After a period of deep discernment, the rector and parishioners of St. Luke’s Episcopal parish in Bladensburg, Maryland have decided to seek entry into the Roman Catholic Church through a new structure approved by Pope Benedict XVI called an ordinariate. Saint Luke’s is the first church in the Washington metropolitan area to take this step.
The transition is being made with the prayerful support of Bishop John Bryson Chane of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington and Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Catholic Archbishop of Washington.
“We welcome the St. Luke community warmly into our family of faith. The proposed ordinariate provides a path to unity, one that recognizes our shared beliefs on matters of faith while also recognizing and respecting the liturgical heritage of the Anglican Church,” Cardinal Wuerl said. “We also recognize the openness of the community to the guidance of the Holy Spirit in their faith journey.”
Curious history of ASA: ’99 100, ’00 110, ’01 220, ’02 320, ’03 390, ’04 450, ’05 250, ’06 220, ’07 170, ’08 180, ’09 70! income high 160K in ’07, 140K in 09. There’s a story there. Can some one with local knowledge enlighten us?
Don’t know but since they’ve made this decision, the big drop in membership could very well stem from the “preparations” they’ve been making to jump ship.
Every Episcopal parish I’ve attended has had a sizable number of former RCs, myself included. No way, no how would I ever go back to the RCC — and none of the other former RCs I know well would, either. So, if the parish is going there lock, stock, and barrel, then those worthies would have to find a new church home. I’ve seen figures claiming that 25-30 percent of Episcopalians are former RC.
St Luke’s, whatever the attendance figures, is one of America’s great AC parishes. As an Anglo-Catholic myself (though not Romish), I am saddened to read of them swimming the Tibur. However, each of us must be who we are.
[blockquote]Under the terms of a letter of agreement signed last week with the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, the St. Luke congregation will continue to worship in their current church, at 4006 53rd Street, Bladensburg. The agreement is a lease with a purchase option.{blockquote]
Does this not seem ironic?
“No way, no how would I ever go back to the RCC—and none of the other former RCs I know well would, either”.
A lot of them can’t, unless they want to enjoy(not) excommunicated status. Just about all the ones I know who swam the Tiber the other way have done so because of divorce. To each their own…
Let me see if I have this correct:
Episcopal Church wishes to go Anglican. The diocese and national church fight for the property, win, and sell it to Islam for half price.
Another Episcopal Church wishes to go RC and they are offered a rent to own agreement.
Hum.
Bookworm,
I think you might be confusing “excommunication” with being barred from receiving the Eucharist. They’re not the same thing. The RCC rarely excommunicates. In the case of being remarried without an annulment, the folks aren’t permitted to receive the Eucharist but they’re not barred from Mass or anything. They’re certainly not excommunicated.
Furthermore, divorced persons who haven’t remarried are not barred from the Eucharist, either. It’s the remarriage without an annulment bit that’s problematic for the RCC. So these divorced folks you know most certainly could return to the RCC if they wanted. If they’re remarried (or even not), they might be encouraged to get an annulment, though.
LOL, I’m not usually one to defend the RCC but this issue contains popular misconceptions. Fair is fair. (But sorry to go off-topic, elves.)
Teatime, I’m well aware of what you say, but(not your fault) I think some of that is semantics or hair-splitting. It may be true that the RCC does not send letters of excommunication to remarried divorcees. But, when you are excluded from the Sacrament, you are, in fact, excommunicated, at least from the Eucharist, if not other sacraments.
ex·com·mu·ni·cate
   /v. ˌɛkskəˈmyunɪˌkeɪt; n., adj. ˌɛkskəˈmyunɪkɪt, -ˌkeɪt/ Show Spelled [v. eks-kuh-myoo-ni-keyt; n., adj. eks-kuh-myoo-ni-kit, -keyt] Show IPA verb, -cat·ed, -cat·ing, noun, adjective
–verb (used with object)
1.
to cut off from communion with a church or exclude from the sacraments of a church by ecclesiastical sentence.
I believe that even the RCC considers its churches public places, so yes of course anyone can attend Mass.
Re: the people I know, yup, the return to the RCC is problematic for them because they don’t want to be excluded, or excommunicated, from the Host, Mass, Eucharist, Communion, or whatever word you’d like to use.
I find a lot of it sad. I can understand the RCC not allowing someone another RC marriage without the annulment process, but I wish they wouldn’t exclude people from Communion. If “sinners” are excluded from Communion then no one would be able to receive it. Not to mention the cases of RC women or men who may divorce their spouses because of physical abuse, criminal behavior, etc. And then the annulment process doesn’t stand a chance because one or the other partner will not give testimony in it. Or, I would love to see the annulment process see one side of the story, especially if there are things like police reports, etc., to back it up.
I can dream… 🙂
Bookwork, I hate to tell you but you seem to be a font of misconceptions. The annulment process does not REQUIRE testimony form both parties. In my personal case, my ex-wife refused to cooperate with the process. There was still sufficient evidence from other witnesses that the tribunal was comfortable finding for an annulment.
Teatime2 stated the rules correctly. Divorce isn’t a problem – it’s second marriages after a valid marriage that are a problem…
What amazes me about the divorce issue is that the Catholic Church follows Christ’s and Scripture’s teachings on divorce and re-marriage far more closely than any Protestant or Evangelical church. (including correctly seeing in the” Matthean exception” grounds for what is called an annulment, but not grounds for embracing divorce and remarriage). Yet the Church always gets the blame–not Scripture, not Christ, not his words recorded in the Gospels. Yet it is not rare to see on Evangelical bumpers: “Christ said it, I believe it, that settles it.” (or similar ditties).
I am aware that second marriages after a “valid” marriage’s end are the problem.
My aunt was told she could not apply to the annulment process without testimony from her ex-husband as well. Her second husband did not have to apply for an annulment in order to marry RC again, as his first wife was dead.
Off the top of my head, that’s the only example I can think of where one of the marital “parties” was told testimony was needed from both. Most of the other expatriate RC people I know have chosen not to even attempt the annulment process.
And feel free to tell me anything you want.
[blockquote] My aunt was told she could not apply to the annulment process without testimony from her ex-husband as well. [/blockquote]
Well, possibly this may have depended on the grounds that she was seeking an annulment on, or maybe she misunderstood what they were saying. It certainly is the case they the tribunal requires [i]evidence[/i] and wants it from more than one source. It is certainly not the case that a spouse can block an annulment simply but refusing to testify or otherwise cooperate.
Bookworm writes,
“If ‘sinners’ are excluded from Communion then no one would be able to receive it.”
Not true. Cleansed of original sin by baptism, and of temporal sin through the Sacrament of Penance, the Catholic is in a state of grace and is no “sinner,” and this is the only state in which he should receive Communion; hence the abundance of opportunities for Confession on Saturdays, and immediately before Masses. Once one grasps this understanding, the refusal of Communion to notorious sinners, remarried divorcees, Catholic politicians in violation of Church teaching, Protestants, etc., should be seen not as an act of exclusion, but of mercy and hope. Thus the Church prevents these individuals from eating and drinking judgment upon themselves by receiving the Sacrament in an unworthy manner (1 Cor. 11:27-29), and expresses her hope that one day all Christians will authentically be reunited in accord with our Lord’s prayer “that they all may be one” under His vicar on earth.
#10 Deaconjohn25
[blockquote]What amazes me about the divorce issue is that the Catholic Church follows Christ’s and Scripture’s teachings on divorce and re-marriage far more closely than any Protestant or Evangelical church[/blockquote]
Do you have some evidence backed up with biblical references to account for that breathtaking arrogant assertion. Is there any reason why one should not take it as yet another bit of self-serving propaganda?
Thank you for the theology lesson, PaulC. But, you have outlined one of the big reasons why I am not RC.
I also don’t believe that Protestants “receive the Sacrament in an unworthy manner” because the Confession of Sin is said corporately before the Eucharist.
#13 PaulC
[blockquote]the Catholic is in a state of grace and is no “sinner,â€[/blockquote]
We do not presume to come to this thy table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefor, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear son Jesus Christ and to drink His blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by His body and our souls washed through His most precious blood and that we may ever more dwell in Him, and He in us.
Amen?
Pageantmaster–It is not arrogant to assert the Truth. In Mark Chapter 10 Jesus bluntly says: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her and the woman who divorces her husband and marries another commits adultery.” A variation of this is in Matthew’s Gospel and in chapter 7 of St. Paul’s First letter to the Corinthians.
Yeh, I know those who aren’t Catholic do some wonderful tap-dancing around these passages so they can ignore them. My mother was a Protestant along with her whole family and I grew up hearing all the excuses (ad nauseum) to trash the Bible’s witness on this issue. The tap dancing and trashing continues today in many mainstream Protestant churches over a number of other moral issues like Gay marriage–the more things change the more they stay the same.
#17 DJ25 Yes, you do correctly quote Mark 10:11-12, although for the sake of completeness you should also quote what Jesus also said about it in the whole passage from Mark 10:1-12 about hard heartedness.
No, you do not make the case for “the Catholic Church follows Christ’s and Scripture’s teachings on divorce and re-marriage far more closely than any Protestant or Evangelical church”. I see just as much hard heartedness in the Catholic church on this subject as any other, both in following of scripture, and in practical disobedience, as well as a remarkable list of expandable reasons by which Catholics obtain “annulments”.
As Christ said replied to the passage,
[blockquote]They said: “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away”.
“It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied[/blockquote]
Quite so. It is against the heard heartedness which is involved in marriage breakdown that Christ preached and we in the church should guard against, not the forms of divorce or annulment which people devise to allow them to remarry or to comply with church rules on Communion. I see no particular absense of heard heartedness among catholics as compared to protestants or evangelicals on this subject. In fact it was from the evangelical wing of my church that the Marriage Course came, to counter just this heard heartedness which Christ criticised in scripture.
#15 Bookworm:
You are quite right, Protestants do not receive the sacrament in an unworthy manner at Protestant worship. The point I thought we were discussing was not Protestants being refused Protestant Communion, but Protestants being refused Catholic Communion, an act of mercy in that he “who eats and drinks without discerning the body” is prevented from eating and drinking “judgment upon himself.” As Paul clearly warns, the patient normally accustomed to a mere placebo can do himself great harm by taking a full dose of the real medicine. (Why anyone would knowingly receive only a placebo when the real medicine is available is the bigger question, but that’s a discussion for a different day.)
#16 Pageantmaster:
Amen indeed; we trust not in our own righteousness, but in our Lord’s manifold and great mercies, available to all in the Sacrament of Penance. I’m not sure I understand the problem.
PaulC, the fact is we’re probably never going to agree on this. To me, the “prevention from eating and drinking judgment upon oneself” sounds a lot more like pseudo-benevolent human spin as opposed to Biblical witness. Where in the Scriptures does it state that Christ means the Host to be any form of “judgment”?
And who or what(or Who or What) gets to define what is actually “real” is another question.
Pageantmaster–sorry I can’t buy your tap dance–I read and reread the 3 passages I quoted to you and then read your justifications for churches becoming complicit in adultery through letting its ministers officiate at 2nd and 3rd, and 4th marriages. It is this loose attitude toward marriage that is the” hardness of heart” Christ talked of. I really don’t see how you can read St. Mark’s words and spin them into being only about the relationships within the marriage and not, at least also, about the marriage bond itself. In fact, many Bible scholars claim that Christ’s words were a virtual full-frontal assault on the cheapened reigning attitude toward marriage in his day–which is now, today, our way at looking at marriage.
One minister I know quite well told me he got into serious trouble with his congregation for letting them know he would no longer officiate at “multiple” marriages that were becoming a disgrace and a wretched example for the people, in his opinion.
Historically, the Egyptian Coptic Church, believed to have been founded by St. Mark ( who, in turn, is believed to have been close to St Peter) has virtually the same attitude toward marriage as the Catholic Church. Interesting that the interpretive Tradition of these two ancient churches on marriage are so similar. We are supposed to believe that 1500 years later, at the Protestant Reformation the truth finally came out???? That we now finally understand what Christ was saying??? Or is it possibly the arrogance of Modern Man at work???
#21 DJ25
[blockquote]Pageantmaster—sorry I can’t buy your tap dance—I read and reread the 3 passages I quoted to you and then read your justifications for churches becoming complicit in adultery through letting its ministers officiate at 2nd and 3rd, and 4th marriages. [/blockquote]
Dear oh dear. Do please pay attention DJ25 to what I have written, which is making no such point, nor is one which I believe. Please go back, read carefully what I have actually written, and then please by all means give me a sensible reply on point to which I can respond without all the errors and misreadings you have introduced. It will save us both a lot of effort. Thanks.