Is it a sin to pray with Protestants?

[TrueLight]

Each time I read the title of this thread I’m reminded of something that happened in the town I lived in about 10 years ago. I’ve typed and deleted many responses, maybe this will help to differentiate between “pray with” and “worship with”.

It was at the time of general elections and there was the expectation of violence surrounding these particular elections. People had been praying beforehand for peaceful elections, and indeed, miraculously, we had that.

In my hometown the priest/pastors/leaders of all the Christian churches used to meet monthly, and they organised, in the week following the elections, prayers of thanksgiving which were hosted by a different church each day for the whole week.

It was a time of giving thanks together and an uplifting time as well. Of course each service had the particular “flavour” of that groups typical approach to prayer. I personally found the Pentecostal-type church’s service to be far too busy and noisy for me and found a quiet spot where I could pray in the way I was familiar with; by the same token some of the members of that church very noisily walked out of the Anglican service as they found it too contemplative for them. But we all prayed together, giving thanks with each other during that week.

This is exactly my point. A ‘prayer’ service is often a worship service as well.

I’m not saying whether that is good or bad. I just want to understand the difference.

 

[guanophore]

Some protestant or non denominational groups might not practice anything heretical (simply that they are not in the fullness of Christ and His teachings).  Unless of course that is considered heresy?  Though I'm not sure.

Yes, they all practice heresies to a greater or lesser degree. That is what defines them as “Protestant”. they are not considered heretics, though, because they don’t know that they are lacking the fullness of the faith. The main risk in praying with Protestants lies in unwittingly embracing such heresies. It is especially dangerous for Catholics who are poorly formed in their faith.

I can see how participating in these kinds of services would be sin, but just to pray with protestants in the sense of like a group prayer or something?  I can't see the harm in that so long as it is done in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy spirit and not just one or two.

Traditionally the Church has forbidden this, to protect the faithful from falling away from the Church. Kinda like the “you lie down with the dog, you get up with the fleas” mentality. Lay Catholics have not been catechized well enough in many cases to resist embracing heresies, never mind correcting those they encounter.

I am very humble in my prayers. I wouldn't want to hear anyone speaking in tongues or being boisterous.

Not all Protestants avoid contempletive prayer. Praying in tongues does not necessarily lack humiility, either. There are plenty of people who can lack humility in prayer even if they are quiet.

Some people are inclined toward "boisterous’ prayer, but that does not necessarily mean they lack humility either.

How would it ever be a sin simply to pray w/ anybody?

If you were to participate in their worship, that would be another matter.

ICXC NIKA

Most Protestants have a very deficient notion of “Church”, which emanates from the Reformation. As a result of this, they also have a deficient notion of “worship”. Some think “boisterous” praise sessions are “worship”, mostly because they have not concept that true worship lies in the Eucharist.

Not all protestants boisterous or believe in speaking in tongues, in fact those that do are in the minority. But hey thanks for using false info to lump us all together.

Don’t be too hard on Catholics. Many Catholics, especially traditionalists, have no experience with Protestants other than what they may have seen on TV.

Spouses in interdenominational marriages are encouraged to pray together so that the protestant will eventually convert to the true church. This is why the couple makes a promise to raise the children Catholic.

Yes, spouses are always encouraged to pray together, but the reason that promises are made to raise the children Catholic is because they cannot be baptized otherwise. It is more about preventing them from leaving the church, as opposed to “converting” them. The non-Catholic spouse may never convert, but the Catholic parent still has the responsibility to raise the children according to the faith into which they were baptized.

 

[guanophore]

What is the rationale behind this suggestion? Worshiping God according to one’s conscience and the teaching of the Catholic Church somehow opens one to the demonic? This makes no sense at all.

No, it is a reference to engaging in activities NOT approved by the Church.

Self-sufficiency is not a Christian virtue. Short of the Beatific Vision, we do not everything we need, no matter what religious body we belong to.

There are two errors in here. One is that the belief that Jesus created a church that is whole and entire has nothing to do with individual “self sufficiency”. It has to do with the fact that Jesus provided, thorugh the Church, all that we need to get to heaven.

The second is that non-Catholic communities do not suffer from deficiency. They do. Each one, to the extent that they have rejected the Apostolic faith in favor of innovations, has suffered deficiency. But in the One Church, founded by Christ, and no man, the divine elements of the Church provide all that we need.

All I’m suggesting is that saying “we have everything we need” is probably not a very healthy spiritual attitude. I’m not saying you are hell bound. But we all need each other.

Yes, we all need one another, and all are members of His One Body. But it is also true that Jesus founded a Church that contains all the elements needed to bring us to that beatific vision.

God bless you Edwin!

 

[OraLabora]

Brother, can you help me see the difference between praying and worshipping with non-Catholics? I cannot see it.

A Protestant worship service also contains a time of prayer, as well as singing songs of worship and reading scripture. Although of course, the sermon can be full of error. Is that the difference?

In the same way, a Protestant praying out loud with a group can also pray in a way that contradicts some Catholic teaching. Prayer services usually include worship songs, which may or may not contradict teaching, and may also include a short “word” that may contradict Catholic teaching.

So what is the difference?

I occasionally attend an Anglican “Mass” with my wife (low-church, evangelical). Technically it’s a “worship” service.

First of all, I don’t do this to replace Mass attendance. Typically I will do so at Christmas, for instance the Anglican 4 pm family service, then midnight Mass (and she reciprocates). On occasion, when my choir sings at a Saturday evening Mass, I will go with her Sunday morning.

My “participation” at the Anglican Mass limits itself to saying general prayers with them (such as intercessions), and the Our Father (which I recite in French, Catholic style, because for the life of me I can only remember it in French and Latin).

I do not obviously go up to communion, I stay in my pew, even though the pastor invites people who don’t want to commune, to come up for a blessing; I did try a couple of times to go for a blessing, felt it was wrong, and no longer do it. I certainly don’t kneel at the consecration, or make any other visible act of “worship” such as genuflecting. The possible exception I would consider making to that is an act of worship, such as bowing, at the mention of the Holy Trinity which is a belief we hold in common, or bowing at the words “et incarnatus est” in the Creed. God IS present in a Protestant church, but spiritually not physically, spiritually in the sense of “when two or three gather in my Name”.

Praying vs. worshipping… it’s really an inner disposition. I certainly don’t feel a real presence in the Anglican church so it makes it easy to avoid “worship”. I do feel a real presence in a Catholic church. However I do feel a very strong sense of personal communion with my wife. I think that’s what St. Paul means when our faith rubs off on our non-believing spouses. She is attached to the Church through me. I consider it a very important duty to maintain that communion, and that means treating her faith with the utmost respect.

But to say I should never set foot in an Anglican service strikes me as mean-spirited, and in fact would to be damaging to our faith walk as it would make one uncharitable to another’s firmly-held, if incomplete, beliefs. In a family context like mine, it certainly wouldn’t contribute to family unity nor would it make it more likely (probably much less likely) to result in the conversion of my wife. And since I am well versed in my faith and know the pitfalls, as well as solidly committed to my faith, I feel that there is very little danger to attending occasionally

 

[TrueLight]

I occasionally attend an Anglican “Mass” with my wife (low-church, evangelical). Technically it’s a “worship” service.

First of all, I don’t do this to replace Mass attendance. Typically I will do so at Christmas, for instance the Anglican 4 pm family service, then midnight Mass (and she reciprocates). On occasion, when my choir sings at a Saturday evening Mass, I will go with her Sunday morning.

My “participation” at the Anglican Mass limits itself to saying general prayers with them (such as intercessions), and the Our Father (which I recite in French, Catholic style, because for the life of me I can only remember it in French and Latin).

I do not obviously go up to communion, I stay in my pew, even though the pastor invites people who don’t want to commune, to come up for a blessing; I did try a couple of times to go for a blessing, felt it was wrong, and no longer do it. I certainly don’t kneel at the consecration, or make any other visible act of “worship” such as genuflecting. The possible exception I would consider making to that is an act of worship, such as bowing, at the mention of the Holy Trinity which is a belief we hold in common, or bowing at the words “et incarnatus est” in the Creed. God IS present in a Protestant church, but spiritually not physically, spiritually in the sense of “when two or three gather in my Name”.

Praying vs. worshipping… it’s really an inner disposition. I certainly don’t feel a real presence in the Anglican church so it makes it easy to avoid “worship”. I do feel a real presence in a Catholic church. However I do feel a very strong sense of personal communion with my wife. I think that’s what St. Paul means when our faith rubs off on our non-believing spouses. She is attached to the Church through me. I consider it a very important duty to maintain that communion, and that means treating her faith with the utmost respect.

But to say I should never set foot in an Anglican service strikes me as mean-spirited, and in fact would to be damaging to our faith walk as it would make one uncharitable to another’s firmly-held, if incomplete, beliefs. In a family context like mine, it certainly wouldn’t contribute to family unity nor would it make it more likely (probably much less likely) to result in the conversion of my wife. And since I am well versed in my faith and know the pitfalls, as well as solidly committed to my faith, I feel that there is very little danger to attending occasionally

Great post!

 

[Morgan_Hiver]

True light,
I must disagree. To me it sounds like he’s just making his situation work for him…trying to rationalize why it is okay for him to be in those services. Saying that its mean spirited and wrong of anybody to keep away from those building and services just proves my previous posts. It doesn’t make you a bad person for not attending those services and keeping out of those buildings and it also doesn’t make you a better Catholic or person in general. Obviously he can’t just up and change his situation as an entirely family is involved but do you think it’d be possible to get your wife to convert? Many Anglicans already have and that might be appealing to her.

 

[OraLabora]

True light,
I must disagree. To me it sounds like he’s just making his situation work for him…trying to rationalize why it is okay for him to be in those services. Saying that its mean spirited and wrong of anybody to keep away from those building and services just proves my previous posts. It doesn’t make you a bad person for not attending those services and keeping out of those buildings and it also doesn’t make you a better Catholic or person in general. Obviously he can’t just up and change his situation as an entirely family is involved but do you think it’d be possible to get your wife to convert? Many Anglicans already have and that might be appealing to her.

You make it sound like I am doing something wrong. I am not “rationalizing”, I am applying prudential judgement and acting according to my conscience, well-formed. Remember that the Church approved my Anglican father marrying my Catholic mother… in 1955.

I am not suggesting that it would be mean-spirited to keep away from a Protestant service in general, but it could be so in certain contexts, including mine, and you have to ask yourself what the impact would be on the relationship (friendship or family) by doing so, and it would be mean-spirited to try to enforce a blanket prohibition against attending Protestant services. The duty to evangelize includes the duty to not push people further away from the Church. That becomes a matter of delicate balance, that has to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

As for whether my wife elects to convert or not is entirely her business, and God’s. I pray for it but in Benedictine spirit, I don’t overtly pressure her in any way,shape or form to convert; many people confuse evangelization with proselytization. They are two distinctly different acts, and often proselytization leads to the opposite of evangelization, when it turns people off.

Sometimes I think on this forum we theorize too much. We definitely need to recall St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians:

If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

And we need to apply this in our interpersonal relationships and that includes with Protestants, Muslims, Jews, etc.

 

[JReducation]

Brother, I have a question about this, something I can’t wrap my mind around.

Why are the SSPX considered to be Catholic if the Orthodox are not? Aren’t their canonical situations analogous in that both SSPX ministers and Orthodox ministers - while capable of celebrating Sacraments validly - have no canonical status in the Catholic Church?

I’m not implying that the SSPX should be considered capable of granting faculties. What I want is to be able to explain in a way that is logical why Orthodox bishops do indeed have the authority to grant faculties (which I wholeheartedly agree with) while SSPX bishops do not (which I also wholeheartedly agree with you on).

I want to be able to hold both, but I’m not sure how to understand why the SSPX - who are not in communion with Rome - should be regarded as having a different status than the Orthodox.

Perhaps your point 2 and point 3 above are enough? After all, an Orthodox bishop does have an eparchy/diocese, right? And isn’t “suspended” in any sense. Which makes him unlike an SSPX bishop, right?

The Orthodox clergy are not part of the Catholic Church. The SSPX clergy are part of the Catholic Church. Therefore, the Catholic Church has jurisdiction over the SSPX. It can grant or remove their faculties. We have no jurisdiction over the Orthodox. They are autonomous Churches that are schism. However, it is important to note that they are no longer considered schismatic.

There were mutual excommunications between the Orthodox and the Catholics. These excommunications were lifted by both sides in the 1970s. However, we do not have full communion. They are not under the authority of the Pontiff.

I appreciate the distinction, but is full communion absolutely necessary? To be more specific:

Is it wrong to say that a Catholic Christian could worship with an Orthodox Christian?

What about one of the eastern Catholic churches that has an intercommunion agreement with its corresponding Orthodox church? I think the Ukrainian Catholics and the Ukrainian Orthodox might have something like this… or maybe it was the Coptic Catholics and the Coptic Orthodox, I’m not sure. In any case, I remember one such example where these eastern churches worked out an arrangement by which their adherents were allowed without further canonical boundaries to regularly receive each other’s Sacraments. In such a situation are the eastern Christians really not worshiping with each other?

Sorry for the nitpicky question; just wanting some clarification!

I don’t know enough about Canon Law for the Oriental Churches to be able to answer this question. The Oriental Catholic Churches have their own Code of Canon Law. I don’t know what it allows by way of intercommunion. The Latin Catholic Church, aka Roman Catholic Church is the only Catholic Church that has its own Code of Canon Law.

Brother, can you help me see the difference between praying and worshipping with non-Catholics? I cannot see it.

Worship means cult. Prayer is just that, prayer. For example, the regular Sunday service at a Protestant church is their way of observing the Sabbath. Gathering to pray for the unborn, is not. See the difference?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TradionalWay]

There was a similar post on this… christendom-awake.org/pages/thomas-crean/praying-with-non-catholics.htm this should give your answers

 

[TrueLight]

The Orthodox clergy are not part of the Catholic Church. The SSPX clergy are part of the Catholic Church. Therefore, the Catholic Church has jurisdiction over the SSPX. It can grant or remove their faculties. We have no jurisdiction over the Orthodox. They are autonomous Churches that are schism. However, it is important to note that they are no longer considered schismatic.

There were mutual excommunications between the Orthodox and the Catholics. These excommunications were lifted by both sides in the 1970s. However, we do not have full communion. They are not under the authority of the Pontiff.

I don’t know enough about Canon Law for the Oriental Churches to be able to answer this question. The Oriental Catholic Churches have their own Code of Canon Law. I don’t know what it allows by way of intercommunion. The Latin Catholic Church, aka Roman Catholic Church is the only Catholic Church that has its own Code of Canon Law.

Worship means cult. Prayer is just that, prayer. For example, the regular Sunday service at a Protestant church is their way of observing the Sabbath. Gathering to pray for the unborn, is not. See the difference?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Yes, I see the difference when it comes to gathering, say outside of an abortion period to pray for the unborn… Is that the type of prayer you’re referring to?

I’m referring to “prayer meetings”, which can include worship.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

The Orthodox clergy are not part of the Catholic Church. The SSPX clergy are part of the Catholic Church.

Thank you for responding, Brother; your replies - on whatever topic - are so full of wisdom, compassion, precision, and nuance. I think I understand this matter a little better now, but if you don’t mind I do have a few more questions. I just want you to understand that I don’t want to sound argumentative, as I really do consider your replies to be intellectual gold. So please take these questions for what they are - sincere questions for a matter that I want to be more educated in - rather than challenges.

Why do the SSPX clergy get to count as “part of the Catholic Church” despite the fact that they are not in communion with the Holy See, whereas the Orthodox, because they’re not in communion with the Holy See, do not get to count as part of the Catholic Church?

Therefore, the Catholic Church has jurisdiction over the SSPX. It can grant or remove their faculties. We have no jurisdiction over the Orthodox. They are autonomous Churches that are schism. However, it is important to note that they are no longer considered schismatic.

So is the difference that the Catholic Church recognizes the legitimacy of the autonomy of the churches belonging to the Orthodox Church, whereas the Catholic Church does not recognize the legitimacy of the SSPX’s schism from the Latin Church?

There were mutual excommunications between the Orthodox and the Catholics. These excommunications were lifted by both sides in the 1970s. However, we do not have full communion. They are not under the authority of the Pontiff.

That’s precisely why I was confused. It seemed that the SSPX’s situation was actually rather analogous to that of the Orthodox: i.e. there was once an excommunication (by John Paul II) that has now been lifted (by Pope Benedict XVI), although they are still not in communion with the Holy See. Thus I felt troubled by my inability to explain what I know is correct: that the SSPX bishops cannot grant faculties.

Is the difference what I guessed above: that the Orthodox churches are supposed to be independent of the Latin Church, whereas the SSPX is not supposed to be?

I don’t know enough about Canon Law for the Oriental Churches to be able to answer this question. The Oriental Catholic Churches have their own Code of Canon Law. I don’t know what it allows by way of intercommunion. The Latin Catholic Church, aka Roman Catholic Church is the only Catholic Church that has its own Code of Canon Law.

So let’s assume for the sake of a hypothetical that those arrangements are licit. Is full participation (including receiving Holy Communion) of both the eastern Catholics and the eastern Orthodox in one of their churches’ Divine Liturgies constitutive of shared worship?

If not, why not?

If so, isn’t that then a morally acceptable example of Catholics’ engaging in worship with non-Catholics?

 

[JReducation]

Yes, I see the difference when it comes to gathering, say outside of an abortion period to pray for the unborn… Is that the type of prayer you’re referring to?

I’m referring to “prayer meetings”, which can include worship.

I think the problem is with the word “worship”. To the Catholic Church, worship would be an Anglican or a Lutheran liturgy or the ordinary Sunday service at a Baptist church. If I’m correct, the Fundamentalist Protestants call worship any form of prayer service. The Catholic Church does not. Worship, for us, means a formal liturgical function.

A gathering of Christians for a specific purpose, such as when the Holy Father has visited different Protestant communities and they have prayed together or when we gather with a Protestant community to celebrate something like a funeral, wedding, Baptism, are not acts of worship. They are functions for very specif purposes.

Why do the SSPX clergy get to count as “part of the Catholic Church” despite the fact that they are not in communion with the Holy See, whereas the Orthodox, because they’re not in communion with the Holy See, do not get to count as part of the Catholic Church?

The SSPX is not a Church. It has never claimed to be a Church. They have always claimed to be Roman Catholic. They are a society of apostolic life. The entire Society was never excommunicated, only the four bishops. Their deacons, priests and brothers are suspended. That has not changed; but they are not outside of the Catholic Church.

So is the difference that the Catholic Church recognizes the legitimacy of the autonomy of the churches belonging to the Orthodox Church, whereas the Catholic Church does not recognize the legitimacy of the SSPX’s schism from the Latin Church?

The SSPX have never been in schism. Archbishop Lefebvre committed a schismatic act by ordaining the four bishops without a papal mandate. A schimatic act is one that can lead to a schism if it’s followed to its logical conclusion. If the bishops of the SSPX ordain more bishops, then there is a schism, because it would send a message to the Holy See that they disregard the authority of the Holy See and intend to continue on their own.

The Orthodox Churches (which are many), are in schism, meaning that they are on their own and at present have no intention of subordinating themselves to the authority of the Holy See. However, they are not excommunicated, because you can’t excommunicate someone who never belonged to your church. The Orthodox Christians of today were never Catholic. They were born into the Orthodox Churches. Those who broke away were excommunicated. However, they have been dead for almost 1,000 years. Maintaining an excommunication over the heads of the Orthodox or their maintaining an excommunication over the heads of the Catholics made no sense. The break was between our ancestors, not us.

Once you lift the excommunication of the two, then you look at their status. In the case of the SSPX bishops, you have Catholic bishops who will not be granted their place in the Church until they submit the conditions that the Holy See places on them. As long as they choose not to submit, the remain Catholic bishops who are suspended. Canonically, they are not supposed to celebrate the sacraments in public. That’s part of the consequence of a suspension.

In the case of the Orthodox, once you lift the excommunication you have Christian bishops who have apostolic succession, because they can trace their succession back to the Apostles. Some of those Churches were founded by Apostles and others flowed out of Churches founded by Apostles. This makes them legitimate bishops with legitimate authority and no obligation to the Holy See, since they do not claim to be Catholic.

That’s precisely why I was confused. It seemed that the SSPX’s situation was actually rather analogous to that of the Orthodox:

As long as the SSPX bishops claim to be Catholic, they are subject to the laws of the Catholic Church. If they were to claim that they are a separate Church, they go into schism, as are the orthodox and they are no longer subject to Church laws. They would have to create their own laws.

Is the difference what I guessed above: that the Orthodox churches are supposed to be independent of the Latin Church, whereas the SSPX is not supposed to be?

Not exactly. There are 22 Catholic Churches that are independent of the Latin Church or the Roman Catholic Church, whichever you choose to call it. However, they are in full communion with the Pontiff, without losing their autonomy. Even their theology is different on some points.

The Orthodox Churches were once part of these 22 Churches and broke away durng the 11th century. The Orthodox Churches a truly independent. They were never part of the Roman Catholic Church. For example, the Greek Orthodox were once Greek Catholics and so forth.
The SSPX have always been part of the Roman Catholic Church.

So let’s assume for the sake of a hypothetical that those arrangements are licit. Is full participation (including receiving Holy Communion) of both the eastern Catholics and the eastern Orthodox in one of their churches’ Divine Liturgies constitutive of shared worship?

If not, why not?

If so, isn’t that then a morally acceptable example of Catholics’ engaging in worship with non-Catholics?

The Church makes the law; therefore, she can change the law or modify it. For example, let’s assume that the Canon Law for the Oriental Churches allows the Eastern Catholics of certain Churches to receive communion in their Orthodox counterparts, this would not be immoral. The Church has the power to bind and unbind.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

The SSPX is not a Church. It has never claimed to be a Church. They have always claimed to be Roman Catholic. They are a society of apostolic life. The entire Society was never excommunicated, only the four bishops. Their deacons, priests and brothers are suspended. That has not changed; but they are not outside of the Catholic Church.

Ah, thank you! That makes perfect sense to me now. An autonomous Orthodox church - like, say, the Ecumenical Patriarchate or the Russian Orthodox Church (MP) - is validly a church, whereas the SSPX don’t even claim or want to be a “church” - therefore, no granting faculties without approval from the church to which they do belong.

The SSPX have never been in schism. Archbishop Lefebvre committed a schismatic act by ordaining the four bishops without a papal mandate. A schimatic act is one that can lead to a schism if it’s followed to its logical conclusion. If the bishops of the SSPX ordain more bishops, then there is a schism, because it would send a message to the Holy See that they disregard the authority of the Holy See and intend to continue on their own.

I stand corrected; thank you for explaining, Brother!

The Orthodox Churches (which are many), are in schism, meaning that they are on their own and at present have no intention of subordinating themselves to the authority of the Holy See. However, they are not excommunicated, because you can’t excommunicate someone who never belonged to your church. The Orthodox Christians of today were never Catholic. They were born into the Orthodox Churches. Those who broke away were excommunicated. However, they have been dead for almost 1,000 years. Maintaining an excommunication over the heads of the Orthodox or their maintaining an excommunication over the heads of the Catholics made no sense. The break was between our ancestors, not us.

This actually perfectly explains to me why the Catholic Church today condemns the notion that the Orthodox are “schismatics” - because no Orthodox believer currently living has ever initiated or participated in a schism from the Catholic Church; they’re already separate. Right?

Once you lift the excommunication of the two, then you look at their status. In the case of the SSPX bishops, you have Catholic bishops who will not be granted their place in the Church until they submit the conditions that the Holy See places on them. As long as they choose not to submit, the remain Catholic bishops who are suspended. Canonically, they are not supposed to celebrate the sacraments in public. That’s part of the consequence of a suspension.

Yes, I understand that.

As long as the SSPX bishops claim to be Catholic, they are subject to the laws of the Catholic Church. If they were to claim that they are a separate Church, they go into schism, as are the orthodox and they are no longer subject to Church laws. They would have to create their own laws.

Got it.

The Orthodox Churches a truly independent. They were never part of the Roman Catholic Church. For example, the Greek Orthodox were once Greek Catholics and so forth. The SSPX have always been part of the Roman Catholic Church.

That’s really what helps explain it for me: the autonomy of the Orthodox churches entitles them - even from the Catholic perspective - to their own ecclesiastical laws and regulations, whereas the SSPX still profess to belong to the Latin Church and are therefore subject to our ecclesiastical laws, right?

The Church makes the law; therefore, she can change the law or modify it. For example, let’s assume that the Canon Law for the Oriental Churches allows the Eastern Catholics of certain Churches to receive communion in their Orthodox counterparts, this would not be immoral. The Church has the power to bind and unbind.

And if they did that, those eastern Catholics and eastern Orthodox fully participating in each other’s Divine Liturgies would be engaging in an act of worship together, right? Since it’s the Liturgy. So would that then be an example of Catholics and non-Catholics worshiping together in an acceptable way?

 

[JReducation]

Ah, thank you! That makes perfect sense to me now. An autonomous Orthodox church - like, say, the Ecumenical Patriarchate or the Russian Orthodox Church (MP) - is validly a church, whereas the SSPX don’t even claim or want to be a “church” - therefore, no granting faculties without approval from the church to which they do belong.

I stand corrected; thank you for explaining, Brother!

This actually perfectly explains to me why the Catholic Church today condemns the notion that the Orthodox are “schismatics” - because no Orthodox believer currently living has ever initiated or participated in a schism from the Catholic Church; they’re already separate. Right?

Yes, I understand that.

Got it.

That’s really what helps explain it for me: the autonomy of the Orthodox churches entitles them - even from the Catholic perspective - to their own ecclesiastical laws and regulations, whereas the SSPX still profess to belong to the Latin Church and are therefore subject to our ecclesiastical laws, right?

And if they did that, those eastern Catholics and eastern Orthodox fully participating in each other’s Divine Liturgies would be engaging in an act of worship together, right? Since it’s the Liturgy. So would that then be an example of Catholics and non-Catholics worshiping together in an acceptable way?

Yes, if it’s allowed. I don’t now much about Canon Law for the Eastern Catholic Churches. I can’t say what is or is not allowed to them. I know what is allowed to us.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Yes, if it’s allowed. I don’t now much about Canon Law for the Eastern Catholic Churches. I can’t say what is or is not allowed to them. I know what is allowed to us.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Okay, I see; thanks! I understand, and I promise not to construe your answer as approval of such arrangements. I also have no idea if it’s allowed - it was just a hypothetical.

 

[Lourdhu_Robin]

Yes its sin to pray with protestants…

 

[Contarini]

Dishonesty can never do honor to God. Even saying it is an oxymoron. To worship in communion with a non-Catholic community makes a statement that you share the same faith. That’s not true.

Can you support this claim? If both parties believe in the one Triune God, surely they share the same faith. They may have different views on the implications of that faith, but that’s a different matter.

You may share many common beliefs, but there are also many differences that are irreconcilable. The CCC tries to clarify this by addressing the issue of imperfect communion. Since our communion is imperfect, we cannot share in one cult. God does not wish to be worshippe in an imperfect manner.

Well, it that were true the only answer would be to stop worshiping God altogether

Yes, you can pray with people of other faiths. You cannot worship with people of other faiths, because you are not in full communion with them.

I’m missing any kind of official Church teaching (post-Vatican-II- backing up these highly sweeping claims of yours.

The official Vatican norms for ecumenism do not seem to distinguish between prayer and worship as you do and do not indicate that “worshiping” with non-Catholics is in any way problematic. They do not suggest, as you and others have, that fellowship with family or friends is the only reason to attend a non-Catholic worship service.

Is there some other source you can offer that supersedes this document or corrects my interpretation?

I have asked this on another thread and gotten no response beyond “it just is the way we say it is and you’re not a Catholic so you have no right to an opinion.”

Edwin

 

[Morgan_Hiver]

Edwin, if it bothers you so much that we are not allowed to worship with you then just convert. Leave your biases behind and contact a priest to get started. You’ll be able to celebrate a mass everyday of the week and you’ll actually receive the body and blood of Christ…no more doing as a “symbolic” act.

 

[Morgan_Hiver]

It’s spelled “proselytizing” and I wasn’t engaging in such a practice. I was being sarcastic since he feels that Catholics need to adjust our laws to fit protestant beliefs.

 

[Morgan_Hiver]

I wasn’t taking slaps at his protestant beliefs…I was just simply stating what they believe…a non-flesh cracker to be consumed with the thought of Jesus in mind.