Combined Episcopal Catholic Parish -not the Ordinaraite

I think “union” is too strong. If we Catholics are going to complain about this (and, mind you, I do believe we are right to complain) then I would suggest the form of complaint that the Orthodox would use: If they were in ours shoes then they, I’m fairly certain, would cry “Neo-uniatism!”

The Church has long allowed multiple simultaneous EF Masses at side altars. Let both Episcopalian and Catholic priests celebrate an EF Low Mass at their respective altars, ad orientem in Latin, and then let’s see which community thrives.

Seriously though, I am happy with ecumenism and common prayer and Protestant Christians doing what they do separately, but when I see attempts to meld with Catholic liturgy it truly rankles me. It just does not foster good liturgy, it fosters Frankenstein’s Monster. Are chasubles and crucifixes abhorrent to Episcopalians? Why this willingness to dispense with rubrics in the name of unity? I am disappointed and let down every time a priest dumbs down the Mass to try and please the masses. Why not please God first? This is a trend which continued for 50 years and the most concerning thing for me in the present year is the current papacy’s indifference to things liturgical. Will the Reform of the Reform survive Francis?

Could you explain how the mass is being “dumbed down”? You say that God is not being pleased first. You mean God is in second or lower position. Can you prove this as I can’t honestly see?

Sorry, English not my primary language. I had to look at the dictionary and indifference means:

"lack of interest, concern, or sympathy."

Could you enlighten me in how the Holy Father has the above qualities towards the Sacred Liturgy, please? Regards

If thos is the one in Virginia, I thought the bishop already stopped this nonsense?

There is definitely a “gut” reaction by some posters to ecumenical work even though the Church [Catholic, Lutheran, Anglicans, others] are deeply involved in the pursuit of unity. The fact that the Mass is essentially identical in the aforementioned ‘catholic’ churches is not lost on Church leaders including Popes.

Those who have celebrated the Eucharist with other Christians including Catholics know first-hand how powerful and profound the experience is.

I must direct some readers to the quote below to help us understand that the work of reuniting the Church is “urgent.”

Although “dumbed down” would not be my choice of words…

There is a most serious problem here. The Mass can only be celebrated by a validly ordained priest (vestments do not a valid ordination make). So, during one “united” service, we have one Catholic priest celebrating Mass and at the same time (even though separated by a short distance), someone who is not a validly-ordained-priest simulating a Mass.

That much we can all see. This does bring up other questions about what we cannot see.
Is there a tabernacle? Are there 2 tabernacles? How can we be certain that the Catholic members (in hospitals, for example) are actually receiving the Eucharist? Perhaps this is being addresses, but given what we’ve already seen, it certainly causes a lot of doubts. From what I’ve seen, I have very little cause indeed to trust anything that this community is doing.

What happens at Confessions? What happens at Anointings of the Sick? Do the Catholic members receive a sacrament, or do they merely participate in a simulation of a sacrament?

I don’t doubt that Bishop DiL---- is doing his best to fix this problem. I don’t doubt that he’s addressed the issues and that he insists that things be done correctly and validly. I’m sure that current sacramental priest assigned to this community is likewise doing his best. But what happened in the past?

This sort of thing should never have been permitted to start.

I celebrate the Eucharist with other Christians (Catholics, to be specific) every week. :thumbsup:

On the other hand, I recall having coffee with other Catholics one time, when they expressed how extremely hurt they are that Orthodox priests don’t admit them to communion. It’s sad to see anyone feeling that way.

…and the agitators for women clergy too, if you don’t mind.

:clapping:

I wonder if this is still going on? I fail to see why this would be seen by the ordinaries for the church and the Anglican Communion as anything other than confusing and a kind of kumbayaesque Christianity. There was a time when the Anglican Communion–alone amongst the heretical and schismatic communions that had splintered from the Apostolic See in Rome–was viewed as being the closest to Rome and potentially able to be fully reunified. Those days are long past in light of the theological positions taken by the Episcopal Church on a host of issues, not just women’s ordination and homosexual unions. At any rate, I can see it “feels good”, but it strikes me as quite odd and perhaps counterproductive to true unity–which is what should be the goal of all Christians.

Well, at least I think we could all agree that one good thing about this community is that they are always open to guidance from their superiors (unlike others out there that autoproclamed themselves successors of Peter, even if implicitly).

As for the doubts, I know, this is our human nature and I a few months ago I would doubt as well, hence my nickname Cartesian. However, lately I changed my life approach to trusting. Jesus would always ask why the apostles were afraid or in doubt.

Of course we tend always to look to negative things. However, if you change your perspective a lit bit, one positive aspect of this eccentric community is that we have actually protestants sharing bits of mass with Catholics. Anyone who evangelizes knows how hard it would be to have a protestant set the foot at the door of a Catholic Church. And some of them are not faulty, they believe we worship statues. Conversion can happen in a flash, but it could happen slowly, growing in one’s heart. And what a better way to understand than seeing it in practice. This could or not be a miracle happening, and we not realising. I am not sure, but I trust.

I’m not sure exactly what you mean.
For Catholics, genuine ecumenism (at this level) must always be done under the guidance and authority of the local bishop.
We can learn from the diocese communication that the guidance from bishop DiL---- was indeed there from the time he took office in 2004. Was that guidance heeded? It certainly appears that it was not. I find it much more likely that the community was disobedient to the bishop, than to think that the bishop (being guided by the Cardinal Prefect, no less) was being disobedient to the Holy See.

As for the doubts, I know, this is our human nature and I a few months ago I would doubt as well, hence my nickname Cartesian. However, lately I changed my life approach to trusting. Jesus would always ask why the apostles were afraid or in doubt.

Of course we tend always to look to negative things. However, if you change your perspective a lit bit, one positive aspect of this eccentric community is that we have actually protestants sharing bits of mass with Catholics. Anyone who evangelizes knows how hard it would be to have a protestant set the foot at the door of a Catholic Church. And some of them are not faulty, they believe we worship statues. Conversion can happen in a flash, but it could happen slowly, growing in one’s heart. And what a better way to understand than seeing it in practice. This could or not be a miracle happening, and we not realising. I am not sure, but I trust.

I cannot agree. That’s a bit like waking up from surgery to hear someone tell you: “The good news is that the surgeon performed a perfect, textbook amputation. The bad news is that he cut off the wrong leg.” What this community has done is much the same. Under the pretext of healing, it is engaging in very unhealthy and damaging practices.

There is a right way and a wrong way to do things.

Now this idea strikes me as extreme. I can see all sorts of confusion and misunderstanding eventually coming to the fore. This should be coordinated and sanctioned by the bishops in both Churches.:frowning:

I am missing something, sorry my attention deficit is terribly high :blush:. However, according to the link provided by yourself earlier in the conversation which I appreciate, the Bishop aided by Theologians, at least until the date of the linked letter, had been in active conversation with the community. And until now, the “parish” is listed under the diocese Web Site.

I cannot agree. That’s a bit like waking up from surgery to hear someone tell you: “The good news is that the surgeon performed a perfect, textbook amputation. The bad news is that he cut off the wrong leg.” What this community has done is much the same. Under the pretext of healing, it is engaging in very unhealthy and damaging practices.

There is a right way and a wrong way to do things.

With all due respect, here I have also to strongly disagree. Not with your point, which I respect, but with your argument. This is becoming common here in CAF, we use fallacies, no offense intended.

The problem with fallacy is that I could create mine as well: “That’s a bit like waking from surgery to hear someone to tell, the good news is that the surgeon removed your cancer, you are not going to die any more. The bad news is that he had to perform an amputation to get rid of the cancer.” See what I did there, life or leg? That’s why fallacies are not good as proof.

But I deeply respect your point. I think this community, for being literally unique, is in one of those areas where only the Church can better discern what is happening and what to do. Until then, we can be limited by our own opinions. It is like miracles. If something eccentric happens I can privately have my devotion, but only the Church can approve for the laity discern whether to believe or not.

In my view, nowadays it is pretty easy to understand the past, it is all written. Some things of the future have also been revealed. But what about the things happening now, the way! We can’t safely tell that it is all choreographed. We don’t know, that’s a mystery. Again, we can trust or like Thomas to doubt until we have a confirmation. I chose trust, but I really respect other opinions. And I don’t have any desire to this to propagate to the rest of the Church. My trust is that God is working the hearts of the people on that specific community and that’s all.

**“Just as you’ll never understand the mystery of life forming in a pregnant woman,
So you’ll never understand the mystery at work in all that God does.” Ecclesiastes 11:5 **

My understanding is that the Anglican side is/was okay with it; the objections have all come from the Catholic side. That’s not terribly uncommon – I can likewise think of cases of Orthodox-Catholic ecumenical activity that the Catholic side was fine with, but the Orthodox side was not.

What people need to realize is that the approval of *both *sides is necessary.

I’m not sure what you meant to say here (analogy, perhaps) but I’m sure you didn’t mean to say fallacy. :smiley:

P.S. Otherwise, your English is excellent. :slight_smile:

I would gather your understanding about the Anglican (Episcopal) side is “okay with [this arrangement]” is spot on. The Episcopalians pride themselves as being part of historic catholic Christianity, as in being (through the Anglican Communion) one of the three historic “branches” of the Catholic Church–along with the “Roman” Catholic and the “Eastern” Orthodox (the quotes are placed there with emphasis). They are quick to point out they are catholic (except low church Episcopalians) notwithstanding the foundational documents of the Anglican Communion and the “Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America” still appended to the back of every Book of Common Prayer–their missal and prayer book, as it were. Anything that supports the idea of the Communion’s catholicity and it being rooted in history–as long as the “real presence”, the papacy, purgatory, holy orders for males only, no blessings for same sex unions and indulgences are not part of it–will be gladly accepted. But, they will only go so far–and there’s the rub.

Yes, the same goes for the Catholic and the Orthodox, but now you are talking about theologically similar if not identical Churches with true apostolic succession. The papacy–not its existence, but its role and juridical power–is the only thing I can see separating them. There are some perceived differences that lie in semantics, language and longstanding practice (leavened versus unleavened bread as hosts, the filioque dispute, dormition versus assumption, Saint Augustine and interpretation of his teachings, divination and theosis, etc.), but the theologians of the two Churches (and I believe most clerics) do not see anything so different as to impede reunion–unlike the vast majority of Protestantism. I see no reason in turning this into a comment about the Catholic and Orthodox Churches other than to say both SHOULD be for ecumenism and that Rome, for a variety of reasons, has embraced that concept more so than the Orthodox–yet, the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople (Istanbul) seems to be growing closer to the Apostolic See with each decade. This is a wonderful thing.

Thanks, shawnbm.

I don’t want to turn this into a comment about the Catholic and Orthodox Churches (although, to be fair, I don’t think my post did so to the same extent that’s yours did :D) but I found mentioning the Orthodox helpful for getting to the main point of my post: that the approval of both sides is necessary for ecumenical activities.

Ohh, thanks :wink:

Well, Wikipedia call it fallacy, in this case informal fallacy, when we use poor reasoning. Is not it the usual term?

Without wanting to offend FrDavid96, he used a Straw man, maybe unconsciously, but a misrepresentation of my point, using an analogy which would easily debunk my point .

By the way, I have been noticing this pattern of analogy/fallacies on some unsatisfied Catholics here on CAF. For the sake of avoid WW3, I don’t want to name them, although they claim to be part of group :). If I ever finish my thesis I would like give time to this and maybe write an essay or blog on this :rolleyes:. In my view, in this so called debate, part of the reason for lack of agreement is the overuse of colourful language, which only delays any consensus. I have been reading such posts with eyes wide open to not fall on these traps.

I hear you, and do agree about your main point. Shalom! :thumbsup:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.