Episcopal Mass

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You are giving extreme examples. Episcopal service is almost exactly the same as Catholic mass - hence why an episcopal person would not think it was against the rules to take Eucharist in a catholic mass. Now, if an episcopal person went to a Hindu rite, it would be obvious to him that they don't belong and only observe.

I assume the poster's DH thought it was appropriate; there's no announcement that tells people to stay away, or that defines who can receive Communion. For instance, my DH (not Christian) would be explicitly excluded by the Episcopalians, but not the Catholics. He would not expect to receive Communion in any church.

You have that reversed. the catholics would exclude your husband. The episcopalians (probably) would not. Many Episcopal churches have open communion, but some limit it to baptized christians. In the Catholic church, you must be a Catholic in a state of grace to approach the altar rail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You are giving extreme examples. Episcopal service is almost exactly the same as Catholic mass - hence why an episcopal person would not think it was against the rules to take Eucharist in a catholic mass. Now, if an episcopal person went to a Hindu rite, it would be obvious to him that they don't belong and only observe.

I assume the poster's DH thought it was appropriate; there's no announcement that tells people to stay away, or that defines who can receive Communion. For instance, my DH (not Christian) would be explicitly excluded by the Episcopalians, but not the Catholics. He would not expect to receive Communion in any church.

You have that reversed. the catholics would exclude your husband. The episcopalians (probably) would not. Many Episcopal churches have open communion, but some limit it to baptized christians. In the Catholic church, you must be a Catholic in a state of grace to approach the altar rail.

Exactly. I think most educated people know this, so I don't understand why the Episcopalian DH thinks it is OK to take communion in a Catholic Church. I'm not Catholic but I know the rules and would never dare to go up for communion at a Catholic Mass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


You have that reversed. the catholics would exclude your husband. The episcopalians (probably) would not. Many Episcopal churches have open communion, but some limit it to baptized christians.

You're right, I haven't been to all Episcopal churches. What I recall is the invitation for "all baptized Christians" to come forward, and that would exclude my husband, but not me. Even if it's open to all, my husband would prefer not to participate, as would I, for other reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, the poster could find the info directly on a catholic website. No need to spend on internet strangers for this well known and simple rule of the church.

If it were an Episcopalian asking what to do I'd agree. It isn't, though, it's someone else, and even if it's your DH, how much are you responsible for what he does? What is his reasoning, and is it something you can agree with? If not, what do you do about it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, the poster could find the info directly on a catholic website. No need to spend on internet strangers for this well known and simple rule of the church.

If it were an Episcopalian asking what to do I'd agree. It isn't, though, it's someone else, and even if it's your DH, how much are you responsible for what he does? What is his reasoning, and is it something you can agree with? If not, what do you do about it?

One issue is understanding DH's motives the other is simply following the rules of the church. Not much to do about it if DH is not motivated to follow the rules of a church he does not belong to. The church obviously cares about its rules, but DH does not seem to care much about them or about his immortal soul, assuming he even believes in the concept.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

One issue is understanding DH's motives the other is simply following the rules of the church. Not much to do about it if DH is not motivated to follow the rules of a church he does not belong to. The church obviously cares about its rules, but DH does not seem to care much about them or about his immortal soul, assuming he even believes in the concept.

Except that in this context we pretty much have to look for the best in other people, especially when they're breaking the rules.

[Anonymous]

There are the rules and there is the practice.... If teddy Kennedy could take catholic communion, and I am pretty sure this lady's husband can, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are the rules and there is the practice.... If teddy Kennedy could take catholic communion, and I am pretty sure this lady's husband can, too.

But Teddy Kennedy was a baptized catholic who made a confession and was absolved of his sins by a Catholic priest. If this lady's husband hasn't done that, then he can't go to communion. Period -- It has nothing to do with an outsider's analysis of how deserving he is. It has to do with following the rules of the church.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: If teddy Kennedy could take catholic communion, and I am pretty sure this lady's husband can, too.

In Catholic terms, you can't make that judgment. You have no knowledge of the state of Kennedy's soul, so that's totally irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: If teddy Kennedy could take catholic communion, and I am pretty sure this lady's husband can, too.

In Catholic terms, you can't make that judgment. You have no knowledge of the state of Kennedy's soul, so that's totally irrelevant.

I know that Kennedy was a practicing Catholic, who, like any Catholic, is absolved of his sins if he goes to confession, asks forgiveness and then goes to communion, which removes the stain of sin. None of this is available to people who are not Roman Catholics in good standing (i.e. confessed and forgiven). Their souls may be as clean as Kennedy's but they cannot be absolved of their sins through the Catholic church because they're not catholics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I know that Kennedy was a practicing Catholic, who, like any Catholic, is absolved of his sins if he goes to confession, asks forgiveness and then goes to communion, which removes the stain of sin. None of this is available to people who are not Roman Catholics in good standing (i.e. confessed and forgiven). Their souls may be as clean as Kennedy's but they cannot be absolved of their sins through the Catholic church because they're not catholics.

The hardest part is coming around to a genuine repentance in the first place, at least in my experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are the rules and there is the practice.... If teddy Kennedy could take catholic communion, and I am pretty sure this lady's husband can, too.

But Teddy Kennedy was a baptized catholic who made a confession and was absolved of his sins by a Catholic priest. If this lady's husband hasn't done that, then he can't go to communion. Period -- It has nothing to do with an outsider's analysis of how deserving he is. It has to do with following the rules of the church.

Yes, and no. Some sins must be corrected before approaching the rail (as in former wives, adultery, annulments, etc. so all the confessing in the world won't help you until you've paid your debts and bought your right back to the communion rail - and, yes that is often with $$). As to Episcopaians, it is totally inappropriate to go to the rail for a Catholic communion. Those are just the rules and if you are sitting in their church, you should abide by them. No one but a Catholic in good standing, having confessed and in a state of grace can approach - much of these fules comes from the belief of transubstantian. Other Christians may not approach the rail - it's not their club. No Episcopalians or Anglicans (even a priest) went to the rail during an immediate family member's funeral mass. It is simply not done and is an affront to the Catholic church and its members (not that I care all that much, but it is). DH's husband is wrong to do it.

[Anonymous]

" Other Christians may not approach the rail - it's not their club."

It is not universally true even within the Catholic church. Ukrainian Catholic church seem to have different rules and there are other varieties overseas that have some associations with Anglicans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:" Other Christians may not approach the rail - it's not their club."

It is not universally true even within the Catholic church. Ukrainian Catholic church seem to have different rules and there are other varieties overseas that have some associations with Anglicans.

The Ukrainian Church is not the Roman Catholic church, which is what we're talking about here. They have their own set of rules. Don't let the term "Catholic" trip you up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are the rules and there is the practice.... If teddy Kennedy could take catholic communion, and I am pretty sure this lady's husband can, too.

But Teddy Kennedy was a baptized catholic who made a confession and was absolved of his sins by a Catholic priest. If this lady's husband hasn't done that, then he can't go to communion. Period -- It has nothing to do with an outsider's analysis of how deserving he is. It has to do with following the rules of the church.

Yes, and no. Some sins must be corrected before approaching the rail (as in former wives, adultery, annulments, etc. so all the confessing in the world won't help you until you've paid your debts and bought your right back to the communion rail - and, yes that is often with $$). As to Episcopaians, it is totally inappropriate to go to the rail for a Catholic communion. Those are just the rules and if you are sitting in their church, you should abide by them. No one but a Catholic in good standing, having confessed and in a state of grace can approach - much of these fules comes from the belief of transubstantian. Other Christians may not approach the rail - it's not their club. No Episcopalians or Anglicans (even a priest) went to the rail during an immediate family member's funeral mass. It is simply not done and is an affront to the Catholic church and its members (not that I care all that much, but it is). DH's husband is wrong to do it.

It's good that those Episcopalians and that Anglican priest know their place. I mean, what's more important at an immediate family funeral service - participating fully with your family or following the exclusionary rules of The Churcn? The church always comes first in these instances.