Combined Episcopal Catholic Parish -not the Ordinaraite

Yep. If I weren’t Catholic, Spanish heritage aside, I’d without a doubt be Episcopalian,

Not sure is there is a source. In my parish we have about 50 families. Out of the 50 families there are 23 that are former RC.

I reject this form of Mass. I believe it would be very confusing for some. It is fine for TEC and RCC to share a parish but not at the together at once. If I wanted to communion with RCs then I would be a RC. Just my 2 cents. :shrug:

Based on their website, and other things I have read, it appears officially this is an Episcopal parish, with a Catholic group attached to it, that has some formal recognition from the Catholic diocese. The only pastor here is the Episcopal pastor. Since there is no Catholic parish here, any individual Catholics would have a pastor somewhere else.

My guess is that sooner or later all the people who stay will follow the Episcopal pastor, and Episcopal bishop, etc. Those who really feel the need for Catholic parish and diocesan guidance and committment will likely stop attending here. Others who like it here gradually become more or less Episcopalian, whether or not they make a public transfer.

It is similar to arrangements in the charismatic movement. Some groups began as an approved Catholic component within a larger inter-faith ministry, with diocesan approval. Later,they either totally melt into the Pentacostal denomination, or else they withdraw to maintain their Catholic identity.

Yes, but Episcopalians and Lutherans not only share parishes but worship together. I know of at least one poster who is a member of a combined parish.

In some religious communities, Catholics, Episcopalians and Lutheran pray Mass together. Foretaste of the feast to come!

Happy for them.

Not long ago I encountered the claim that Pope John Paul II concelebrated mass with the Patriarch of Constantinople – a claim which I believe to be (1) false and (2) deeply offensive, if not to Catholics then certainly to the Eastern Orthodox.

But in the concelebration that you’re talking about, if one priest is Catholic and the other is Episcopal, then that’s definitely illicit from a Catholic p.o.v.

This is the first time I ever read anything on this thread. I know virtually nothing about these two parishes-where they are and when this happened. I’ve noticed that many people automatically laud unity while forgetting that every aspect of unity presumes that the new entity is centered on something. I am sure that those who favor this “unity” would insist that the parishes, in their “unification”, are centered on Christ. The cynic in me (sometimes I’m glad he’s still around) suspects that underneath it all there may have been other considerations, such as the financial pressures experienced by one if not both of the
parishes. I don’t know; I wasn’t there, but I sense some practicalities behind it that I don’t hear being mentioned. In the interest of discerning motives, I don’t think it’s harmful to remember that every parish is also a business entity.

There is another potential problem here. Catholic parishes, just like those of other denominations, reflect a political dynamic that is consistent with their overall socio/political status. Wealthy suburban Catholic parishes tend to stand with the 'haves", Pope Francis notwithstanding. I have noticed that (and so has Thomas Merton) the Episcopal Church is rather class conscious. The Episcopalians I have met (and worked for) tended to see themselves as being the “upper crust” of the community. I think that is PURE POISON for a parish that wants to be Catholic.

I suspect the real motives behind this union.

John Jerpe
Doubtful

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:

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.