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

[Cheshangle]

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.

For better or for worse, the Anglican communion is “broad church” containing a large spread of people from evangelicals to Anglo-Catholics.

But an outsider, and many “insiders” would be hard pushed to see much difference between an Anglican eucharist and RC mass. Many RCs attend Anglican services and join in. Some take communion, which they’re not supposed to. Others receive a blessing, which, I’ve been told by a RC priest, is in order.

When I go to a RC service I always mention to the priest before that I’m Anglican. On three occasions I’ve been told I can receive communion, but I’ve opted for a blessing. On one occasion, the RC priest displayed a degree of reluctance, but he still gave me one.

 

[Fink]

That, of course, is your opinion.

It was also the “opinion” of Pope Leo XIII (and, of course, his successors) who set up a commission to look into Anglican “orders”.

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.

Acknowledging the Bishop of Rome as the current successor of Saint Peter?
The Church of England rejects the supremacy of the Pope! Words on a baptism certificate can`t alter the truth.

PS
The priests who told you that you could receive Holy Communion were in grave error.

 

[Khalid]

The Papacy (or lack thereof) is a flawed way to attack Anglicanism - the Eastern Orthodox have fully valid orders through Apostolic Succession without acknowledging Petrine supremacy. Or, more accurately, full Petrine supremacy, as they still accord the Bishop of Rome the honor of first among equals, at least in theory, at least the Greek Orthodox Church does: however, this has been stifled due to sectarian conflict and petty political bickering (on the dogmatic Assumption, the Perpetual Virginity, and the Filioque, of which the first two are universally believed by the Orthodox, and the latter - the creed is equivalent in everything but wording, evidenced by the fact that RCs omit the filioque when reciting the creed in Greek: political because the issue isn’t with the dogmata, it’s with how they were promulgated), today, sadly, mainly on the behalf of the Orthodox, who are the less ecumenical of the two churches, no matter how much lip service they pay to it, and no matter how equally wrong and petty it was to excommunicate Cerularius a millennium ago - let bygones be bygones!

The Anglican church at least originally had valid Apostolic succession, as the original Bishops of the Church of England were ordained through the unbroken chain leading back to St Peter: it seems that the ordinations are valid but illicit.

If it seems I’m defending Anglicanism, read some of my previous posts in which my opinion of the facts is made abundantly clear. I do try to be unbiased in these issues insofar as faith and the teaching of the Magisterium do allow.

 

[Cheshangle]

It was also the “opinion” of Pope Leo XIII (and, of course, his successors) who set up a commission to look into Anglican “orders”.

Acknowledging the Bishop of Rome as the current successor of Saint Peter?
The Church of England rejects the supremacy of the Pope! Words on a baptism certificate can`t alter the truth.

PS
The priests who told you that you could receive Holy Communion were in grave error.

i) Yes, I am aware of Apostolicae Curae (1896) and you would not expect me to agree with it.

ii) I am also aware that Pope Paul VI referred to the Church of England as “our beloved sister church”

iii) Of course the Bishop of Rome is in the Apostolic succession, as are all RC, Orthodox, Anglican and Old Catholic bishops. As for him being the current successor of St Peter, yes, St Peter was the first Pope and he follows in that line of succession. But he is not our Pope. We are a reformed church. That does not mean we are not catholic. You appear to be insinuating that my baptismal certificate is fraudulent, and that I am lying when I affirm my belief in the One Catholic and Apostolic Church. Your opinion of “the truth” differs from mine.

iv) The three RC priests who offered me communion were one in Queensland when I rang him to ask if I could take the sacrament at a friend’s funeral. He used the world welcome. The other was an Irish priest on a cruise holiday. The third was a Monsignor at Westminster Cathedral. I e-mailed him before going to a wedding there. I am not sure that you have the right to accuse a Monsignor of your church of being “in grave error”. Pehaps you think that Pope Paul VI was too?

 

[Khalid]

The Pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra and defining doctrine based on the Holy Tradition. I don’t believe the Holy Father in Rome was speaking ex cathedra when he called Anglicans “a beloved sister church.” That’s actually jarring - my credulity is challenged, as it doesn’t seem like something il Papa - the Vicar of Christ Himself! - would say.

What happened to the Catholic Church being assured that it possessed the Truth with a capital “t”, and not a truth with a small “t”? Exclusive and absolute truth-claims seem to be the dominion of Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestant Bibliolators and Mohammedans in this day.

 

[GKC]

The Pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra and defining doctrine based on the Holy Tradition. I don’t believe the Holy Father in Rome was speaking ex cathedra when he called Anglicans “a beloved sister church.” That’s actually jarring - my credulity is challenged, as it doesn’t seem like something il Papa - the Vicar of Christ Himself! - would say.

What happened to the Catholic Church being assured that it possessed the Truth with a capital “t”, and not a truth with a small “t”? Exclusive and absolute truth-claims seem to be the dominion of Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestant Bibliolators and Mohammedans in this day.

But Paul did say it (not ex cathedra, of course), in 1970, on the occasion of the beatification of the English and Welsh martyrs. Paul VI had a particularly close relationship with Michael Ramsey, the then Archbishop of Canterbury, presenting him with an episcopal ring, at one point. It was this relationship that led to the establishment of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, which was chartered to explore methods of bringing the two Churches closer.

GKC

 

[ThamesCrosser]

But Paul did say it (not ex cathedra, of course), in 1970, on the occasion of the beatification of the English and Welsh martyrs. Paul VI had a particularly close relationship with Michael Ramsey, the then Archbishop of Canterbury, presenting him with an episcopal ring, at one point. It was this relationship that led to the establishment of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, which was chartered to explore methods of bringing the two Churches closer.

GKC

GKC, it matter’s not if Paul VI or any other Pope said anything remotely alluding to the fact that the Anglican Church is part of the Church Catholic because unless it was said ex cathedra it will be totally discounted here. This occasion where Paul VI stated that the Anglican Church is a “beautiful sister Church” will just stir up the RC Fundies who believe that he too was in error. Heck, there is a whole bunch of them (RC Fundies) who believe that Paul VI was possibly not even Pope… GASP…

GKC, you are part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Our Churches have the historic episcopacy, and sacraments. Just because we do not recognize the Bishop of Rome as Universal King over the world Church does not mean we aren’t part of the Church Catholic. The Papacy made a power grab, and attempted to subjugate the whole of Christianity to it’s whims. The EO rejected this grab in 1054, and the Anglican’s rejected this grab some 500 years later. For the most part a vast majority of RC’s don’t even really believe in the supremacy of the Pope themselves…they may belong to a Church that officially believes this, but I would assume that staggering numbers of RC’s don’t really believe that the Pope has as much authority as he claims for himself.

I love the RC, EO, and The Anglican Churches, but we really need to put the heresy stuff behind us. We all profess the Apostolic Faith, however, we reject certain aspects of Church Polity that is all.

Pax et Bonum,

ThamesCrosser

 

[JohnnyReb]

GKC, it matter’s not if Paul VI or any other Pope said anything remotely alluding to the fact that the Anglican Church is part of the Church Catholic because unless it was said ex cathedra it will be totally discounted here. This occasion where Paul VI stated that the Anglican Church is a “beautiful sister Church” will just stir up the RC Fundies who believe that he too was in error. Heck, there is a whole bunch of them (RC Fundies) who believe that Paul VI was possibly not even Pope… GASP…

GKC, you are part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Our Churches have the historic episcopacy, and sacraments. Just because we do not recognize the Bishop of Rome as Universal King over the world Church does not mean we aren’t part of the Church Catholic. The Papacy made a power grab, and attempted to subjugate the whole of Christianity to it’s whims. The EO rejected this grab in 1054, and the Anglican’s rejected this grab some 500 years later. For the most part a vast majority of RC’s don’t even really believe in the supremacy of the Pope themselves…they may belong to a Church that officially believes this, but I would assume that staggering numbers of RC’s don’t really believe that the Pope has as much authority as he claims for himself.

I love the RC, EO, and The Anglican Churches, but we really need to put the heresy stuff behind us. We all profess the Apostolic Faith, however, we reject certain aspects of Church Polity that is all.

Pax et Bonum,

ThamesCrosser

I agree with you 100 precent ThamesCrosser.

I mean the Catholic church ruled that in their eyes, Anglican orders are not valid. Fine, but we as Anglicans disagree. Thats also fine. Anglicans affirm the Catholicity and Apostolic nature of Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican orders. Likewise, I find the Orthodox approach of not affirming nor denying the validity of orders outside of their church to be more logical and charitable than the RCC approach. As one poster pointed out, if one really looks at the logic, one would have to assume from a Catholic perspective, Anglican orders are valid but illicit.

It seems to me that the RCC started with trying to find a way to prove Anglican orders invalid, and found a way to do it. Apostolic Curae smacks of that to me.

Anglican bashing is real popular on these forums. We’re talked down to alot. I have gotten used to it, I mean this is a Roman Catholic forum, that leans to the conservative side. You would think the Anglicans were not even Christian by some of the remarks made. If we said similar things of Rome, would going to get slapped with a ban or suspension. My point: Its one thing to believe your churches teaching, its nother to present it in an uncharitable fashion.

 

[ThamesCrosser]

I agree with you 100 precent ThamesCrosser.

I mean the Catholic church ruled that in their eyes, Anglican orders are not valid. Fine, but we as Anglicans disagree. Thats also fine. Anglicans affirm the Catholicity and Apostolic nature of Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican orders. Likewise, I find the Orthodox approach of not affirming nor denying the validity of orders outside of their church to be more logical and charitable than the RCC approach. As one poster pointed out, if one really looks at the logic, one would have to assume from a Catholic perspective, Anglican orders are valid but illicit.

It seems to me that the RCC started with trying to find a way to prove Anglican orders invalid, and found a way to do it. Apostolic Curae smacks of that to me.

Anglican bashing is real popular on these forums. We’re talked down to alot. I have gotten used to it, I mean this is a Roman Catholic forum, that leans to the conservative side. You would think the Anglicans were not even Christian by some of the remarks made. If we said similar things of Rome, would going to get slapped with a ban or suspension. My point: Its one thing to believe your churches teaching, its nother to present it in an uncharitable fashion.

In total agreement!

 

[GKC]

GKC, it matter’s not if Paul VI or any other Pope said anything remotely alluding to the fact that the Anglican Church is part of the Church Catholic because unless it was said ex cathedra it will be totally discounted here. This occasion where Paul VI stated that the Anglican Church is a “beautiful sister Church” will just stir up the RC Fundies who believe that he too was in error. Heck, there is a whole bunch of them (RC Fundies) who believe that Paul VI was possibly not even Pope… GASP…

GKC, you are part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Our Churches have the historic episcopacy, and sacraments. Just because we do not recognize the Bishop of Rome as Universal King over the world Church does not mean we aren’t part of the Church Catholic. The Papacy made a power grab, and attempted to subjugate the whole of Christianity to it’s whims. The EO rejected this grab in 1054, and the Anglican’s rejected this grab some 500 years later. For the most part a vast majority of RC’s don’t even really believe in the supremacy of the Pope themselves…they may belong to a Church that officially believes this, but I would assume that staggering numbers of RC’s don’t really believe that the Pope has as much authority as he claims for himself.

I love the RC, EO, and The Anglican Churches, but we really need to put the heresy stuff behind us. We all profess the Apostolic Faith, however, we reject certain aspects of Church Polity that is all.

Pax et Bonum,

ThamesCrosser

What the RCC teaches, if not ex cathedra, at least as sententia ad fidem pertinens, and which must be affirmed de fide by RCs (as then Cardinal Ratzinger reaffirmed in 1998), is that Anglican orders are invalid, hence not in apostolic succession, hence Anglicanism is not a particular Church, not a part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic faith. Any comment Paul made was a private and undefined opinion, not even made as a private theologian, and of no degree of theological certainty at all. That I myself, as an Anglican, do not accept the assertions of * Apostolicae Curae* (that sad topic is a hobby of mine) and know that I am a member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, does not affect what a faithful RC is called upon to affirm, and the private opinion of Pope Paul does not trump those requirements either.

I never try to talk a RC out of affirming what the RCC requires an RC to affirm.

GKC

Pax tecum.

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[GKC]

I agree with you 100 precent ThamesCrosser.

I mean the Catholic church ruled that in their eyes, Anglican orders are not valid. Fine, but we as Anglicans disagree. Thats also fine. Anglicans affirm the Catholicity and Apostolic nature of Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican orders. Likewise, I find the Orthodox approach of not affirming nor denying the validity of orders outside of their church to be more logical and charitable than the RCC approach. As one poster pointed out, if one really looks at the logic, one would have to assume from a Catholic perspective, Anglican orders are valid but illicit.

It seems to me that the RCC started with trying to find a way to prove Anglican orders invalid, and found a way to do it. Apostolic Curae smacks of that to me.

Anglican bashing is real popular on these forums. We’re talked down to alot. I have gotten used to it, I mean this is a Roman Catholic forum, that leans to the conservative side. You would think the Anglicans were not even Christian by some of the remarks made. If we said similar things of Rome, would going to get slapped with a ban or suspension. My point: Its one thing to believe your churches teaching, its nother to present it in an uncharitable fashion.

Under the logic of Apostolicae Curae, Anglican orders are deemed (by the RCC) invalid, due to an intertwined problem of form and intent with respect to the Edwardine Ordinal (complicated subject) which supposedly broke apostolic succession. Thus, Apostolicae Curae. If the “Dutch Touch/Polish Pat” issue is recognized (and it should be), then, and only then would (in RCC eyes) Anglican orders possibly be considered valid but illicit.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[JohnnyReb]

Under the logic of Apostolicae Curae, Anglican orders are deemed (by the RCC) invalid, due to an intertwined problem of form and intent with respect to the Edwardine Ordinal (complicated subject) which supposedly broke apostolic succession. Thus, Apostolicae Curae. If the “Dutch Touch/Polish Pat” issue is recognized (and it should be), then, and only then would (in RCC eyes) Anglican orders possibly be considered valid but illicit.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

You would certainly know more than I, admittedly. I always thought it was because of a flaw not only in form but intent also, with the intent as the kicker as to why the orders are allegedly invalid?

I too like you don’t fault Catholic Christians for believing what their leaders have stated in regard to our orders. Some, not all, could do so in a more charitable spirit however.

 

[GKC]

You would certainly know more than I, admittedly. I always thought it was because of a flaw not only in form but intent also, with the intent as the kicker as to why the orders are allegedly invalid?

I too like you don’t fault Catholic Christians for believing what their leaders have stated in regard to our orders. Some, not all, could do so in a more charitable spirit however.

The defect of form was not unusual. There were a number of liturgies extant at the time, for ordination/consecration, which were the same, in that respect, which were considered perfectly valid, in conveying valid orders. The intent point was in how such a form (in the Edwardine Ordianl) came to be, at that time, and from what source. This led to a complicated assessment of intent (which is a complicated concept in itself, see Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION) and the upshot was as stated in Apostolicae Curae; the form and intent had to be considered together. That’s the theological side, of a complicated and sad story.

Try not to get emotionally involved.

GKC

 

[Fink]

i) Yes, I am aware of Apostolicae Curae (1896) and you would not expect me to agree with it.

Your disagreeing with it doesnt alter the truth of it. Opinions dont come into it.

ii) I am also aware that Pope Paul VI referred to the Church of England as “our beloved sister church”

Others on this thread have answered this one.

iii) Of course the Bishop of Rome is in the Apostolic succession, as are all RC, Orthodox, AnglicanIncorrect] and Old Catholic bishops. As for him being the current successor of St Peter, yes, St Peter was the first Pope and he follows in that line of succession. ***But he is not our Pope. ***We are a reformed church. That does not mean we are not catholic.

Yes it does.
Apostolic succession in England ceased with the death of the last validly consecrated bishop in prison. Archbishop Cranmer (was it?) changed the rite of consecration, making it invalid. It wasn`t just a change of wording; but a change of INTENT.
Apart from anything else, how can you say that (Roman) Catholicism and Anglicanism are one and the same Church when their teachings on Faith and Morals contradict each other in many places?. Sounds like the house divided. God is a God of Unity, not of division. Division is the forte of the Father of Lies.
The Pope is the unifier.
(Already answered by others, as it turns out, but worth leaving in.)

You appear to be insinuating that my baptismal certificate is fraudulent, and that I am lying when I affirm my belief in the One Catholic and Apostolic Church. Your opinion of “the truth” differs from mine.

See above.
By the way, please dont get the idea that im disputing the validity of your Baptism!

iv) The three RC priests who offered me communion were one in Queensland…

.... I am not sure that you have the right to accuse a Monsignor of your church of being "in grave error". Pehaps you think that Pope Paul VI was too?

If a priest is in grave error, hes in grave error, whether hes “only” a priest or a Monsignor or higher. As for Queensland…its almost a writeoff! The Archdiocese of Westminster has a few problems... Youd be only too aware of the public dissent in the Catholic Church over the past 40 years or so. Disobedience is rampant. There`s open rebellion. Again, though, we stick with the successor of Saint Peter: “Where Peter is: the Church is.”. That guarantees unity in Truth.

 

[Khalid]

GKC, it matter’s not if Paul VI or any other Pope said anything remotely alluding to the fact that the Anglican Church is part of the Church Catholic because unless it was said ex cathedra it will be totally discounted here. This occasion where Paul VI stated that the Anglican Church is a “beautiful sister Church” will just stir up the RC Fundies who believe that he too was in error. Heck, there is a whole bunch of them (RC Fundies) who believe that Paul VI was possibly not even Pope… GASP…

GKC, you are part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Our Churches have the historic episcopacy, and sacraments. Just because we do not recognize the Bishop of Rome as Universal King over the world Church does not mean we aren’t part of the Church Catholic. The Papacy made a power grab, and attempted to subjugate the whole of Christianity to it’s whims. The EO rejected this grab in 1054, and the Anglican’s rejected this grab some 500 years later. For the most part a vast majority of RC’s don’t even really believe in the supremacy of the Pope themselves…they may belong to a Church that officially believes this, but I would assume that staggering numbers of RC’s don’t really believe that the Pope has as much authority as he claims for himself.

I love the RC, EO, and The Anglican Churches, but we really need to put the heresy stuff behind us. We all profess the Apostolic Faith, however, we reject certain aspects of Church Polity that is all.

Pax et Bonum,

ThamesCrosser

I prefer and attend the Tridentine Mass, does that make me a fundamentalist?

Paul VI was most definitely a valid Pope: it’s just jarring that he would say such a thing, unless it’s being taken out of context. It’s not many steps further to start calling KJV-only Bibliolator Protestants “Our beloved sister Churches” after that. After all, the KJV-only Bibliolators believe they profess the “true” Apostolic faith that was “suppressed” by the evil, Satanic Whore of Babylon, the Roman Catholic Church, until the Reformation in the 16th century. They just reject all of church polity and Sacred Tradition, and it’s quite obvious that many Anglicans reject just as much sacred tradition, if not more, because I’ve not seen many Fundamentalist Protestant groups ordaining women and homosexuals recently.

It seems to me there’s a large difference between the historical circumstances of the EO/RC split from 1054-1450 than there is between the Anglican/RC split during Henry VIII’s reign.

In this, it does seem however that in the near future there will be a schism of sorts in the Anglican Communion, with High-Church or Liturgical Anglicans/“Anglo-Catholics” reverting to Roman Catholicism, and Low-Church Anglicans and American Episcopalians (the sort that affirm sodomy, priestesses, etc.) reforming as the “New Anglican Communion”, or, being the only ones left in the Old (extant) Anglican Communion, especially with the founding of the Ordinariates.

 

[Khalid]

But Paul did say it (not ex cathedra, of course), in 1970, on the occasion of the beatification of the English and Welsh martyrs. Paul VI had a particularly close relationship with Michael Ramsey, the then Archbishop of Canterbury, presenting him with an episcopal ring, at one point. It was this relationship that led to the establishment of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, which was chartered to explore methods of bringing the two Churches closer.

GKC

In this, it does seem however that in the near future there will be a schism of sorts in the Anglican Communion, with High-Church or Liturgical Anglicans/“Anglo-Catholics” reverting to Roman Catholicism, and Low-Church Anglicans and American Episcopalians (the sort that affirm sodomy, priestesses, etc.) reforming as the “New Anglican Communion”, or, being the only ones left in the Old (extant) Anglican Communion, especially with the founding of the Ordinariates.

 

[Fink]

I prefer and attend the Tridentine Mass, does that make me a fundamentalist?..

…In this, it does seem however that in the near future there will be a schism of sorts in the Anglican Communion, with High-Church or Liturgical Anglicans/“Anglo-Catholics” reverting to Roman Catholicism, and Low-Church Anglicans and American Episcopalians (the sort that affirm sodomy, priestesses, etc.) reforming as the “New Anglican Communion”, or, being the only ones left in the Old (extant) Anglican Communion, especially with the founding of the Ordinariates.

Its already fragmented in everything but name. The Archbishop of Canterbury powerlessly presides over a communion of factions with opposing views on many fundamental teachings. There are "flying bishops" looking after parishes which refuse to accept women ministers, let alone women "bishops". African Anglicans distance themselves from Episcopalians over Bishop Robinsons appointment.
Etc.

To be blunt: “The Church in England” cut itself from the Vine in the 16th Century; and is now showing the effects of its fatal act. It`s become a house divided.
The Anglicans who are crossing over to Rome are being grafted (back) onto the Vine.

 

[guanophore]

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.

No, not all non-Catholics are “anti”, or at least, not intentionally. For example, your post contains anti-Catholic advice because you are suggesting that a person who is baptized Catholic should behave in a matter that is inconsistent with their baptism.

You are implying that the Church does not contain the infallible teachings of Jesus, so it is ok to disregard what was given to her by God to preserve.

You also demonstrate an anti-catholic and deficient concept of the Church, in representing that she is somehow separated from her Head, Jesus Christ. All who are "in Christ, are by definition, in His One Body, the Church.There is no such thing as “just jesus and me” as is commonly purveyed by our Evangelical brethren.

And just for the record, it is against the forum rules to encourage Catholics to leave the Church in the way you have here. I am not going to report this post, because I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. I know a lot of people come here and agree to follow the forum rules without ever reading them.

 

[guanophore]

Actually, Vatican II and Pope Paul VI himself have said that Anglicans and many other traditional protestant groups are not “Heretical”, going so far as to call them “our beautiful sister Church”. This is an example of how removed some Catholics are from fulfilling the reforms of Vatican II.

You are mistaken, jnpl. This is a reference to the Eastern Orthodox, who do have valid Holy Orders and sacraments.

 

[guanophore]

I’m not exactly surprised it only took you a month and 44 posts to catch this common theme. It just seems to me to be the default reaction when someone disagrees. I don’t get why either though. Peace.

It is done in charity, CM. It is not a grave matter for someone to wander out of ignorance, but it is a very grave matter when someone walks away from the Church founded by Christ defiantly, because they know and understand the teachings of Jesus infallibly preserved by Him in His Church, yet reject them.