Combined Episcopal Catholic Parish -not the Ordinaraite

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:

OK. I’ll explain.

The word “parish” has a very specific, canonical use. Simply put, there is no way that this situation meets the definition of “parish” in Catholic vocabulary.

The location is now (at the present time) listed in the diocese directory, but the word “parish” is not being used; instead, it’s called a “community” which does not have a specific definition.

The point is that the bishop is not saying “this is a parish comprised of both Catholics and non-Catholics, and this parish has a pastor.” The title of this thread uses the word “parish” and so, naturally, if a Catholic were to follow the link in the first post (and again, see the word “parish”) one of the first thoughts would be “how can that be a parish?” I’m simply pointing-out the fact that it is not a parish.

There are plenty of examples of places that might be listed on a diocese webpage, but that place is not a parish. A diocese youth camp might be listed there, but it’s not a parish.

I can assure you, it’s not a fallacy. I’ve studied enough philosophy to be certain on that point.

I’ll explain it further:
What this community is doing is an offense against the unity of the Church. That’s not merely my opinion. See canon 1365.

The act of combining a Catholic Mass with a non-Catholic service, and the act of a Catholic priest simulating con-celebration with one who is not a validly ordained priest wounds the Church. Again, this is not my opinion. These are both offenses against the Church defined in canon law.

Since the community was established specifically to perform acts which wound the Church, but does so under the pretext of “ecumenism” (a false ecumenism), the comparison about amputation is not fallacious at all. It is an accurate comparison.

A doctor who is supposed to heal one wound, but instead causes another wound, while leaving the original wound untreated is not healing the patient.

A community that is supposed to have been established to heal the wound of schism (caused by Henry VIII centuries before, not caused by the good people today) but instead wounds the Church in other ways, is not healing the people.

If you’re going to call my post a fallacy, then I would suggest that you describe HOW the reasoning is flawed.

Caution: by simply calling something a “fallacy” but not showing how the logic is flawed, that’s itself fallacious.

No. I did not at all use a straw man.

You’re using terms without knowing what those terms mean.

A straw-man is when someone presents the position of an opponent in such a way that the opponent’s arguments/positons appear weak.

For example:

If I were to write “this community simply wants to save money by not having to pay the light bill for 2 buildings, and so they decided to have a combined parish—all they care about is money”

Now THAT would be a straw-man.
Yes, they want to save money on bills (who doesn’t?). That’s true all by itself.
But I’ve presented their own situation in such a weak and trivial way that any reader would certainly have to agree with my position.

That’s what it means to setup a straw man. And that’s far from what I did.

My bad, I clearly misunderstood the meaning of a straw-man. Yet, I still defend that you at least used an analogy that I felt was not fully accurate to my reasoning.

I just singled out the positive aspect of having protestants exposed to the truth of the Catholic Church. If you Google the question: “Are Catholics Christians?” you will see why I mean.

As for the spiritual outcome of this, in the light of your analogy, I don’t have competence to reach an overall conclusion of whether the wrong leg is being amputated or not, or if healing is happening or not. Firstly, because I am not a doctor (Bishop, canon lawyer, theologian, the Pope). Secondly, healing not always is such straightforward as perform an amputation. Some diseases require long term treatment.

I strongly agree. And the title can be considered as misleading indeed, not parish but community. And yet, I wonder if you know of communities not in good standing with the Holy See, and in public disobedience with the Holy See (disobedient to the bishop as you said), whose address and services times as well contacts are still listed on webpage of the Diocese?

Again, my point is that this is a literally unique case. Canon 1365 address Catholics attending prohibited religious services. Yet, ecumenical services, if I am not mistaken are to be authorized locally by the bishop. And what about this “Frankensteined” ecumenical service, where there are still parts of a Catholic Liturgy? I don’t know :shrug:

Things are foggy and while no authority, which I should obey as Catholic, has a position, I choose to trust that there is something God is working in here. But this is just my opinion and I am not pushing anyone to my side. In fact, what I like about the community is that they don’t bash the other Catholics who are in regular parishes as "too reverent"or “unecumenical”. (Sorry for stating another positive aspect, I can’t avoid, I’m so optimistic :D)

I don’t meant to imply that the thread title is misleading in any intentional way, but rather that the poster was mislead by the the information first, then simply repeated the information from the video on this forum.

When Catholics ask the question “how can this be? Why does the bishop allow this?” my comment was mean to reassure Catholics that the designation “parish” is not one that the local bishop uses.

When we see a group of Catholics and non-Catholics praying together, that’s a good thing, and it should be encouraged and fostered. On the other hand, when we see this taken to the point where the Catholic Mass and the Episcopalian service are combined in the way that we see in the video, then things have gone so far that it is a real disaster.

Again, my point is that this is a literally unique case.

Just because it is “unique” does not make it legitimate.

Canon 1365 address Catholics attending prohibited religious services. Yet, ecumenical services, if I am not mistaken are to be authorized locally by the bishop. And what about this “Frankensteined” ecumenical service, where there are still parts of a Catholic Liturgy? I don’t know :shrug:

Canon 1365 prohibits “communicatio in sacris” Note that the English translation intentionally uses that Latin phrase in the text because it has a long history.
The English translation says this “A person guilty of prohibited participation in sacred rites…” Which I believe is a good way of rendering it into English. It’s not a matter of “guilty of participation in sacred rites” but “prohibited participation”—in other words, not all participation is prohibited, only certain kinds of participation are prohibited.
A Catholic priest who prays the Our Father with an Anglican clergy is “participating” but that act is not prohibited. However, when a Catholic priest mixes the Catholic Mass and an Episcopalian service in the way depicted in the video, that’s certainly prohibited.

Ecumenical prayer services are indeed allowed and encouraged by the Church. Such services, however, must follow certain standards. The bishop’s role is to ensure that those standards (or norms or laws) are being followed.

Things are foggy and while no authority, which I should obey as Catholic, has a position, I choose to trust that there is something God is working in here. But this is just my opinion and I am not pushing anyone to my side. In fact, what I like about the community is that they don’t bash the other Catholics who are in regular parishes as "too reverent"or “unecumenical”. (Sorry for stating another positive aspect, I can’t avoid, I’m so optimistic :D)

Only, things are not foggy. The position of the Church on this subject is quite clear.
The fact that certain people are (or were) disregarding the Church’s position (and indeed laws) does not mean that the position of the Church is any less clear.

*Overall in the Episcopal Church over 10% of members are former Catholics-this appears to be a wonderful concept

what do RC think
Could you give the source for the section in bold?*

from missioninsite.com- they are contracted with the Episcopal Diocese of SW Florida-I think the number is too low

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.