Is It Wrong For A Cathloic to go to an Episcopal Church?

[zz912]

Devil’s advocate: I might come under fire for this, but in the spirit of ecumenism, and according to my understanding of consecration and the validity of orders, I think you can get it at an Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy too.

However, the Anglican/Episcopal “eucharist”, even if the specific congregation teaches the proper doctrine of the Real Presence, doesn’t contain it, as the consecration of the bread and wine are invalid, performed by “priests” (and priestesses, and active sodomite “priests”!) with invalid orders - it’s just bread and wine in any church other than an Roman Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox.

The Episcopals ordain priestesses and non-celibate homosexuals to their “priesthood”, and approve or tolerate all sorts of other immoralities - I think that should be enough evidence not only to call in to question the validity of their orders (since it could be argued that they may have apostolic succession due to the historical nature of the founding of Anglicanism), but to destroy the notion completely. Via media my eye!

There’s part of the reason why there’s been and is being a mass exodus of Anglican/Episcopalians to the Roman Catholic Church.

Yes the Orthodox do have a valid Eucharist, but they do not have open Communion, so she wouldn’t be able to receive there.

 

[GKC]

Which is also precisely why so many are remaining in the Episcopal Church. Because they don’t share the same beliefs. A local Episcopal priest told me in her diocese there has been very little dissention and absolutely no exodus of churches at all.

There are very few traditional Anglicans left in the Episcopal Church. Even so, a couple of parishes are moving toward the Ordinariate. The exodus of traditionalists which began after the St. Louis Conference, over 30 years ago, is pretty much complete.

The Episcopal Church still retains a range of opinion, as is customary in Anglicanism. But the most “traditional” of them would place well over into the liberal range of doctrine, historically.

GKC

 

[Seatuck]

On the contrary, such people are converting to the Catholic Church precisely because traditional Anglicans often have the very same beliefs which Catholics do.

They are jumping ship from churches that have departed from the teachings of Christ. Otherwise they would stay.

 

[Bro_Justin]

It is NOT wrong to go to an Episcopal service as long as you DO NOT receive Communion.

The concept is that you attend the Catholic as your main duty, and than you can go with a friend to the Episcopal Church.

You cannot go to Communion because they are not in union with the Roman Catholic Church.

It is nice to see the diferences in the various church’s, but NEVER receive communion.

God bless you now.

Brother Justin, OP

 

[Cavaradossi]

No, not right.
No, not right.
Worship with those who share your beliefs.

This is wise advice. Episcopalians have several fundamental differences from Roman Catholics. Visiting another worship service is perhaps permissable if your only intention is to watch, but you should under no circumstances worship (i.e., engage in prayer) with those who do not share your beliefs, nor should you listen to a non-Catholic priest’s interpretation of scripture as it might differ significantly from the Roman Catholic interpretation.

Perhaps you should check out other Roman Catholic churches in your area? There might be one with a priest whose homilies are easier to grasp.

 

[RevDrNorth]

Roman Cathloics arent that much diffent from episcopals as far as beliefs right? so it cant be wrong for me to start going to the less-uptight episcopal church in my town…right? I still firmly believe everything i did before.

Considering the direction of the Episcopal Church of late I am not sure Episcopalians should be going to TEC churches {just a joke…sort of…}

For you as a Roman Catholic, it is not the same. Even if they had valid sacraments (say the TEC priest was ordained by an OC), the doctrine is different and the TEC has moved away from traditional orthodox Christian doctrine. Even when churches hold valid orders and sacraments outside of the RCC, utilization of those is in emergencies. Finding a less uptight church is not an emergency.

Here is small look at some of the odd goings on in TEC churches. virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=14170

If you like Anglican worship look to join one of the Anglican Use Churches in the RCC or one of the soon to be erected ordinariate Churches in the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Hesychios]

…

If you like Anglican worship look to join one of the Anglican Use Churches in the RCC or one of the soon to be erected ordinariate Churches in the Roman Catholic Church.

I think the op’s desire for a less ‘uptight’ church is more significant than the worship, in this case.

 

[GKC]

Considering the direction of the Episcopal Church of late I am not sure Episcopalians should be going to TEC churches {just a joke…sort of…}

For you as a Roman Catholic, it is not the same. Even if they had valid sacraments (say the TEC priest was ordained by an OC), the doctrine is different and the TEC has moved away from traditional orthodox Christian doctrine. Even when churches hold valid orders and sacraments outside of the RCC, utilization of those is in emergencies. Finding a less uptight church is not an emergency.

Here is small look at some of the odd goings on in TEC churches. virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=14170

If you like Anglican worship look to join one of the Anglican Use Churches in the RCC or one of the soon to be erected ordinariate Churches in the Roman Catholic Church.

Yep.

GKC

 

[hn160]

Devil’s advocate: I might come under fire for this, but in the spirit of ecumenism, and according to my understanding of consecration and the validity of orders, I think you can get it at an Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy too.

However, the Anglican/Episcopal “eucharist”, even if the specific congregation teaches the proper doctrine of the Real Presence, doesn’t contain it, as the consecration of the bread and wine are invalid, performed by “priests” (and priestesses, and active sodomite “priests”!) with invalid orders - it’s just bread and wine in any church other than an Roman Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox.

The Episcopals ordain priestesses and non-celibate homosexuals to their “priesthood”, and approve or tolerate all sorts of other immoralities - I think that should be enough evidence not only to call in to question the validity of their orders (since it could be argued that they may have apostolic succession due to the historical nature of the founding of Anglicanism), but to destroy the notion completely. Via media my eye!

There’s part of the reason why there’s been and is being a mass exodus of Anglican/Episcopalians to the Roman Catholic Church.

Theses precisely are reasons why we left the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America for the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

 

[CMatt25]

you should under no circumstances worship (i.e., engage in prayer) with those who do not share your beliefs

Under no circumstances engage in prayer with? I guess so much for where 2 or 3 are gathered there I am in their midsts.

Seriously if Catholics can no longer pray with non Catholics, the world of faith and religion is far worse off than I ever thought. :sad_yes: No wonder people might question and have their doubts about some faiths.

 

[RevDrNorth]

Under no circumstances engage in prayer with? I guess so much for where 2 or 3 are gathered there I am in their midsts.

The problem is they may not be praying to the same God in the TEC as we are. If you look at the link posted above you can see just a few of the interesting things going on:

“Grace Cathedral in San Francisco has a side chapel with walls adorned with the sacred symbols of Islam, Hinduism, Judaism and Buddhism. The purpose of the chapel is to create a ‘sacred space’ for a person of any faith to pray, but underneath it imports a new theology of worship into a Christian church. By allowing a ‘multifaith space’ we are in effect denying the exclusive claim of Jesus to be the one in whom is salvation and help in time of need.”

Not to mention the TEC priest who was also Muslim until the Bishop finally came down on her. Oh, then there was the candidate for Bishop that was also Buddahist lay minister (only one put forward by that diocese for the position of Bishop. He was turned down by the HOB but that it got that far is phenomenal. livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2009/1/26/northern-michigan-bishop-nominee-has-background-in-buddhism

christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/marchweb-only/112-53.0.html

It goes on and on. Some large TEC church had a syncretistic prayer service blending faiths and prayers. Cannot recall all the details but the priest had apparently done it for some time and it became public. Virtue online covered it.

Then there are the statements of the Presiding Bishop herself regarding Jesus not being the only way (goes against scripture) and a number of other unscriptural statements.

Oh and then there is Matthew Fox who was clamped down on by the Vatican due to very strange and unbiblical theology. He was then taken in by Bishop Swing of California who made him a TEC priest and on he went.

There are tons of stories like the above without getting near the unscholarly Bishop John Shelby Spong’s liberal theology.

So, one should be VERY concerned.

 

[CMatt25]

The problem is they may not be praying to the same God

So, one should be VERY concerned.

Yes they are if you believe in one God. Which I do. So it’s no problem for me. Nor am I all that concerned about praying with others. Let alone VERY.

= :grouphug: Peace.

 

[Khalid]

If the conception of God is different, you may think you’re worshiping the same God, but at best, God ignores or rejects your worship.

Muslims worship “Allah” (literally “The God”), who they believe to be the God of Abraham. Allah has no Son, repeatedly emphasised in the Quran. He is a deceitful god (“For truly Allah is the best of deceivers”, Surah 9) and a violent God.

This conception of God is wrong: it does not follow that merely because there is only One God who created the multiverse, that anyone who attempts to engage in the worship an “uncaused cause” or the “prime mover” or the “ultimate creator” or “great architect” is worshiping the One God as He has revealed Himself: they may think they are worshiping the same god, and basic college logic would tend to support that assumption, but this does not take in to account that one can worship Brahman, or Allah who has no Son, and worship the True Triune God, however much you wish it to be so. Muslims believe Christians are polytheists - does this make it so?

At the best, as I mentioned above, there is: one creator of the universe, so all creatures who believe they worship the creator perforce worship the one creator.

If one accepts this argument (it can be refuted with creative logic and the antithesis of Deism/the Clockmaker God), one has still not attempted to define what kinds of worship God accepts: on one end, there is the absolute indifferentism of Rousseau, which states that all worship of “the creator” is equally pleasing to that creator. There is the Muslim position that worship is for the edification of Man, as God is ridiculously transcendent and self-sustaining, taken to a caricature of the true Godly nature (even though Muslims demand that the exact form of ritual prayer is still required… what gives?). And on the correct end, there is the view that God has handed down to man revelation of His existence and His nature, and the forms of worship that we should ascribe to him.

One can’t argue around latitudinarianism with the aforementioned argument, but it does shut down any view that a non-Christian worship is pleasing to, or accepted by, God.

What about Zoroastrians and Mandaeans and Gnostics, dualists to the core, who believe in a good god (Ahura Mazda, the Transcendent) and an evil god (Ahriman, the Demiurge), so on and so forth?

For a concrete example: if I was to worship a god that I believe created the universe, was the best deceiver, that had no Son, against Scriptural mandate, and worshiped this god by committing innumerable acts of violence and war until the entire world was subjugated under what I believed to be Holy Divine Law that demanded the further subjugation of anyone who did not agree in full with my own conception of God, and believed this worship was pleasing to this god - am I still worshiping God? (This is Islam.)

In the most basic logical sense, I am, as there is only one God (see above), but my worship is rejected.

Now, what if I believe nature created itself, so the Creator is the physical world, and then decide to worship a tree in a misguided bout of pantheism?

Both statements are logically equivalent, in having (A) One creator, and (B) Attempted worship of that creator.

So, am I even worshiping the same God now, once I’ve descended in to the pits of pantheism, animism, etc. even though I still believe in (A) and attempt (B)?

Any antithesis of this necessarily entails absolute indifferentism.

 

[CMatt25]

If the conception of God is different, you may think you’re worshiping the same God, but at best, God ignores or rejects your worship.

Muslims worship “Allah” (literally “The God”)

Yes I know Muslims worship The God. My Muslims neighbors and I have shared meals together, have prayed for His blessings to fall upon each of us. We have exchanged gifts at Christmas and I have offered up my prayers for God’s blessings to them at Ramadan.

We live together, me a Christian and they Muslims, with love and peace and good will toward each other. You can believe you know God ignores or rejects this. But I don’t. Peace.

 

[Khalid]

That’s called indifferentism. If Muslims worship God, instead of Muhammad’s mythological Allah, and God accepts their worship, why don’t you convert to Islam?

That’s Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s position: “that one may serve God equally well by remaining in whatever religion they were raised, or converting to any which pleases them more”. Needless to say, I believe I’ve made my opinion on that matter known.

And I won’t even get started on the pit-spawned creed that is mainstream Sunni Islam - no doubt there can be nice Muslims, as I strove to be during my years as one - but not if they practise the religion faithfully (thus I left the religion, as it was either be an observant Muslim stuck in a cultural enclave withdrawn from mainstream society, or not be a Muslim at all) for the religion demands the subjugation and mistreatment and mistrust of all kuffar: it says many times in the Quran, “…and you shall not take unbelievers as friends or protectors, not even from the people of the book,” and there are many “authentic hadith” (sources of definitive oral law recognised by Sunnis) that make such remarks even more restrictive, and abundant.

No doubt there are cultural Muslims, just like cultural Jews, who identify as Muslim but do no more at most than fasting and doing the meaningless ritual prayer during Ramadan, just like some Jews don’t eat kashrut outside of Passover, and celebrate Yom Kippur and Hannukah, which beyond you could never tell they were a Jew.

Indeed, I read at one time, I do not know the reliability of it, a poll conducted among the American Jewry, and it claimed that around 30% of Jews identified as Atheist or agnostic as it pertains to God.

Digression: I studied under a Shi’i professor who was like this: he did the minimum mandatory so no one would look at him askance or report him to the government for neglecting his din, but was no more Muslim than you or I beyond that. It seems that this kind of “Islam” is much more prevalent amongst Shi’i, with deep roots in history to the triumph of the Mutazilites (rationalists) on the Shi’a side and the Asharites (occasionalist anti-intellectuals) on the Sunni side, and the continuing importance placed on 'aql (reason, rationality, logic) and the malleability of Shi’i compared to Ahl al Sunnah to adapt to the modern world due to the clerical structure and the perceived continued divine mandate and ability to re-interpret the backwards, dead, and bellicose texts at the heart of Islam in a much, much more metaphorical manner.

If Islam survives through any method other than conquest, it must reform, and the Ahl al Sunnah can not reform: a Sunni (the ridiculously legalistic mainstream branch of Islam that I belonged to, specifically Hanafi Athari Sunni - which is a rare combination, nearly contradictory, almost like saying a “Calvinist Catholic”) idea of reform is Salafism (even more strict, pseudo-patristic) or Wahhabism (even more strictly strict, pseudo-patristic and political) or Qutbism (violent and political - Osama bin Laden was a Qutbi), so, if Islam does reform, it will survive in the guise of a Shi’a (the most rationalist of all Muslims), Ibadi (the most interpretative in a symolical-metaphorical manner), or Sufi (the most mystic), or syncretic interpretation (as Islam is already ridiculously syncretic, combining elements of Judaism, Christianity, Sabaeanism, Mandaeanism, Paganism, Zoroastrianism, and in Sufism, even some truly Eastern religion with Dharmic and Daoist influences).

 

[CMatt25]

That’s called indifferentism. If Muslims worship God, instead of Muhammad’s mythological Allah, and God accepts their worship, why don’t you convert to Islam?

Needless to say, I believe I’ve made my opinion on that matter known.

Call it whatever you want. Because my belief is Christ Lord and my Savior. Which has absolutely nothing to do with being unable to engage in prayer with Episcopalians and others.

As have I. God bless you in your faith journey. God bless all His created children. Peace.

 

[Cheshangle]

Catholics are obligated to attend Mass every Sunday in a Catholic Church. We are also obligated to form our consciences to the moral teachings as taught by the Catholic Church.
Many of the beliefs of the Episcopal Church are not the same as the Catholic Church. This is why many Episcopalians and Anglicans are converting to Catholicism.

So yes, of course it is wrong for a Catholic .

i) Most RCs I know don’t go to mass every Sunday.

ii) I’m an Anglican, and yes, there are some differences in our beliefs.

iii) But how is that “why many Episcoplaians and Anglicans are converting to (Roman) Catholicism”? That’s a non-sequitor. “Our beliefs are different to yours, so I’ll join you”. Plenty of RCs move the other way too, of course.

 

[Cheshangle]

Yes, because all non-catholics are also anti-catholics.

I would recommend you do whatever is best for your relationship with God. Don’t be bought over by superficial matters, but think, pray, research and do whatever will bring you closer to Him. Of course Roman Catholics will tell you it is a Mortal Sin to skip Roman Catholic mass and nothing could bring you closer than Catholic mass (you can’t come to a Catholic forum and expect any different answer), but it is ultimately between you and God, not you and Roman Catholics.

I am an Anglican. I am not anti-Roman Catholic. The RC Church is our beloved sister church.

 

[Cheshangle]

For you to say this tells me you are probably weakly formed in your faith. As such, missing Mass and substituting the worship services of another denomination is very dangerous for your soul.

From your other response, I think you have the viewpoint of the Mass completely wrong. We are not there to be entertained. It is not for our amusement. We are there to give praise and worship to God, and focus on Him. And He gives the greatest gift of all, the opportunity to eat and drink His Body and Blood and become one with Him. You can’t get that anywhere but at Mass.

I don’t care how great the chorus or band is, or how wonderful the preacher is, or how great the fellowship is, or how awesome the experience is, it pales in comparison to the Body and Blood of Christ.

It does indeed pale. And in our Church, the Church of England, the bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Now some of you might regard it as “invalid”. But I take communion twice a week and it’s valid enough for me.

 

[Cheshangle]

Except that they do not have the apostolic authority to confect the Eucharist at the Episcopalian Liturgy. They do not have the Body and Blood of Christ.

That, of course, is your opinion.

My baptism certificate says that I am a member of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (Church of England) and twice a week when I say the Nicene Creed, I affirm my belief in one Catholic and Apostolic Church.