Well, yeah, that’s the thing, it is a (mostly) US-centric deal that goes along with the historically recent redefinition of Evangelicalism as mandating sociocultural/politicoeconomic conservatism. Now, Catholicism *itself *has been dealing with its own internally originated (hello, Mel Gibson) ultracon movements ever since at the very latest John XXIII, to the point of some in the fringe even claiming there has been no legitimate pope since Pius, but *those *are unlikely to ally themselves with Protestantsn of any brand.
I would say that Episcopalians/Anglicans are their natural resting point. They are very similar liturgically and not too far off theologically. Eastern Orthodox is very strange for Western Christians in many ways. It’s more mystical for one thing and the liturgy is very different.
Evangelicals are not a good resting place at all. A conservative Catholic might have similar politics to conservative Evangelicals, but the differences end there. Theologically, they are about as opposite as you can be and still be the same religion. As was mentioned above, more conservative Evangelicals regard Catholics as idolators. Conservative Evangelicals are more likely to celebrate Passover and Hanukah than they are the Feast of Annunciation (not an exaggeration-I know many Evangelicals that do a quasi-Pascha.) A Catholic becoming Evangelical is more of a complete rejection of Catholicism as opposed to a migration over a scandal.
My United Methodist Church does have quite a few ex-Catholics and still Catholics that attend, so I guess we’re a stopping off point. I think that it’s largely because Methodists don’t particularly care. All of our sacraments are open to whomever and actually becoming a member doesn’t bestow many privileges except the ability to vote and serve on certain committees. My kid’s Sunday School Teacher is a Catholic that is still a Catholic and just never goes to mass anymore and comes to our church instead. He has been taking Communion with us, so if his priest catches him, he might be in trouble since Catholics believe you can only be in Communion with one church, the ‘true church.’ but from a UM point of view, all of the churches are just different expressions of a true faith, so as long as he’s OK with it, we’re OK with it. Similarly, I’m allowed to take Catholic mass from our point of view, but we generally discourage such things since it is offensive to them and it’s unkind to offend other people.
Anyway, I guess this is really to say that if a Catholic were to want to leave the church, where they go afterwards is probably more about their personal disposition than anything else. If they are very theologically committed to Catholicism, then the Eastern Churches are the only option (of course if they are that committed, they would probably remain Catholic.) If they want something familiar, but technically theologically different, then probably Episcopalian/CoE. If they are just sick of the Catholic Church and want a complete break, Evangelical. And I guess if they are looking for a place to show up without a lot of theological baggage that probably won’t even ask them about their beliefs or why they are there, mainline Protestantism.
Neither of those are actually considered a problem by the RCC. Specially the second part.
I swear, if Catholics were offended by everything a Protestant thinks we’re offended by, we’d never have time to de-offend.
Yeah, I might not have communicated myself very well but i was trying to say how I had become educated from the time of my first post in this thread asking about the similarity between Evangelical Christianity churches and Catholicism to my last post acknowledging the unlikelihood of many fleeing Catholics to embrace Protestant Evangelicalism.
The Maronites are Catholic.
They both believe in Jesus and that is almost the only similarity.
Disaffected Catholics, and they have been legion since Vatican II at least, have several well-trodden paths, and which they take depends on the reason for their disaffection.
Stop believing in God: atheism
Feel jerked around by the Church personally: atheism, mainstream Protestant almost any denomination
Church too conservative: Episcopalianism
Church too liberal: Evangelical or splinter Catholic sects (there’s more than one, but generally they want to return to 1950’s era practices such as Mass in Latin, priest faces away from congregation during Mass, women cover their heads, and heavy doses of guilt).
I think that Canon Law would disagree with you. Canon Law 844.1 specifically says that they can only be licitly administered to members of the Catholic faith and can only be received from Catholic clergy. The only exceptions are if the person receiving is dying or unable to get the sacraments from a Catholic priest or they are a member of the Eastern churches. In the Ecclesia de Eucharista (part 30) JPII specifically forbade taking communion in a Protestant Church, effectively making it a mortal sin.
‘Offense’ of course might be a strong word. You as an individual might not give a rip at all and an individual priest might find the whole thing silly, but it is an offense against Catholic law and so we don’t do it for the sake of Catholic beliefs and not ours.
Historically, yes. But not more recently. In more modern times, the two opposing sects have sought to reconcile their doctrinal differences to unite in culture-war/social similarities. Take the recent presidential campaign of Rick Santorum. He was (is, i presume) officially a practicing catholic but he also espoused many of the social beliefs that the Evangelical Protestants valued. So he garnered support from both wings. He was considered a “Evangelical Catholic”. And he is just an individual example of a growing movement (or at least it was growing until the advent of all things Trump).
I was specifically told when I went to a Catholic mass that I was not to partake. I could go up for a blessing, but I should not take the Eucharist. I was encouraged just not to go up at all.
It has also been my observation in ecumenical situations that the Catholics generally won’t partake, though I know of no rule that says they must not. Just the rule that only a Eucharist minister can administer the true Eucharist except in extraordinary circumstances.
Funny how you don’t include any references to the second part, i.e., a Protestant attending Mass. Also, you are confusing “canon” with “dogma”.
In general there’s too much ‘east’ v ‘west’ cultural difference embedded by now in the eastern v western churches. It’s more natural for Catholics, assuming too disaffected with the Church to continue with it, but not with Christianity, to go to also western Protestant sects. I’m not saying that’s a strong culturally neutral theological argument, but I think just practically speaking it’s usually the case.
But just to comment on your prologue, I’m not sure the recent development is ‘one hand’ v ‘other hand’. Francis, and the liberal project within the College of Cardinals of of which he’s the crowning achievement, are not the root cause of the sex scandal. It was a problem long before them. But the explosive issue right now is Francis’ rehabilitation of liberal clerics (speaking of the US) like McCarrick (accused directly of sexual abuse of minors and many more cases of sex with adult seminarians) and promotion of ones like Joseph Tobin and Blase Cupich (not implicated themselves in either misconduct or direct cover ups, but recommended by McCarrick) of the ‘the sex scandals are a distraction from the Church’s mission to talk about global warming’ school of thought. Some Catholics may abandon the Church based on the actions of the past, no matter what the institution now does to reform itself in that respect. But for a lot of Catholics the crisis is Francis as non-credible leader of needed reform, which is intertwined with his liberal theology and who he has surrounded himself with.
Same has happened to me when I’ve attended masses at a Roman Church. I wonder if it’s a regional difference? Catholic parts of Europe tend to be very Catholic, so there’s an expectation that anyone attending services is at least nominally Catholic, even if inobservant. However, in the US, most people are out of communion with the Roman Church. Anyone who doesn’t regularly attend mass is more likely to have never been Catholic than have been.
I’m not sure what senoy meant by ‘taking Mass’ but the RCC has never been against non-catholics simply attending mass. They actually rather encourage it as a useful first step on the road to becoming a catholic.
There is no such assumption for Spain, specially in our touristy areas (wait, that’s 50% of the country by area and more than that by population). There have been times when the priests in the Sagrada Familia have mentioned that “any of you who wish to have Communion, can”, but you never know which languages will people actually understand.
That’s correct for attending mass. The ones I’ve been to were friendly and welcoming. Except for the communion part, we were explicitly told to not have communion if we weren’t Roman Catholic. I have no idea if it’s changed or if it was a misunderstanding of the rules or what the situation was, but that’s how it was twenty-some years ago when I went to some Catholic services in Ohio.
Ah, I see. It’s a terminology issue. You’re right that there is no problem from any point of view of attending Mass, ie going to a Eucharistic celebration and observing-Catholics aren’t Mormons, no secret ceremonies or anything. I was using the phrase ‘taking Mass’ to mean receiving and partaking of the Eucharistic elements. I should have been clearer. It might just be a dialect issue. We use ‘going to Mass’ to mean showing up and ‘taking Mass’ to mean partaking of the elements. No, I have attended Mass many, many times and it’s obviously not a problem. Probably encouraged I would wager.
No, that hasn’t changed. While many Protestant denominations (such as the Methodist church that I now attend) invite everyone to participate in Communion, in the RCC, it’s always been “only Catholics may receive communion.”
That may be true, but the exotic factor could also be part of its appeal.
I’ll be honest, I have myself considered attending an Orthodox service, if not actually formally joining the religion. There’s something about the traditions of it that seems very alluring. And I can’t be the only one who gets this impression.
Also, I ask again, do Orthodox sects actually go out and seek new members?
Unfortunately, scandals are just part of what it means to be Catholic. Now, you have bishops covering for sexual abuse. In the Middle Ages, you had bishops and popes with concubines and illegitimate children. In the early days of the Church, you had the Jewish converts trying to force the Gentile converts to get circumcized and adopt the Jewish dietary requirements.
Leaving the Catholic Church because of this latest scandal just doesn’t make any sense. As bad as things are, it’s nothing new and doesn’t change what the Church is. Jesus never promised that the Church would be great or even good. He just promised to be with us and that the gates of hell would not prevail. Where else can you find the Eucharist?