Posted on 11/07/2005 5:47:15 PM PST by sionnsar
This past year I received an email from someone who said “My wife and I have become Catholic as we could in no way support the ECUSA and the division which has taken place.” As is my practice, I wrote back and said I appreciated hearing from them and asked for their prayers. I also wrote this person back and asked him if he could say more about why he did what he did.
Here is his response to my request–KSH.
“I became an Episcopalian around 1979 when many changes were taking place in the church, but frankly I was not aware of them. It was the music and visual affects rather than theological issues that brought me into the church. Bishop Reeves, whom I later learned was the only dissenting vote for the 1979 prayer book, confirmed me.
In the late 1990’s, I began researching various ‘catholic’ issues such as (1) Apostolic succession, (2) validity of holy orders, and (3) moral authority along with many others. I saw the liturgy being changed by various Priests as they saw fit. The Creed being said, dropped, or changed at whim of the priest. Invalid forms of the blessing were becoming all to frequent. Then came “the convention” that approved an openly/active homosexual to the office of Bishop. This suddenly made me realize that the Episcopal Church was essentially nothing but a protestant church all dressed in Catholic clothing with each church being able to do as they wished. Never had the absence of a single moral authority been more apparent. Morality cannot be subject to a popular vote. It was at that point that I realized that I could not belong to a church that placed political correctness over a theology consistent for two thousand years that did not change with every current trend. I could find only one church that met these criteria. It is precisely at this point in time that I believe the Episcopal Church essentially become theologically insignificant. The church will over time lose young families that cannot accept or explain the actions of that convention to their children. The local Episcopal Church that we belonged to is very fortunate to have a very wealthy congregation. Their budget is growing but their active membership is declining and becoming primarily older.
The Catholic Church we now attend has three English masses each weekend. We usually attend the Saturday evening Mass as a family and sit together and then I play guitar and sing in the 11:00 a.m. Sunday choir. Standing room only, every age and a multitude of ethnicities.”
But, to be quite serious, hootenanny Masses are theologically and traditionally unsupported, for numerous reasons. 1. They bring the rock beat (4/4) into church where it doesn't belong - that is music for dancing and partying, not for church. It distracts worshippers from the celebration of the Eucharist (you know, that "can't keep my feet still" thing). 2. The music is banal and unworthy of a solemn celebration. The purpose of a Catholic Mass is not to be a revival or a "praise service," but to commemorate the Lord's Sacrifice. We are directed to celebrate "with all solemnity" and music worthy of the occasion, such as Gregorian chant, polyphony, etc. 3. The words of such songs generally distract the worshipper's attention from the Sacrifice. If you actually read them, you'll see they're full of references to "me", "I", "mine" and concentrate on the worshipper's personal experience of religion, not God on the altar.
That's perfectly o.k. for, say, a Baptist service where the focus is on the sermon and the worshippers' response thereto . . . but not for Mass. A Catholic Mass is different from an evangelical praise service, and it OUGHT to be different (otherwise why bother?) No reason the kids can't hold a praise service if they want one, but not at Mass.
Well, what about goshawful? The worst thing about most church musicians is that they can't even stick to a few favorites that the congregation can sing. They are easily bored, and must have new stuff out there.
What the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about homosexuality
Welcome!
Thank you. I am on your ping list. It is wonderful! God Bless you and all.
"This suddenly made me realize that the Episcopal Church was essentially nothing but a protestant church all dressed in Catholic clothing with each church being able to do as they wished."
An ignorant and insulting swipe at Protestants.
Not necessarily, actually. Traditionally, the Anglicans have held that they were really "the Catholic Church in England" and "just as Catholic as the Romans". They invented the term "Roman Catholic," in fact, because they said they -- the Anglicans -- were Catholic, too, just not "Roman".
I remember when I was married in the Episcopal church (1988) the (Episcopal) priest referred to me (in my presence) as "a member of the Roman Church [sic]". (Notice: I'm a member of the "Roman Church", not the "Catholic Church", and not even the "Roman Catholic Church". Would it have been okay for me to ask him how long he'd been a member of the "Cantabridgian Church"?)
So maybe it's not an "ignorant and insulting swipe at Protestants" but an angry and justifiable swipe at Protestants who claim to be Catholics, but are not. John Henry Cardinal Newman said something very similar about the CofE when he converted.
"Not necessarily, actually..."
What I find offensive is, "the Episcopal Church was essentially nothing but a protestant church...".
The "nothing but" is clearly a contemptuous, dismissive phrase.
The Episcopal/Anglican church CLAIMS to be Catholic -- i.e. to have Apostolic Succession and thus be part of the Catholic church -- just a branch or rite (like one of the Eastern Rites for example).
The author's point was that they are NOT Catholic and DON'T have Apostolic Succession . . . they claim to be Catholic but are actually a Protestant church, i.e. a reforming church that broke away and continues to differ substantially with Catholic theology.
Nothing derogatory about it - just that the Episcopalians CLAIM to be Catholic, but actually ARE protestant. IOW there's nothing wrong with the protestants in this regard -- but there's something very wrong with the Episcopalians and they are liars to boot.
"... and they are liars to boot."
Just the high church ones!
:)
"Low and lazy, middle and hazy, high and CRAZY."
. . . I thought even the broad church ECUSA claimed a Catholic connection . . . although many of them will claim that they descend through the old Celtic Church (before that brouhaha about the date of Easter . . . in which case why don't they celebrate it on the old day?)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.