect the bread and wine? I rather doubt it.

Christ gave that Authority to His APOSTLES, the first Bishops of the Catholic Church, who were all males. They, in lock step with Christ, ordained males. Women have zero consecration power given by Christ and His Apostles. Only baptized males do.

I continue to be puzzled why some and a very small some RC’s cannot get that we understand what they believe.

Because many Catholics like me can’t understand why people call themselves Christians and yet go against the Gospel and Apostolic Teaching because of modern day nonsense.

 

[LDNCatholic]

Thepsians

Masculine: Actor
Feminine: Actress

Restaurant Staff

Masculine: Waiter
Feminine: Waitress

Clergy

Masculine: Priest
Feminine: (can you guess what it is?)

 

[Peter_J]

I have no doubt that repentance is called for from all of us in order to reach unity.

Amen!

I know how unlikely it is that Rome will repent in any way that requires altering defined dogmas, and since I’m not at all sure that Rome’s claims of infallibility are wrong I can’t even hope for such a repentance wholeheartedly.

I don’t want to shall-we-say “give you ideas”, but there wouldn’t be any contradiction between believing the Immaculate Conception to be correct, and at the same time hoping for Rome to declare that IC isn’t a dogma.

 

[Peter_J]

That is fine. I am sure you will not take offense when an Eastern Orthodox person regards Catholic sacraments the same way. They do not, as I understand it, consider Roman Catholic orders or sacraments valid. In addition from their point of view the RCC departed from the Catholic Church in schism. So I do not imagine they would reverence your flat bread either

So as you see Anglicans…Orthodox see you. I hope you do not take offense either.

This ^^ was adressed to someone else, but speaking for myself I’m aware and I don’t take offense.

I’m sure that if I were Orthodox, I would have no trouble embracing the Orthodox view of Catholic sacraments.

PS I have a great deal of respect for the RCC (theology, etc). I think Fr. Corapi and Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen are fantastic. I even pray the rosary.

I have heard quite a number of (mostly conservative) Orthodox and Protestants say that they like Fr. John Corapi. I’ve always found that a bit puzzling.

 

[kuanyin]

Kuanyin,

I was just wondering which Anglican Use parish you attend. If you do there is much of the Anglican liturgy there. I wonder why if this is so that your husband would rather attend the Anglican liturgy and not the Anglican Use.

Welcome to CAF.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

Thank you for the welcome! We go to the Anglican Use mass in Kansas City, it is rather new. My husband attends with us and he likes it alright. I think he prefers the freedom of considering himself Anglican, rather than being Catholic? He was raised only nominally Catholic, so he never had a strong foundation there. But he is in agreement with me on one thing about it, that the Anglican movement is not a success. You have splinter group after splinter group and most have animosity towards the others. It is a mess.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

There is no such thing as a female priest. The notion is simply a mockery of the true priesthood founded by Christ himself. A female wearing a collar is chilling, but one wearing a miter is horrendous:

http://www3.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Australia+First+Female+Bishop+Ordained+Perth+fS8__WmkI9kl.jpg

Outstanding post, Jay. Dittos all the way…that picture is absolutely pitiful

Prove it. Show me the biblical and Traditional proof of a “female priesthood” Also show me where Christ approved of homosexual acts, gay marriage, and abortion while you are at it.

I stand firm that there is no such thing as a female priesthood.

Christ gave that Authority to His APOSTLES, the first Bishops of the Catholic Church, who were all males. They, in lock step with Christ, ordained males. Women have zero consecration power given by Christ and His Apostles. Only baptized males do.

Because many Catholics like me can’t understand why people call themselves Christians and yet go against the Gospel and Apostolic Teaching because of modern day nonsense.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Thepsians

Masculine: Actor
Feminine: Actress

Restaurant Staff

Masculine: Waiter
Feminine: Waitress

Clergy

Masculine: Priest
Feminine: (can you guess what it is?)

Great post, LDN, but I can predict what the liberals will reply: all women and men are called actors now, stewardesses are now flight attendants, men and women are now called waitors. You haven’t kept up your liberal P.C. thought-police terminology, man. Come on! The lefty fringe Christians want to pretend men and women are identical and any attempt to even imply that not all sexes are cut out for the same roles within the church is an abomination to them. They think there’s an abundance of women in leadership roles in the NT when there’s scarcely any. La la land…

 

[masuwerte]

Christ gave that Authority to His APOSTLES, the first Bishops of the Catholic Church, who were all males. They, in lock step with Christ, ordained males. Women have zero consecration power given by Christ and His Apostles. Only baptized males do.

Not that I’m granting your point about authority, but they were also all Semetic Caucasians, while Gentiles and Ethiopians were available. Does it follow that priests should only be Semetic Caucasians?

 

[Peter_J]

Not that I’m granting your point about authority, but they were also all Semetic Caucasians, while Gentiles and Ethiopians were available. Does it follow that priests should only be Semetic Caucasians?

You raise a good question, although one that was discussed on another recent thread. To quote my own (rather meager) comment on the subject:

Hi Gottle,

So, basically we have the argument that only men should be ordained because Jesus chose 12 men to be the 12 Apostles. Then we have the objection that Gentiles are permitted to be ordained, despite the fact that Jesus chose 12 Jews to be the 12 Apostles.

This is, I would say, a very important objection, but there are good responses to it. Permit me to point out two differences between on the one hand, Jesus’ lack of female Apostles, and on the other hand his lack of Gentile Apostles.

First, Jesus’ disciples, in general, included quite a lot of women, but very few gentiles.

Second, the New Testament overall presents a picture of “The Way” starting in Judaism, but incorporating the Gentiles more and more as time went on.

There you have it (in a very small nutshell).

 

[jay29]

Not that I’m granting your point about authority, but they were also all Semetic Caucasians, while Gentiles and Ethiopians were available. Does it follow that priests should only be Semetic Caucasians?

Not at all. Jesus Christ was a MAN and only a man, who is baptized, can stand in “persona Christi” A woman cannot be married to a “BRIDE” as Jesus was married to His Bride, THE CHURCH. Gay marriage is unacceptable to Christianity.

It is not THEOLOGICALLY CORRECT at all to have a woman priest/bishop. PERIOD.

 

[masuwerte]

Not at all. Jesus Christ was a MAN and only a man, who is baptized, can stand in “persona Christi” A woman cannot be married to a “BRIDE” as Jesus was married to His Bride, THE CHURCH. Gay marriage is unacceptable to Christianity.

It is not THEOLOGICALLY CORRECT at all to have a woman priest/bishop. PERIOD.

So why is it “THEOLOGICALLY CORRECT” to have a Black man, or any non-Semite? Be consistent, now.

 

[BernadetteM]

Dear Kuanyin,

Yes I have heard of your parish. It is called Our Lady of Hope. How many members has it started out with? Usually they start small, but some have grown to be very large. You are very lucky to have one. Do they use Rite 1? To me that is the most true to the Anglican Use liturgy. Do you have a priest full time yet?

Since I am Anglican Use I am very interested in how parishes are doing. I live in California and it will be impossible for us to have an Anglican Use parish unless when the Cardinal retires, soon thank God, we get a caring Cardinal or Bishop here.

California is where the AU had its roots. If possible it would be nice if your church could expand your website and also have a place for comments from interested parties. Are you going to the AU conference in June? I would love to go, but it is at an inconvenent time.

Please know that starting a new parish takes patience and much faith. Hopefully you have a Bishop who stands behind you 100%.

God Bless

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette