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

[guanophore]

Are you saying Episcopalians don’t worship God? You might believe they don’t but we have some here and I’m pretty sure they believe they do. So they might differ on what you believe about them.

Yes, of course they believe they worship God! They worship God they way they wish, according to their own standards, not according to His wishes, and His standards.

 

[guanophore]

I most definitely do not lack an understanding of Catholic values; after going to 11 years of Catholic school and simultaneous weekends in Catechism class, I’m pretty confident in saying that I know my way around the Catholic beliefs.

I look at mass in having the two different parts: The Liturgy of the Word, and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Both of these are **equally** important in deepening Faith.

In the first part of mass, the Liturgy of the Word, we are read scripture from the Old and New Testament, usually the readings have a theme or lesson to them, which the preist explains to us via the Homily. This portion of the mass is important because it teaches us more about God’s love and forgiveness, about what is sin and how to over come it, and the life of Jesus.

In the latter part of the mass, the bread and wine is concecrated into the Body and Blood of Christ. It is in this part of mass that we remember Christ’s sacrifice to save us. I understand that this part of mass I cannot get from any Protestant service, but I think it’s wrong to believe that this is the ONLY part of mass. Without the Liturgy of the Word, there would be little to no understanding behind the Blessed Sacrament and possibly the Lord Himself.

The fact of the matter is, at my current church, it’s difficult for me to get anything out of the Liturgy of the Word when all the sermons are written for parishiners forty years old than my own age. My point being that yes, it would be wrong of me to replace Mass with a Portestant service, but I see no problem in trying to seek a church, whether it be another Catholic church or a church of a different Christian denomonation, that can help me deepen my understanding of what God wants for us told during the scripture readings.

I see your point, of course, but it would be much better for you to download Catholic homilies on the daily readings. There are excellent homilies posted by EWTN everday. You can get them in podcasts.

 

[GKC]

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

As far as I can tell, Paul VI did refer to Anglicans as a sister church, in 1970, as I referenced above. As I note, Paul and Archbishop Ramsey had a particularly close relationship, and it resulted in a couple of things I mentioned.

GKC

 

[JohnnyReb]

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

How does the validity or lack of impact whether the Anglicans are a sister church or not? I mean, the Church refers to Protestants and their seperated brethren, valid holy orders or not.

 

[Cheshangle]

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.

Well, right in part.

The CofE, like many other churches in the Anglican Communion, is “broad church”. It contains groups which range from fervent evangelicals to very high Anglo-Catholics. Since the sixteenth century it has proved hard to keep Anglicanism united, yet we survive and grow.

We survived Wesleyanism and the loss of many of our flock, and the Oxford Movement. If you read Barbara Pym’s “A Glass of Blessings” you will see that people were leaving for Rome sixty years ago because the Anglicans participated in the Church of South India. Then we had problems with the issues of women priests. And now it’s women bishops and the gay issue.

If the sixteenth century establishment of the CofE was “a fatal act”, it’s been a very long drawn out death, hasn’t it? Our communion now has some 77 million members. The so-called droves of people moving to Rome under this unfortunate Ordinariate initiative are but a trickle. In my diocese, Chester, its effect is negligible. And no-one I know is even thinking of converting to your Church.

 

[GKC]

How does the validity or lack of impact whether the Anglicans are a sister church or not? I mean, the Church refers to Protestants and their seperated brethren, valid holy orders or not.

In the general sense it wouldn’t. But as I posted somewhere, invalid orders would imply that Anglicans were not a particular Church, like the Orthodox, but only an ecclesiastical community. The use of the term “Church” by Pope Paul is slightly ambiguous.

GKC

 

[Cheshangle]

Yes, of course they believe they worship God! They worship God they way they wish, according to their own standards, not according to His wishes, and His standards.

Are you speaking for God?

When I attended eucharist this morning, did I get it wrong? How was my worship in error?

 

[GKC]

Well, right in part.

The CofE, like many other churches in the Anglican Communion, is “broad church”. It contains groups which range from fervent evangelicals to very high Anglo-Catholics. Since the sixteenth century it has proved hard to keep Anglicanism united, yet we survive and grow.

We survived Wesleyanism and the loss of many of our flock, and the Oxford Movement. If you read Barbara Pym’s “A Glass of Blessings” you will see that people were leaving for Rome sixty years ago because the Anglicans participated in the Church of South India. Then we had problems with the issues of women priests. And now it’s women bishops and the gay issue.

If the sixteenth century establishment of the CofE was “a fatal act”, it’s been a very long drawn out death, hasn’t it? Our communion now has some 77 million members. The so-called droves of people moving to Rome under this unfortunate Ordinariate initiative are but a trickle. In my diocese, Chester, its effect is negligible. And no-one I know is even thinking of converting to your Church.

And for these reasons, and for others, I refer to Anglicans as a motley crew, as I explained.

Often I’d get a picture of some musical group or other, in response, for some unknown reason.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[JohnnyReb]

Well, right in part.

The CofE, like many other churches in the Anglican Communion, is “broad church”. It contains groups which range from fervent evangelicals to very high Anglo-Catholics. Since the sixteenth century it has proved hard to keep Anglicanism united, yet we survive and grow.

We survived Wesleyanism and the loss of many of our flock, and the Oxford Movement. If you read Barbara Pym’s “A Glass of Blessings” you will see that people were leaving for Rome sixty years ago because the Anglicans participated in the Church of South India. Then we had problems with the issues of women priests. And now it’s women bishops and the gay issue.

If the sixteenth century establishment of the CofE was “a fatal act”, it’s been a very long drawn out death, hasn’t it? Our communion now has some 77 million members. The so-called droves of people moving to Rome under this unfortunate Ordinariate initiative are but a trickle. In my diocese, Chester, its effect is negligible. And no-one I know is even thinking of converting to your Church.

What many say is a weakness of Anglicanism I find its strength. Anglicanism values my evangelical influence and background, yet I love the Catholic aspects of our liturgy and faith. I can learn from those who are more evangelically minded and more high church, and see the value in the perspective and tradition.

The liberals even have something to bring to the table, but I don’t go out in far left field with them on the gay issues-I’m not a fan of Robinson’s election to be a bishop. Yes, the gay issues have presented problems recently. Being that Anglicanism is a thinking man’s religion in a sense, I mean questioning things is allowed, you have to take the good with the bad. Even the the gay issue at the very least it has awakend many such as myself as to the plight of LGBT persons and think of new approaches for them and how to help such individuals find their place in the Christian faith, instead of viewing the church as some enemy that hates them.

Our tradition is unified on the 39 articles, even if two people understand them differently, they seem to define the Anglican faith at its core.

I will admit that Catholicism presents a solid unity, at least on paper. However, when so many Catholics use birth control, can’t adaquately explain transubstantion, don’t go to confession even at least once a month, have differing views of certain Marian apparitions, debate Novus Ordo vs the Traditional Mass, say that believe women should be ordained priests etc…I begin to think such “unity” is an illusion.

We Anglicans wear our disunity on our sleeves, others put a mask over it.

 

[GKC]

What many say is a weakness of Anglicanism I find its strength. Anglicanism values my evangelical influence and background, yet I love the Catholic aspects of our liturgy and faith. I can learn from those who are more evangelically minded and more high church, and see the value in the perspective and tradition.

The liberals even have something to bring to the table, but I don’t go out in far left field with them on the gay issues-I’m not a fan of Robinson’s election to be a bishop. Yes, the gay issues have presented problems recently. Being that Anglicanism is a thinking man’s religion in a sense, I mean questioning things is allowed, you have to take the good with the bad. Even the the gay issue at the very least it has awakend many such as myself as to the plight of LGBT persons and think of new approaches for them and how to help such individuals find their place in the Christian faith, instead of viewing the church as some enemy that hates them.

Our tradition is unified on the 39 articles, even if two people understand them differently, they seem to define the Anglican faith at its core.

I will admit that Catholicism presents a solid unity, at least on paper. However, when so many Catholics use birth control, can’t adaquately explain transubstantion, don’t go to confession even at least once a month, have differing views of certain Marian apparitions, debate Novus Ordo vs the Traditional Mass, say that believe women should be ordained priests etc…I begin to think such “unity” is an illusion.

We Anglicans wear our disunity on our sleeves, others put a mask over it.

Not all Anglicans have quite this elevated view of the Articles.

You know us Anglicans. Variegated.

GKC

 

[Cheshangle]

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.

Your third paragraph is 100% right. Had our orders been “found to be valid” by the RCC, they would have had difficulties reconciling that with their then open objective of “the conversion of Britain”!

 

[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.

The history of how Apostolicae Curae came to be suggests that your 3rd para is partially correct, esp. in the motives of Herbert, Cardinal Vaughan. But the story, like much history, is complicated, and also involves theological, personal and political aspects. The best account of how things happened, by far, is found in Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID.

GKC

 

[Khalid]

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

Thank God! I knew that it was too unreal (as I said, it was jarring) to think that a Pope had said that about Protestants. About the Orthodox, I can accept. Even having been Orthodox, and come to see that Catholicism is more correct (and far less anti-intellectual and tribal/xenophobic), the Orthodox do deserve the title of “sister church” to the Catholic Church.

I have been under the impression that, in the eyes of the Magisterium, there are two Churches: Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, the latter in imperfect communion with the true Church but still a lot better than anything else out there, and thousands of schismatic or heretickal sects (i.e. Fundamentalist Bibliolatry, Baptism [as a sect, not a sacrament], Reformism/Calvinism, etc.: Protestantism in general), with Anglicanism occupying a shady grey area since it did have valid orders at one time, whereas all the Protestant sects never did (although it seems the “greyness” that it seemed to once occupy is more clearly resolved to the blackness that other Protestant sects occupy with the showing of colours as large portions [but not all] of the Anglican Communion accept buggery, homosexual “unions”, and priestesses).

 

[Khalid]

Are you speaking for God?

When I attended eucharist this morning, did I get it wrong? How was my worship in error?

You didn’t worship in the prescribed manner by partaking in the real blood and real body of Christ (…“This is my body, this is my blood”…“I am the bread of life”… so on) because only Presbyters and Bishops in the line of the Apostolic Succession can consecrate bread and wine, calling the Holy Spirit down upon it to transubstantiate it in to the Most Holy Sacrament. Without this indelible Priestly character, and without extreme circumstances, no random layman can say the Epiclesis and/or Words of Consecration efficaciously, and the vast majority, if not all, of Anglican priests today are just that: laymen.

Thus, you ate a spot of bread and drank a drop of wine, but did not partake of the Eucharist.

“Symbolic Eucharist” is no Eucharist at all. It’s bread and wine, and the last time I checked, it’s good to eat bread, and red wine is good for the health, but it’s not good for the soul like the Divine Nature of the Lord Himself.

Thus, your “Eucharist” was not the Eucharist in any sense, no matter how much you believe it to be so. Thus your worship is incomplete and defective, as it does not contain the Presence of the Lord.

I’ll refrain from addressing any issues with the rest of the worship, as the Eucharist is by far the most important part of it.

 

[GKC]

Thank God! I knew that it was too unreal (as I said, it was jarring) to think that a Pope had said that about Protestants. About the Orthodox, I can accept. Even having been Orthodox, and come to see that Catholicism is more correct (and far less anti-intellectual and tribal/xenophobic), the Orthodox do deserve the title of “sister church” to the Catholic Church.

I have been under the impression that, in the eyes of the Magisterium, there are two Churches: Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, the latter in imperfect communion with the true Church but still a lot better than anything else out there, and thousands of schismatic or heretickal sects (i.e. Fundamentalist Bibliolatry, Baptism [as a sect, not a sacrament], Reformism/Calvinism, etc.: Protestantism in general), with Anglicanism occupying a shady grey area since it did have valid orders at one time, whereas all the Protestant sects never did (although it seems the “greyness” that it seemed to once occupy is more clearly resolved to the blackness that other Protestant sects occupy with the showing of colours as large portions [but not all] of the Anglican Communion accept buggery, homosexual “unions”, and priestesses).

Paul said it, at the occasion I referenced above, at the canonization of the 40 English and Welsh Martyrs, 29 Oct, 1970. It is quoted here:

jknirp.com/1000.htm

and can be found at other RC sites, though, of course, you are perfectly free to doubt it.

It would help if you knew more about Paul and his attitude toward Anglicans, and his relationship with ++Ramsey. And recall what I said about the difference between a Papal utterance, in a private capacity, and as a part of the magisterium.

GKC

 

[pjcsisabel]

Although the mother church of the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Communion defines itself as “Catholic”, let us remember that it also defines itself as “Reformed” meaning it has incorporated the teachings of several protestant reformers. And yes, the Catholic Church has already declared that Anglican (or Episcopal) sacraments are invalid so you aren’t really getting anything by attending mass at an Episcopal church.

 

[Supercatholic]

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.

Less-uptight? Less-uptight!? Less-uptight?! What do you mean by less-uptight. For a Catholic you seem not to know your faith at all to infer that the Catholic Church is uptight to begin with. Here’s two simple comparisons, Catholic Church: Same sex marriage-NO Abortion-NO. Episcopal church: same sex marriage-YES Abortion-YES. Which one of these listens to God? And which one of these follows The Bible? The Episcopal church does not Listen to God. AND they don’t follow the Bible like they claim that they do. They take votes for what feels comfortable to them. The Episcopal church is a satanic wolf in Catholic sheep’s clothing. Uptight indeed…

 

[vittorio]

Knowing that you people respond vitriolic, the Episcopal church seems to view legality of abortion as an issue for the government to regulation, whooptie-do, thats the role of government. The Episcopal church DOES dictate on the morality of abortion yet recognizes areas of ethical conflict such as to save the mothers life, which is the proper role of religion.

I see lay Roman Catholic’s citing isolated canon law sections on these posts and they seem to think every sound-bite from an authority is manageable even outside of its scheme (a collection of mini-absolutes rather than a comprehensive system), but RC moral theologians rely on principles, such as double effect, just as Episcopals do. I assure you RC doctrine, canon law, custom, and the rest are all a comprehensive system–canon law has an overarching aim toward justice and no section will be applied toward a perceived unjust outcome. And I have a distinct feeling that people who are referencing canon law may not be acting with proper training or authority. That is an entire discipline within the church requiring extensive study and ecclesiastic approval to practice.

I have been a member for a while and I feel compelled to state a position here. I consider OPs to be doing the forum a service by offering their questions. I have great regret in seeing members take an uncompassionate tone with an OP by using terms such as “ignorance” “immature” etc. These forums attract a wide Christian audience and, although some apparently believe non-RC are converting in droves, the negative tone does nothing to promote conversion. If anything it isolates current RC adherents who are at odds with grandstand contests on who is most orthodox. I appreciate the posts that offered constructive options for staying in RC, those addressed the OPs concerns in a supportive and constructive manner as a heartfelt Catholic would. If you truly believe RC to be THE ONE TRUE CHURCH you would adopt a similar non-confrontational tone to encourage further conversions. And on one last point, the only reason I can see for that type of behavior rests on nothing more than unfounded self-centered pride.

 

[Fink]

Well, right in part…

…Then we had problems with the issues of women priests. And now it’s women bishops and the gay issue.

What will your next “issues” be? Cant you see that youre sliding down the proverbial “slippery slope”? It`ll be vertical, soon…
Almost literally day by day, mainstream Protestantism has become more and more unrecognisable compared with what was founded in the 16th Century.

The Catholic Churchs (infallible) teachings on Faith and Morals have deepened over the centuries; but theres never been any backtracking; and there never will be. Shes held the line on vital issues, even though its not been “politically correct” to do that. She`s also withstood the ensuing abuse hurled at her by “The World”.

It`s spiritual anarchy out there!

If the sixteenth century establishment of the CofE was “a fatal act”, it’s been a very long drawn out death, hasn’t it?

It certainly has been. But, in recent decades, the pace has quickened. GK Chesterton wrote an essay titled “The Surrender on Sex”, in which he talks about the OK-ing of (limited) contraception at the Lambeth Conference in 1930. Virtually all other Protestant denominations followed suit. That was “the beginning of the end”.
500 years isn`t so long when you consider all of Church history.

Our communion now has some 77 million members. The so-called droves of people moving to Rome under this unfortunate Ordinariate initiative are but a trickle. In my diocese, Chester, its effect is negligible. And no-one I know is even thinking of converting to your Church.

i referred to Anglicans going back to Rome only to be able to mention the grafting back onto the Vine. The number doing so wasn`t relevant in that post. After all, you have “converts” from Catholicism.