Episcopalian Eucharist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Piscator23
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, we all read your post.

It was not an “act of friendship”. As is explained in Ecclesia de Eucharistia it is a FALSE witness and FALSE ecumenism. It is also a grave sin.

That does not negate the grave error of receiving non-Catholic communion in violation of the tenets of the Catholic Church. I hope you went to Confession first.

Yes, there was. You rejected the teaching office of the Church which explicitly states a Catholic MAY NOT receive communion as you did.
Do you really truly think that Christ disapproves of one Christian participating in another Christian’s sincere worship of him? The OP never had bad intention of any kind. He even went to mass later on. I think he exercised true Christian unity.

C’mon folks! Don’t regurgitate Catholic policy to us. Give us your own opinion here.
 
Do you really truly think that Christ disapproves of one Christian participating in another Christian’s sincere worship of him? The OP never had bad intention of any kind. He even went to mass later on. I think he exercised true Christian unity.

C’mon folks! Don’t regurgitate Catholic policy to us. Give us your own opinion here.
‘Who hears you hears Me, who rejects you rejects Me, and who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me’. I’m regurgitating nothing except Our Lord’s very own words, and the only possibly correct opinion, which is also my own, is that we shoud listen to those words!

By participating in a false Eucharist contrary to the explicit instruction of Christ’s own body, the Catholic Church, you ARE rejecting that Church, and in doing so rejecting Christ whose body it is and Who Himself has authorised it to speak in His name.
 
‘Who hears you hears Me, who rejects you rejects Me, and who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me’. I’m regurgitating nothing except Our Lord’s very own words, and the only possibly correct opinion, which is also my own, is that we shoud listen to those words!

By participating in a false Eucharist contrary to the explicit instruction of Christ’s own body, the Catholic Church, you ARE rejecting that Church, and in doing so rejecting Christ whose body it is and in Whose name He Himself has authorised it to speak.
While you maybe can make a case here of rejecting Church teaching, rejecting Christ himself is a bit of a stretch. He was participating in a Christian ritual in a Christian Church. I believe Christ is present in more than just the Catholic Church. Nobody was rejecting Christ in this situation.
 
While you maybe can make a case here of rejecting Church teaching, rejecting Christ himself is a bit of a stretch. He was participating in a Christian ritual in a Christian Church. I believe Christ is present in more than just the Catholic Church. Nobody was rejecting Christ in this situation.
Uh-uh. He said who rejects YOU - meaning the Apostles and their successors, with whom the Episcopalians are definitively broken the moment they split from the Apostolic Churches (Orthodox and Catholic). And He said He would found ONE Church upon them to be the pillar and bulwark of ONE truth.

Two such mutually antagonistic and irreconcilable ‘truths’ as are taught by the Catholic and Episcopalian Churches simply cannot both be Christ’s own truth, neither can the churches which promote them both be Christ’s own Church.

Christ wouldn’t, for example, both allow and forbid, at one and the same time, ordination of women or practicing homosexuals. Clearly one set of principles and practices must be right and the other incorrect.

Or require on pain of heresy on the one hand dogmatic belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity, AND allow on the other that such belief is completely unnecessary and possibly wrong, as Bishop Spong of the Episcopalians holds.

Our Lord would have to be a split personality to be comfortable with all these conflicting ‘truths’.

So surely you have to make a choice - which one is it? Which church is His body? For surely there is only one.
 
While you maybe can make a case here of rejecting Church teaching, rejecting Christ himself is a bit of a stretch. He was participating in a Christian ritual in a Christian Church.
Yes, but he is participating in a ritual that he knows to be false. There is a HUGE different between simply praying with them in the spirit of ecumenism and participating in a way which tacitly accepts a point of their faith which is fundamentally incompatible with ours.
I believe Christ is present in more than just the Catholic Church.
I completely agree with you, but the Catholic Church is the fullest expression of Christian faith. People of other faiths are hampered by their more limited (and often flawed) knowledge of Christ. It is possible to overcome it, but far more difficult.
Nobody was rejecting Christ in this situation.
Not intentionally, but the reality is that they were rejecting the validity of Christ’s one true church. (The unintentional nature would likely mitigate the gravity of the sin.) They are denying the Holy Spirit by participating in a Protestant ritual built out of a rejection of the Holy Spirit’s protection of the doctrine of the Catholic Church’s deposit of faith. This is a most serious matter, since the celebration of the Eucharist is one of the single most important things in all of Catholic belief.
 
Do you really truly think that Christ disapproves of one Christian participating in another Christian’s sincere worship of him?
This a false dichotomy. My wife is Presbyterian. I participate in her church’s sincere worship of Christ and I think it is a wonderful worship service. At the same time, I don’t receive communion when it’s offered (which is usually only like once a month). To do so would be lying to them by saying I am in communion of them and it would be a situation for scandal that might mislead people about the Church’s teaching. Christ does not approve of lying.

Why would the Church ever teach that Catholics can’t receive communion at Mass if they’re not in full communion with the Church, but they can receive communion at protestant churches even though they’re not in communion with those churches. It’s illogical.
C’mon folks! Don’t regurgitate Catholic policy to us. Give us your own opinion here.
I recommend that no one listen to the advice of anyone who suggests following your own opinion against the teaching of the Church. We choose to be Catholic because we recognize that Christ imparts his Church with the wisdom to lead us to salvation. If you trust your own opinion you have no need for the Church or for God - after all you know what’s best.
 
C’mon folks! Don’t regurgitate Catholic policy to us. Give us your own opinion here.
I don’t know about any of the other practicing Catholics here, but as for me, “Catholic policy” is what shapes my opinion.

If you want to receive protestant “eucharist,” then become a protestant, because that is essentially what you are doing each time you choose to reject everything that Christ’s Church was founded upon.

But then again, even some protestants observe closed communion.

My parents always tell me that I can’t have my cake and eat it too. Mother Church says the same thing.
 
So surely you have to make a choice - which one is it? Which church is His body? For surely there is only one.
How do you mean “which church is His body”? It almost sounds as if you are implying that other Christians are not part of the Body of Christ. Maybe my non-Catholic friends are right when they say that Catholics don’t believe non-Catholics aren’t really Christians … 🤷
 
How do you mean “which church is His body”? It almost sounds as if you are implying that other Christians are not part of the Body of Christ. Maybe my non-Catholic friends are right when they say that Catholics don’t believe non-Catholics aren’t really Christians … 🤷
Well, the Church does constantly call non-Catholics ‘separated brethren’ (much better than ‘heretic’ or ‘schismatic’, no? Which these days would be inaccurate for many reasons anyways).

So I’ll take the liberty of calling them separated members, if you will, of Christ’s body. I’m sure many of them would say roughly the same or worse of Catholics - who are frequently treated as not being Christian by non-Catholics, Rome called ‘the whore of Babylon’ and other choice names.

A separated member is less healthy and fruitful than one which has remained fully attached, and no-one in their right mind can claim both Episcopalianism and Catholicism are fully attached and healthy branches when they are so contradictory.
 
Well, the Church does constantly call non-Catholics ‘separated brethren’ (much better than ‘heretic’ or ‘schismatic’, no? Which these days would be inaccurate for many reasons anyways).

So I’ll take the liberty of calling them separated members, if you will, of Christ’s body. I’m sure many of them would say roughly the same or worse of Catholics - who are frequently treated as not being Christian by non-Catholics, Rome called ‘the whore of Babylon’ and other choice names.

A separated member is less healthy and fruitful than one which has remained fully attached, and no-one in their right mind can claim both Episcopalianism and Catholicism are fully attached and healthy branches when they are so contradictory.
So they’re like an amputated leg - still part of the Body, but just not attached? If so, I can live with that.
 
So they’re like an amputated leg - still part of the Body, but just not attached? If so, I can live with that.
I wouldn’t think of them as totally unattached, but maybe a weak, sickly leg with little muscle and poor circulation or something. 😃
 
So they’re like an amputated leg - still part of the Body, but just not attached? If so, I can live with that.
I would say that it’s more like owning a car, and the car represents God. A Catholic would say that in order to operate the car properly, not only do you need to own the car and read the manual, but you should take driving lessons, study the rules of the road, and take your state driver’s license test to ensure that you are a good, safe driver. A Protestant however might say, “O come on! All I need is title to the car and knowledge on how to operate it. I don’t need to bother with all of that government mumbo-jumbo or go through the trouble of getting a license. I know where the gas and brake pedals are, and I know what the steering wheel is for. I’m fairly certain I can operate the car without hitting anyone.” Both groups are car owners, and both are perfectly capable of operating the vehicle. One group, however, is in far more danger of suffering a tragic accident because they lack full knowledge of the rules of the road. Sure, it’s possible that people in our Protestant example might go their whole lives without an accident, but would you want to risk it?
 
I would say that it’s more like owning a car, and the car represents God. A Catholic would say that in order to operate the car properly, not only do you need to own the car and read the manual, but you should take driving lessons, study the rules of the road, and take your state driver’s license test to ensure that you are a good, safe driver. A Protestant however might say, “O come on! All I need is title to the car and knowledge on how to operate it. I don’t need to bother with all of that government mumbo-jumbo or go through the trouble of getting a license. I know where the gas and brake pedals are, and I know what the steering wheel is for. I’m fairly certain I can operate the car without hitting anyone.” Both groups are car owners, and both are perfectly capable of operating the vehicle. One group, however, is in far more danger of suffering a tragic accident because they lack full knowledge of the rules of the road. Sure, it’s possible that people in our Protestant example might go their whole lives without an accident, but would you want to risk it?
Protestantism: n. a car wreck waiting to happen.
 
U
So surely you have to make a choice - which one is it? Which church is His body? For surely there is only one.
Um, how about Christianity as a whole being his body? Here is a way to illustrate it. The trunk being Catholicism, and the arms, legs, head, and so on being the other Christian denominations. As a whole, we are all one body. Christianity.

You see here is the problem, each slice, denomination or whatever you want to call it feels they are right. Here is a novel concept, why instead of concentrating on the differences, concentrate on what we all have in common, and I bet thats at least 80%. All Christians are followers of Christ and his teachings. Yes, there are some significant interpretation differences in some cases, but we are all Christians.
 
Not intentionally, but the reality is that they were rejecting the validity of Christ’s one true church. (The unintentional nature would likely mitigate the gravity of the sin.) They are denying the Holy Spirit by participating in a Protestant ritual built out of a rejection of the Holy Spirit’s protection of the doctrine of the Catholic Church’s deposit of faith. This is a most serious matter, since the celebration of the Eucharist is one of the single most important things in all of Catholic belief.
Ah, but I’m sure the Episcopalians believe the Holy Spirit is guiding them as well, and who is to say thats not true?
 
T

I recommend that no one listen to the advice of anyone who suggests following your own opinion against the teaching of the Church. We choose to be Catholic because we recognize that Christ imparts his Church with the wisdom to lead us to salvation. If you trust your own opinion you have no need for the Church or for God - after all you know what’s best.
If your own honest opinion mirrors that of the Church, fine. However, none of us are required to check our brain at the door when we join the Church. Nobody should be afraid to voice their concerns about a Church policy, if they have one. The Catholic Church is not a dictatorship, and this is a forum. If you can’t offer a true opinion in this setting, then you might as well shut it down because obviously either everybody agrees with each other or are afraid to say anything.
 
I don’t know about any of the other practicing Catholics here, but as for me, “Catholic policy” is what shapes my opinion.

If you want to receive protestant “eucharist,” then become a protestant, because that is essentially what you are doing each time you choose to reject everything that Christ’s Church was founded upon.
There is nothing wrong if your opinion mirrors “Catholic Policy”, if thats how you truly feel.

I just feel stunned sometimes by the attitude of my fellow Catholics towards non-Catholic Christians; like they are somehow sub-standard in God’s eyes. They follow and worship Christ just like we do, but just in somewhat different ways. Does this make them any less sincere and less in God’s eyes, just because their method of worship is different than ours? Unfortunately, they feel the same towards us. It’s sad.
 
Well, the Church does constantly call non-Catholics ‘separated brethren’ (much better than ‘heretic’ or ‘schismatic’, no? Which these days would be inaccurate for many reasons anyways).

So I’ll take the liberty of calling them separated members, if you will, of Christ’s body. I’m sure many of them would say roughly the same or worse of Catholics - who are frequently treated as not being Christian by non-Catholics, Rome called ‘the whore of Babylon’ and other choice names.
And here lies the big problem, everybody feels they are right and everybody else is wrong. :rolleyes:
 
While you maybe can make a case here of rejecting Church teaching, rejecting Christ himself is a bit of a stretch. He was participating in a Christian ritual in a Christian Church. I believe Christ is present in more than just the Catholic Church. Nobody was rejecting Christ in this situation.
Mike, rejecting Church teaching is rejecting Christ. The Catholic who knows that the Church forbids him to receive communion in protestant churches and does it anyway is rejecting teaching authority which Christ gave his bishop through apostolic succession. This is rejecting Christ, just as all sin is rejecting Christ. You are, however, correct that Christ is present in more than just the Catholic Church.
Um, how about Christianity as a whole being his body? Here is a way to illustrate it. The trunk being Catholicism, and the arms, legs, head, and so on being the other Christian denominations. As a whole, we are all one body. Christianity.
I agree with you here (except traditionally Christ is portrayed as the head). All baptized Christians are members of the Body of Christ. When I think of the Body of Christ, I also like to think of Christ as the Bridegroom and the Church his Bride. In unity of marriage the Bride and Bridegroom become one flesh - one body. But if one spouse turns against the other one, that unity is broken and they’re not truly one. Luckily they’re still held together by the bond of marriage, which will hopefully give them the grace restore that unity.

In the same way when individual members of the Body of Christ turn against Christ, our spouse, we separate ourselves from the unity which makes the body a whole. Yet we are still bound to Christ through the sacrament of baptism, which will give us the grace to return to full communion if we choose to accept it. This goes for everyone, whether Catholic or Protestant. When we sin and turn our backs on God, we disrupt the unity that makes us one with Christ.
You see here is the problem, each slice, denomination or whatever you want to call it feels they are right. Here is a novel concept, why instead of concentrating on the differences, concentrate on what we all have in common, and I bet thats at least 80%. All Christians are followers of Christ and his teachings. Yes, there are some significant interpretation differences in some cases, but we are all Christians.
You are right that we are all Christians and followers of Christ and his teachings. But we don’t all follow him completely. Don’t look at denominations, they just throw you off. Look at individuals.

If you’re suggesting a dichotomy between concentrating on what we have in common and not receiving communion in protestant churches, you’re creating another false dichotomy. A Catholic can fully participate in a protestant service without receiving communion, just as a Catholic can fully participate at Mass without receiving communion.

Also, Christ gave us a solution for the people who have contradicting opinions about His teachings: His Church. In a mystical sense the Church is all baptized Christians and saints, but in the physical sense it is also the institution that Christ founded to teach the Gospel and administer the sacraments. It’s important not to separate these two. You’ll be surprised to find that once you accept orthodoxy there’s actually a lot of freedom of thought.
Ah, but I’m sure the Episcopalians believe the Holy Spirit is guiding them as well, and who is to say thats not true?
As long as what they’re doing/saying is in accord with the Church, we know that the Holy Spirit is guiding them. Where it is not, they are following their own will. It doesn’t matter what denomination you are, look at people as individuals. Whenever they follow the Church, they follow the Holy Spirit who instructs the Church and prevents Her from falling into error.
If your own honest opinion mirrors that of the Church, fine. However, none of us are required to check our brain at the door when we join the Church. Nobody should be afraid to voice their concerns about a Church policy, if they have one. The Catholic Church is not a dictatorship, and this is a forum. If you can’t offer a true opinion in this setting, then you might as well shut it down because obviously either everybody agrees with each other or are afraid to say anything.
I started practicing my faith again after years away from the Church when I stopped checking my brain at the door. I finally realized that all the different denominations teach some things that are directly contradictory to what others teach. It’s not logically possible for them all to be right. So I started searching for the Truth and found it in the Catholic Church.

We should always question in order to understand better. This is what the OP did. You, on the other hand, have not been asking questions in order to gain a deeper understand of Catholic teaching. You have knowingly offered the OP advice that goes against church teaching and could lead him/her astray. You don’t want to learn, you just want to convince others to follow your way. Follow the OPs example and search for the Truth rather than people to back up your personal opinions - I think you’ll find that discovering the Truth requires you to use a lot more of your brain than finding friends to agree with you does.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top