The Episcapol Church and the Eucharist

[jduffey]

So, I , a Catholic, was just engaged to my girlfriend, an Episcopal. We are beginning to plan our wedding, wondering how to work out the officiants. We are both dedicated to our faiths and also to each other. We have discussed conversion and know that neither is ready, but might be possibile in the future. For now and for the wedding, she would prefer to marry in an Episcopal church, hoping that we can go through marriage counseling within both churches and have a Catholic priest present to officiate with the Episcopal priest. confusing, I know.

I think this can be done, but a question remains about the order of the liturgies and what can be done for the Liturgy of the Eucharist, how communion happens, catholics and episcopalians present together, etc, etc. Very confusing, and I wanted to have some idea before we went out to talk to both of our churches.

 

[SIA]

Does the Episcapol Church believe in the Eucharist the same way Catholics do? The reason for my question is this: There is an Episcapol “parish” in my neighborhood. It is named after a saint and the sign which posts the Sunday services reads, “Holy Eucharist 8:30 and 10:30 Sundays.” The word parish also appears on the sign, as well. I have heard the Episcapol Church referred to as “Catholic light.” I am most intrigued because by all outside appearances, this looks like a Catholic church, especially with the words Holy Eucharist being used to describe the Sunday services.

Nothing personal against you, but it is un-nerving how so many Catholics will accuse Protestants of being ignorant of their Catholic faith but will take no responsibility for they themselves knowing little to nothing about Protestants. I give you credit for stepping forward and asking the questions. So many here have too much ego and not nearly enough courage to do that.

 

[elvisman]

Nothing personal against you, but it is un-nerving how so many Catholics will accuse Protestants of being ignorant of their Catholic faith but will take no responsibility for they themselves knowing little to nothing about Protestants. I give you credit for stepping forward and asking the questions.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe it’s because there are so many divorced factions of Christianity? It is more incumbent upon you as a Protestant to know why you left Jesus’ Church to join another - than it is for me as a Catholic to figure out why so many of you have left and started your own factions.

So many here have too much ego and not nearly enough courage to do that.

Ego?** No – just the security of knowing that we have the full deposit of the faith on our side - the truth. **
Remember – there is only ONE truth – not 33,000 or so.

Speaking of ego, my friend – is that why you spend so much of your free time bashing the Pope and the Church on all of these threads? Yeah – that takes a lotof courage . . .

 

[Contarini]

Does the Episcapol Church believe in the Eucharist the same way Catholics do? The reason for my question is this: There is an Episcapol “parish” in my neighborhood. It is named after a saint and the sign which posts the Sunday services reads, “Holy Eucharist 8:30 and 10:30 Sundays.” The word parish also appears on the sign, as well. I have heard the Episcapol Church referred to as “Catholic light.” I am most intrigued because by all outside appearances, this looks like a Catholic church, especially with the words Holy Eucharist being used to describe the Sunday services.

The official position of the Episcopal Church is rather vague–we definitely believe in the Real Presence but do not define it as closely as you do. The Church of England’s Reformation-era statement of faith rejects transubstantiation and seems to teach a form of “spiritual presence,” but Episcopalians are not asked to subscribe to this, and many (perhaps most) of us have a more Catholic view than is implied there.

Practices also differ. The practice of giving communion to pets is not common, but where it occurs it is as likely to indicate a different view of the nonhuman creation (from the one held by Catholics) as a different view of the Eucharist. Many Episcopal churches treat the Eucharist with just as much reverence as Catholics. Many others are likely to do things that Catholics would not do (such as the leftover contents of the consecrated Cup–and not just water that may contain some of the Precious Blood, as in your practice–down the specially constructed piscina directly into the ground). But I have never encountered an Episcopal church where the consecrated elements are treated as if they were unconsecrated (i.e., poured back in with the unconsecrated, or taken home and used like ordinary food and drink, etc., as in many Protestant churches). I can’t swear that such a thing never happens–some rather weird things happen in some Episcopal churches–but if it does it would definitely be a liturgical abuse and not an accepted practice within the Episcopal Church as a whole.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

T That’s what we’re seeing in the Anglican world right now. Anglicanism as a philosophy is making itself irrelevent in world affairs except in Africa.

First of all, Anglicanism is not a philosophy. In the second place, the word “irrelevant” is generally not a wise one to use. Is anything irrelevant? I certainly don’t think the Episcopal Church and other non-African branches of the Anglican Communion are irrelevant. I don’t know what your measure for “relevance in world affairs” is, and I don’t know why any Anglican should care.

Edwin

 

[chris_molter]

Don’t underestimate the diversity in Anglican thought. Re: point 8. Just as with point 2, you’ll find a difference of opinion. In my parish, with our priests, it’s the re-presentation of the one Sacrifice offered once and forever on Calvary, made present on the altar, at the hands of the alter Christus, as time and eternity intersect before us. (and, of course, in the Real Presence).

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

This is something that really got to me when I was an aspirant to orders in TEC. You and I believe pretty much the same thing about the objective presence of Christ in the Eucharist. However, Anglicanism allows for such a wide variety of Eucharistic Theology that some folks have no problem pouring the consecrated blood down the drain or feeding consecrated hosts to animals on the feast of St Francis.

My problem was that this sort of thing was not viewed as an abuse (even in ostensibly ‘orthodox’ Episcopal parishes) due to the permitted variety of viewpoints on the subject!

I understand your particular continuing church isn’t in communion with the Canterbury Communion and holds to a more Catholic view of the sacraments, but if Anglican orders are/were valid (not going there), then there is some **SERIOUS **abuse going on within the giant umbrella of Anglicanism.

 

[SIA]

Did it ever occur to you that maybe it’s because there are so many divorced factions of Christianity? It is more incumbent upon you as a Protestant to know why you left Jesus’ Church to join another - than it is for me as a Catholic to figure out why so many of you have left and started your own factions.

Ego?** No – just the security** of knowing that we have the full deposit of the faith on our side - the truth.
**Remember – there is only ONE **truth – not 33,000 or so.

Speaking of ego, my friend – is that why you spend so much of your free time bashing the Pope and the Church on all of these threads? Yeah – that takes a lotof courage . . .

You can spare me all of the self-righteous rheoric sir. It is apparent that you don’t read other posts, you just go into this exclusive ego trip about how your church is everything and all others are lost. If you can’t at least pretend to have some decency about conversing with others about their churches, then you shouldn’t be on the non-Catholic forums.

 

[elvisman]

You can spare me all of the self-righteous rheoric sir. It is apparent that you don’t read other posts, you just go into this exclusive ego trip about how your church is everything and all others are lost. If you can’t at least pretend to have some decency about conversing with others about their churches, then you shouldn’t be on the non-Catholic forums.

Again with “ego”?? What is it with you and that word?. It’s irrelevant in the context of this conversation. Ego has nothing to do with moral assurance. I think the one on the ego trip is you if you can believe that truth can be splintered into 33,000 or so pieces. That’s relativism, my angry friend.

The burden of proof is always on the side of the plaintiff - which is what Protestantism is - in all its thousands of forms. It is a divorce from Catholicism.

I DO read the posts - I was simply answering yours because you feel it’s incumbent upon the Catholic to decipher those tens-of-thousands of differing factions. It’s NOT.

As with most of your posts, you are quick to anger and slow to listen. Maybe that’s the real legacy of Protestantism . . .

 

[1ke]

So, I , a Catholic, was just engaged to my girlfriend, an Episcopal. We are beginning to plan our wedding, wondering how to work out the officiants. We are both dedicated to our faiths and also to each other. We have discussed conversion and know that neither is ready, but might be possibile in the future. For now and for the wedding, she would prefer to marry in an Episcopal church, hoping that we can go through marriage counseling within both churches and have a Catholic priest present to officiate with the Episcopal priest. confusing, I know.

I think this can be done, but a question remains about the order of the liturgies and what can be done for the Liturgy of the Eucharist, how communion happens, catholics and episcopalians present together, etc, etc. Very confusing, and I wanted to have some idea before we went out to talk to both of our churches.

I am unsure why you are reposting your original post from your own thread onto this thread. Your question was answered:

(1) You, as a Catholic, must follow the marriage laws of the Church. To marry in her church you must receive permission to marry outside Catholic form. If you are given permission to marry outside Catholic form, a Catholic priest may attend as a witness to the marriage, but he may not “officiate” at the wedding or participate in an EC liturgy.

(2) Catholics may **not **participate in communion in the EC. And, EC members may not receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church. You may **not **have any sort of liturgy that attempts to combine a Catholic Mass and an EC service. A Catholic priest cannot give communion to the Catholics in attendance at the EC wedding service. Catholics may not receive any communion given out by an EC minister.

 

[SIA]

Again with "ego"?? What is it with you and that word?. It’s irrelevant in the context of this conversation. Ego has nothing to do with moral assurance. I think the one on the ego trip is you if you can believe that truth can be splintered into 33,000 or so pieces. That’s relativism, my angry friend.

The burden of proof is always on the side of the plaintiff - which is what Protestantism is - in all its thousands of forms. It is a divorce from Catholicism.

I DO read the posts - I was simply answering yours because you feel it’s incumbent upon the Catholic to decipher those tens-of-thousands of differing factions. It’s NOT.

As with most of your posts, you are quick to anger and slow to listen. Maybe that’s the real legacy of Protestantism . . .

Ego, ego, ego. Very relavent sir. And your 33,000 Protestant denominations, can you name them for us?

 

[elvisman]

Ego, ego, ego. Very relavent sir. And your 33,000 Protestant denominations, can you name them for us?

**Just as soon as you provide me with an intelligent answer to one of my posts on any thread. The ones you don’t dodge always sem to turn into personal attacks with you. **
Cheer up, SIA.

PS - The Catholic Church is the fullness of truth - not an ego trip . . .

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

First of all, Anglicanism is not a philosophy. In the second place, the word “irrelevant” is generally not a wise one to use. Is anything irrelevant? I certainly don’t think the Episcopal Church and other non-African branches of the Anglican Communion are irrelevant. I don’t know what your measure for “relevance in world affairs” is, and I don’t know why any Anglican should care.

Edwin

Hi Edwin,

Relevence is indeed important. Take the United Nations. Once a fairly relevent institution, years ago its proclaimations actually held some weight and significance in world affairs. Nowdays it has degenerated into an irrelevent instititution. By that I mean that no-fly zones that it puts up are ignored by rogue nations, threats by the U.N. are laughed-at, they let genocides happen with no consequence, and they permit countries like Iran and North Korea to have possible WMD and turn the other cheek.

When it comes to church, Christianity must be a relevent force against the evils of the secular world on the global stage. We see the Catholic Church standing up to many big issues worldwide: abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research, supposed gay ‘marriage,’ divorce, the death penalty, just war concepts, etc. The Pope is an outspoken opponent of these issues and he uses his pulpit to decry them as false idols and dangerous roads to be traveled. John Paul II was a key player in the end of the Soviet Union in the 1980’s. He challenged the world morally so many times. His theology of the body challenged the world sexually and he was a constant opponent of war and human rights abuses.

The Congress of the United States is currently an irrelevent body. The Executive Branch has overwhelmed them and has single-handedly run the country while they sat and wrote blank checks for 7 years. The only group with lower approval ratings than Bush is the congress!

This is what I mean, speaking up, acting out, and fighting for right.

Benedict XVI has used his pulpit to speak out against secular humanism, homosexuality, and he has called boldly for the re-Christianization of Europe.

Now you show me when an Archbishop of Canterbury or an Anglican delegation has made any such impact in the last 100 years. They have over 77 million members in the Anglican Church but their clergy are so divergent and at odds, their leadership is so weak and divided, and their message in essence so liberal that they have all but become irrelevent in world affairs. That’s what I said. I stand by it. Anyone who has been prominent, take Bishop Desmond Tutu in the 1980’s, that guy was a hack. He has been so liberal and despite his popularity, he got nothing accomplished.

I never said that all Anglicans are individually irrelevent. Some Anglicans I’ve met are more devout than Catholics and the bishop in our area Bishop John David Schofield, is an OUTSTANDING and highly-principaled leader! I admire the heck out of him. He was a maverick to lead his entire diocese out of the decayed and corrupt TEC (The Episcopal Church in America), but as an organic body, Anglicans have done little to fight evil in the world on a global stage and make a contribution. In that regard I see the entire body as generally becoming irrelevent.

Most splinter groups in Anglicanism who have aligned with Uganda or an Asian group or CANA or the Southern Cone, etc. all feel that the Archbishop of Canterbury is a complete moron and that Anglicanism is becoming irrelevent as a body. That’s why they’re re-aligning to regain that relevence and fight for Christ.

 

[GKC]

This is something that really got to me when I was an aspirant to orders in TEC. You and I believe pretty much the same thing about the objective presence of Christ in the Eucharist. However, Anglicanism allows for such a wide variety of Eucharistic Theology that some folks have no problem pouring the consecrated blood down the drain or feeding consecrated hosts to animals on the feast of St Francis.

My problem was that this sort of thing was not viewed as an abuse (even in ostensibly ‘orthodox’ Episcopal parishes) due to the permitted variety of viewpoints on the subject!

I understand your particular continuing church isn’t in communion with the Canterbury Communion and holds to a more Catholic view of the sacraments, but if Anglican orders are/were valid (not going there), then there is some **SERIOUS **abuse going on within the giant umbrella of Anglicanism.

Your last sentence is spot on. There certainly is. Which is why I’m not under there.

GKC

 

[SIA]

Just as soon as you provide me with an intelligent answer to one of my posts on any thread. The ones you don’t dodge always sem to turn into personal attacks with you.
Cheer up, SIA.

PS - The Catholic Church is the fullness of truth - not an ego trip . . .

What have I not responded to? Ask an honest non-pointed question in a serious non-condescending Fashion and you will receive an honest answer. Fair enough?

 

[anon52328184]

maybe someone has already pointed this out, but littlflower needs to learn how to spell.

it is not episcapol - it should be episcopal

 

[chris_molter]

Your last sentence is spot on. There certainly is. Which is why I’m not under there.

GKC

GKC,

Just out of curiosity, would you have any idea which or how many of the various continuing Anglican bodies hold to a more ‘Catholic’ understanding of the Eucharist vs. what we often see in more evangelical parishes?

 

[GKC]

GKC,

Just out of curiosity, would you have any idea which or how many of the various continuing Anglican bodies hold to a more ‘Catholic’ understanding of the Eucharist vs. what we often see in more evangelical parishes?

I can speculate. While even amongst the most Anglo-Catholic oriented of the major Continuing jurisdictions (APCK, ACA, ACC, Diocese of the Holy Cross), there is still the range of doctrine that characterized historical Anglicanism on that, as on other points, the range is narrower, and the jurisdictions are markedly skewed toward the Real Presence (Transubstantiation being less a concern; what, not how). When the Continuum first began to separate from the Anglican Communion in the lagte 70s, the first issues were precisely the sort of thing that would drive out Anglo-Catholics (liturgy, females in sacerdotal garments) as opposed to the more reformed side of Anglicanism, who often could (but didn’t always) hang around until the Communion started jettisioning mere Christianity, basic Christian tenents. Thus the Continuum, as it formed, and as it splintered, was skewed ideologically toward the more A/C understanding.

In my parish, there is almost unanimity on the Real Presence. Which is not to say that a few don’t object to Eucharustic Adoration and Benediction.

There is a strain in the Continuum that is more reformed, in the APA (and the REC, though technically, the REC isn’t a Continuum jurisdiction in origin), but the whole thing leans toward a Catholic understanding. Naturally. In fact, we are a little more strenuous usually, with respect to such things as EEMS. In my parish/jurisdiction, no such thing. Only ordained , in Holy Orders, touch the consecrated elements.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[elvisman]

What have I not responded to? Ask an honest non-pointed question in a serious non-condescending Fashion and you will receive an honest answer. Fair enough?

Fair enough.

---

BUT - Read through our exchanges on any thread and you’ll see that you inevitably wind up getting angry and hostile, spewing virulently anti-Catholic attacks.

First of all, I responded to your post #162 with my post #163. You answered nothing and became hostile. It’s the same on the other threads – no substance, just anger.

As for the “33,000 or so” denominations of Protestantism – that was already done to death in the following thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=249551&page=2&highlight=33%2C000

 

[Contarini]

Hi Edwin,

Relevence is indeed important.

Relevance to whom? Important to whom?

Take the United Nations. Once a fairly relevent institution, years ago its proclaimations actually held some weight and significance in world affairs.

Bunk. Right-wing nationalistic rabble-rousers would like to think that it was irrelevant. But if it were really irrelevant, they wouldn’t spend so much time criticizing it.

Nowdays it has degenerated into an irrelevent instititution. By that I mean that no-fly zones that it puts up are ignored by rogue nations, threats by the U.N. are laughed-at, they let genocides happen with no consequence, and they permit countries like Iran and North Korea to have possible WMD and turn the other cheek.

I find it interesting that you are accusing the U.N. of following the commands of Jesus. I’m not sure it is guilty of this accusation, and as a Christian I’m certainly not convinced that it would be a bad thing if it were.

However, the fact that the U.N. is often ineffective does not mean that it is irrelevant. Indeed, one could argue that it is very relevant precisely because it gets in the way of what many Americans think would be an effective international policy.

I repeat: the word “relevant” is meaningless if not accompanied by the preposition “to.” (Or “for.”) I got mail the other day from a conservative organization devoted solely to watching what the U.N. does and warning people about it. Even if you think this organization is crazy (their letter came with a blurb from Robert Bork, which may seem “relevant” to you or may not), clearly the U.N. is relevant to employees of said organization, who wouldn’t get a paycheck otherwise (and assuming that they are sincere, it’s relevant to them in more important ways as well). “Relevant” is one of those smarmy smear words used by modern liberals to avoid talking about truth and goodness. I don’t understand why conservative Christians would use such an intrinsically contemptible rhetorical tactic.

When it comes to church, Christianity must be a relevent force against the evils of the secular world on the global stage. We see the Catholic Church standing up to many big issues worldwide: abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research, supposed gay ‘marriage,’ divorce, the death penalty, just war concepts, etc. The Pope is an outspoken opponent of these issues and he uses his pulpit to decry them as false idols and dangerous roads to be traveled. John Paul II was a key player in the end of the Soviet Union in the 1980’s. He challenged the world morally so many times. His theology of the body challenged the world sexually and he was a constant opponent of war and human rights abuses.

The Congress of the United States is currently an irrelevent body. The Executive Branch has overwhelmed them and has single-handedly run the country while they sat and wrote blank checks for 7 years. The only group with lower approval ratings than Bush is the congress!

This is what I mean, speaking up, acting out, and fighting for right.

Benedict XVI has used his pulpit to speak out against secular humanism, homosexuality, and he has called boldly for the re-Christianization of Europe.

Now you show me when an Archbishop of Canterbury or an Anglican delegation has made any such impact in the last 100 years. They have over 77 million members in the Anglican Church but their clergy are so divergent and at odds, their leadership is so weak and divided, and their message in essence so liberal that they have all but become irrelevent in world affairs. That’s what I said. I stand by it. Anyone who has been prominent, take Bishop Desmond Tutu in the 1980’s, that guy was a hack. He has been so liberal and despite his popularity, he got nothing accomplished.

For you, “relevant” seems to mean “standing up for things I agree with.” In other words, fighting for what is true and good. So why not just say that most Anglicans, in your view, don’t stand for what is true and good? That is meaningful. “Relevance” isn’t. To many people (including me), Tutu seems extremely relevant, if only as a symbol of the anti-apartheid struggle and as a powerful voice for human freedom and dignity (and as an example of personal holiness, from the stories I’ve heard about him). To other people, Pope Benedict appears irrelevant, because their world view tells them that leaders of large hierarchical organizations that pay attention to premodern tradition can’t possibly be relevant.

I’m not disagreeing with what you are saying about the Catholic Church, Pope JPII, etc. That is a major reason why I think about becoming Catholic–because Catholicism is fighting for what is true and good in a way that the Episcopal Church at least is not (we do fight for things that are true and good, but only the things that secular society tells us we should fight for–which is probably part of what you mean by “irrelevance”). But this is not about “relevance.” If I thought it was irrelevant that the Episcopal Church’s official social stance is pro-choice, I could just sit back and enjoy the liturgy. It’s precisely because I know that this is relevant (that the Episcopal Church and other mainline denominations lend an aura of religious and moral legitimacy to a deeply immoral position) that it bothers me.

Edwin

 

[SIA]

**Fair **enough.

---

**BUT - Read through our exchanges on any **thread and you’ll see that you inevitably wind up getting angry and hostile, spewing virulently anti-Catholic attacks.

**First of all, I responded to your **post #162 with my post #163. You answered nothing and became hostile. It’s the same on the other threads – no substance, just anger.

As for the “33,000 or so” denominations of Protestantism – that was already done to death in the following thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=249551&page=2&highlight=33%2C000

So? You keep referring to the 33,000 Protestant denominations, so you should be prepared to tell everyone who they are by name.