Anglican Church? Really confused.

[outfctrl]

I am sure this has been brought up before, but I would like some quick thoughts on this.
Last nite I was at my Daughters Volley Ball game. My ex mother-in-law was there with her husband. She has been having some medical problems so I asked how she was doing…some small talk and so on. Then I told her I have been going to Mass on a regular basis, which she was shocked.

Then she told me she has been going to this angelican Church with her husband. What? I said. I thought you were Catholic, I said. Then her husband sat down next to me and started to basically try and recruit me.

They dont believe in the Assumption, they do not follow the Popes word and they preach mostly from the Bible. He also said they say the same prayers, have Communion and all the other things us Catholics do.

He talked to me the whole time at the game. Trying to get me to come to their Church. I said, but not recognizing the Pope and folowing the Catholic Catechism is a sin. He laughed.

Then he went on about Gay priests in the Episcopal Religion and how they left the Church…blah blah blah.

When I left that place, I was like totally confused. It was like they are Catholic but not. He wants me to come to their Church and said I will like it better.

I will not go. My faith is with the Roman Catholic Church and thats it. PERIOD Who are these people? Sorry for being so long winded.
Did they just decide to do what they want?

 

[iamscifimike]

I’ve heard the episcopal church called Catholicism lite. It is a very attractive switch for those who have remarried. You should go,( on a week you feel like attending 2 masses), they will be more open to you if you do. After the mass tell them just that, it feels like Catholicism lite and you like Catholicism the way you know it’s meant to be.

You could also ask them if their church is a member of the anglican communion seeking reunion with Rome. I know that it is not, (it’s the Traditional Anglican Communion ) but I wonder what that would do to their new perspective.

 

[1ke]

Who are these people? Did they just decide to do what they want?

Remember, Satan himself said, “I will not serve.”

They are saying the same thing-- that they refuse to be obedient to Christ.

That is their choice in the exercise of free will. Pray for them.

 

[Contarini]

I am sure this has been brought up before, but I would like some quick thoughts on this.
Last nite I was at my Daughters Volley Ball game. My ex mother-in-law was there with her husband. She has been having some medical problems so I asked how she was doing…some small talk and so on. Then I told her I have been going to Mass on a regular basis, which she was shocked.

Then she told me she has been going to this angelican Church with her husband. What? I said. I thought you were Catholic, I said. Then her husband sat down next to me and started to basically try and recruit me.

They dont believe in the Assumption, they do not follow the Popes word and they preach mostly from the Bible. He also said they say the same prayers, have Communion and all the other things us Catholics do.

He talked to me the whole time at the game. Trying to get me to come to their Church. I said, but not recognizing the Pope and folowing the Catholic Catechism is a sin. He laughed.

Then he went on about Gay priests in the Episcopal Religion and how they left the Church…blah blah blah.

When I left that place, I was like totally confused. It was like they are Catholic but not. He wants me to come to their Church and said I will like it better.

I will not go. My faith is with the Roman Catholic Church and thats it. PERIOD Who are these people? Sorry for being so long winded.
Did they just decide to do what they want?

First of all, the title of your post is appropriate, because we Anglicans are pretty confused! No wonder that you find us confusing.

“Anglican” comes from the Latin “Ecclesia Anglicana,” which was originally the Catholic Church in England (it just means “English Church”). In the sixteenth century, King Henry VIII declared himself the leader of the English Church and forced it to declare independence from Rome–the specific issue was that the Pope wouldn’t give him an annulment, but monarchs of that era were trying to get more control over the churches in their territories in general. This was, of course, the era of the Protestant Reformation, so Protestant ideas played a role in the split and began to influence the belief and practice of the Church of England (i.e., the “Anglican Church”). After a lot of twists and turns, the Church of England wound up with a Protestant statement of faith and a form of worship shaped by Protestantism but still looking quite a bit like Catholic liturgy in many ways. Over time, Anglicans have returned more and more to Catholic practices, and to some extent also to Catholic beliefs (one common criticism of us is that we are “Catholics lite” and want all the cool rituals without the dogmas). However, there’s a huge variety among us–some of us are clearly Protestant, others almost indistinguishable from Catholicism. It’s a haven for people like me who find it hard to decide between Catholicism and Protestantism.

One further complication: Anglicanism is now a worldwide communion (largely resulting from colonies and missionary activity). In the U.S. (and also Scotland and a couple other places), the local church that is part of the Anglican Communion is called “The Episcopal Church.” However, there are conservative groups that have split away (originally over women’s ordination, and now over homosexuality) and call themselves “Anglican” but not “Episcopalian.” Furthermore, because of the homosexual issue the Episcopal Church is in conflict with the worldwide Anglican Communion, and some Anglican churches (particularly in Africa) have established “missions” in America with the goal of forming a more orthodox Anglican alternative to the Episcopal Church. So we Anglicans are even more confused and confusing than usual right now. It sounds from your post as if your friends are part of one of these conservative Anglican (not Episcopalian) churches.

Either way, in my opinion Anglicans have no business proselytizing devout, practicing Catholics, and as an Anglican I want to apologize for your friends’ inappropriate behavior.

Edwin

 

[Tomster]

outfctrl,

Well, if they are preaching from the Bible, ask them to expalin these verses:

John 17:20-30
John 10:16
2 John 1:10 (highly recommended)
Romans 12:4-5
Ephesians 4: 3-6
Galatians 1: 8-9 (highly recommended)
1 Corinthians 10
Titus 3:10 (this will make 'em howl)
2 Peter 2: 1-2

Our Lord tells us to beware of false prophets who will come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. They are blind leaders of the blind. All these passages show that Christ and his Apostles taught one and the same doctrine and that it was wrong and sinful to depart from it. What could symbolize unity better than the figures of of a kingdom, a sheep-fold, a vine, etc?

If you do engage them, prepare for some fireworks.

Tomster

 

[outfctrl]

Well, I will always think what my Mom told me as I was growing up.
The Catholic Church is the only true Church, all others are man made.

It’s just the way this guy was talking kind of made me mad.

He said that there is no record of the Assumption in the Bible and that it was pronounced in the 1800’s by the Pope. They dont believe in it.

 

[iamscifimike]

He said that there is no record of the Assumption in the Bible and that it was pronounced in the 1800’s by the Pope. They dont believe in it.

He’s not only confused, he’s wrong. While Mary’s Assumption isn’t specifically documented in the Bible, the tradition of assumption is. Her’s just occured outside the historical scope of the Bible.

Furthermore, Popes “pronounce” what the Church has always believed. It’s not something new.

 

[Tomster]

Well, I will always think what my Mom told me as I was growing up.
The Catholic Church is the only true Church, all others are man made.

It’s just the way this guy was talking kind of made me mad.

He said that there is no record of the Assumption in the Bible and that it was pronounced in the 1800’s by the Pope. They dont believe in it.

It sounds like your former in-laws have some trouble with history. The dogma of the Assumption was proclaimed on November 1, 1950 by Pope Pius XII with the Apostolic Constitution "Munificentissimus Deus.

Shortly after the proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception the Holy See was beseiged with petitions for the definition of the Assumption of our Lady. Not a few of the Fathers gathered at the 1st Vatican Council (1870) made the same request of Pope Pius IX. (The Vatican Council, Collectio Lacensis, VII, 860) From that time and up to the year 1941, the dogmatic definition of Mary’s Assumption was requested by 113 cardinals, over 300 archbishops and bishops, some 32,000 priests and brothers, 50,000 religious women, and by more than 8,000,000 laity. On May 1, 1946, the following qustionnaire was sent to all the bishops of the Catholic world: "Do you, Venerable Brethren, in view of the wisdom and prudence that is yours, judge that the bodily Assumption of the most Blessed Virgin can be proposed and defined as a dogma of faith; and do you along with your clergy and people desire it? Pope Pius XII assures us that the reply to both questions was “almost unanimous.” The Supreme Pontiff then drew the inevitable conclusion from the consent of those whom “the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule the Church of God” (Acts 20:28) Here is basically the outline of the definition.

1.) The Consent of the Bishops
2.) The Argument from Tradition
a. The belief of the faithful
b. The Liturgy as Witness
c. The Feast in the Roman Church
d. The Fathers as Witness
e. The Assumption in the O.T.
f. The Assumption in the N.T.
g. The Faith of the Church
h. The Pontiff’s Own Encomium

Unity - It’s a beautiful thing!

 

[tomarin]

i considered going to a “c of e” church once a few years back. i wasn’t a practicing catholic at the time and was living an unapologetically secular life. being an inveterate anglophile, i liked – and still like – the “look” of the churches. the one in my neighborhood has a vaguely welsh or “middle earth” feel to it.

something resolutely and stubbornly catholic at the heart of me held me back however. i’m not sure i could have gotten used to women priests, or the fact that the monarch of the united kingdom takes the place of the pope as the head of the religion (if i’m not mistaken).

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Well, I will always think what my Mom told me as I was growing up.
The Catholic Church is the only true Church, all others are man made.

It’s just the way this guy was talking kind of made me mad.

He said that there is no record of the Assumption in the Bible and that it was pronounced in the 1800’s by the Pope. They dont believe in it.

Anglicanism seems to be all over the map on the issue of the authority of Holy Scripture.

The 39 Articles of Religion (which some Anglicans embrace, and some reject as an historic relic) give Holy Scripture a very Protestant place in setting out the Faith. And yet, in practise, the authority of Holy Scripture seems to vary issue by issue.

When it comes to teachings of the Catholic Church that Anglicans don’t agree with, it gets a very prominent place. If it’s not explicitly in the Bible, then the claim is that it’s not to be believed. But when it comes to issues of chastity, then one often hears that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality (a fallacious argument from silence, as it happens), and that the passages in Leviticus are culturally dependent, and that the sin of Sodom was lack of hospitality. Many Anglicans I’ve encountered see Holy Scripture as mere human social records of “experience.”

This is all very sad, by the way. It has made things very traumatic and painful for those Anglicans who still seek to hold to the Christian truths they possess. Yes, “really confused” fits well, and it doesn’t seem to be getting any better for them. It would not be a bad thing to pray for the Christians among them. (Before I’m asked whether I’m implying that some Anglicans no longer profess the Christian faith, the answer is “yes.”)

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[GKC]

“(Before I’m asked whether I’m implying that some Anglicans no longer profess the Christian faith, the answer is “yes.”)”

Even so.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

 

[outfctrl]

Well, I am not planning on even attending. It just doesnt feel right to me. Granted, I was away from the Church for many years, sinned to no end and even denied my faith, but deep down inside of me was an empty feeling, a black hole sucking at my insides.

I came back to our Mother. I did not seek another religion to find inner peace or to justify some of the pleasures I gave up.

The road is hard, especially being single, but the rewards are great.

I am at peace. Thanks all for explaining this twist. I am sure he will contact me and try and sway me to his Church, but it wont happen.
Still, how can you be Catholic lite or partial Catholic or close to Catholic? Its sounds silly. You are either Catholic or not…PERIOD. At least in my book

 

[Fuerza]

Well, I will always think what my Mom told me as I was growing up.
The Catholic Church is the only true Church, all others are man made.

It’s just the way this guy was talking kind of made me mad.

He said that there is no record of the Assumption in the Bible and that it was pronounced in the 1800’s by the Pope. They dont believe in it.

I think you’ll find that references to the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Churches are particularly useful when speaking with Protestants who are ignorant of history. All these valid apostolic Churches have been separated from the Catholic Church for much longer than the Protestants have (and certainly since way before the 1800’s) and all believe in the Assumption. There are some minor differences in our understandings of it (ie- the Eastern Churches all believe that Mary first died before being assumed, while Catholics are free to believe either way), but we all believe that she was taken into Heaven body and soul.

Now if the Pope invented this belief in the 1800’s, where did these other Churches get it from?

 

[Contarini]

I think you’ll find that references to the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Churches are particularly useful when speaking with Protestants who are ignorant of history. All these valid apostolic Churches have been separated from the Catholic Church for much longer than the Protestants have (and certainly since way before the 1800’s) and all believe in the Assumption. There are some minor differences in our understandings of it (ie- the Eastern Churches all believe that Mary first died before being assumed, while Catholics are free to believe either way), but we all believe that she was taken into Heaven body and soul.

That’s not true. The Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome do not dogmatize the Assumption, although you are right that they have traditions about it.

Now if the Pope invented this belief in the 1800’s, where did these other Churches get it from?

The Pope didn’t invent it, but he did make it dogma–not in the 1800s but in the 1900s. That is the innovation that other catholic Christians reject. It is appropriate as a pious tradition, but there was never any need to make it a dogma.

Edwin

 

[tomarin]

That’s not true. The Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome do not dogmatize the Assumption, although you are right that they have traditions about it.

The Pope didn’t invent it, but he did make it dogma–not in the 1800s but in the 1900s. That is the innovation that other catholic Christians reject. It is appropriate as a pious tradition, but there was never any need to make it a dogma.

Edwin

there would have been no way for the eastern orthodox to make it an official doctrine even if they had wanted to, seeing as they have no central authority and do not convene councils anymore. correct?

when the church rules on such things it is usually after a long period in which the belief is held by the faithful, whether the church has made an official pronouncement on it or not.

 

[tomarin]

Still, how can you be Catholic lite or partial Catholic or close to Catholic? Its sounds silly. You are either Catholic or not…PERIOD. At least in my book

if you were inclined to investigate it, i think you’d find that ecumenical protestants see christianity as something somewhat larger than catholicism. they might see catholicism as one important strand woven into the rope of christianity – even the largest and strongest strand – but even then it’s not the only one or the only essential one.

whereas we see catholicism as nothing less than authentic christianity, the mother church, and everything else as something less than the full truth.

anyway, good luck getting your anglican in-law to back off.

 

[Tomster]

I think you’ll find that references to the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Churches are particularly useful when speaking with Protestants who are ignorant of history. All these valid apostolic Churches have been separated from the Catholic Church for much longer than the Protestants have (and certainly since way before the 1800’s) and all believe in the Assumption. There are some minor differences in our understandings of it (ie- the Eastern Churches all believe that Mary first died before being assumed, while Catholics are free to believe either way), but we all believe that she was taken into Heaven body and soul.

Now if the Pope invented this belief in the 1800’s, where did these other Churches get it from?

Fuerza,

Well said.

St. John Damascene, d. 749A.D., the last of the Greek Fathers, is one of the outstanding liturgical poets of the East. In his “On the Falling Asleep of the Mother of God,” he writes: " . . . There was need that this dwelling meet for God, this undug well of remission’s waters, this unploughed field of heaven’s bread, this unwatered vineyard of immortality’s wine, this olive tree of the Father’s compassion, ever green and fair and fruitful, be not imprisoned in the hallows of the earth. Rather, just as the holy and incorrupt body that had been born of her, the body that was united hypostatically to God the Word, rose from the tomb on the third day, so she too should be snatched from the grave and the Mother restored to the Son; and, as He had descended to her, so she should be carried up . . . to heaven. There was need that she, who had entertained God the Word in the guest chamber of the womb, should be brought home to the dwelling of her Son; and just as the Lord said that He must be in the place that belongs to His Father, so the Mother had to take up her abode in the palace of her Son, in the house of the Lord, in the court of the house of our God. There was need that the body of her, who in childbirth had preserved her virginity without stain, be preserved incorrupt even after death. There was need that she, who had carried her Creator as a babe on her bosom, should linger lovingly in the dwelling of her God. There was need that the bride, whom the Father had betrothed to Himself, should live in the bridal chamber of heaven. There was need that she, who had looked so closely on her very own Son on the Cross, who there felt in her own heart the sword-pangs of sorrow which in bearing Him she had been spared, should look upon Him seated with His Father. There was need that the Mother of God should enter into the possessions of her Son and, as Mother of God and handmaid, be reverenced by all creation . . . For the Son has enslaved all creation to His Mother."

How beautiful! How true!

 

[AgnosTheist]

Either way, in my opinion Anglicans have no business proselytizing devout, practicing Catholics, and as an Anglican I want to apologize for your friends’ inappropriate behavior.

nobody has any business proselytizing with anybody. now make an apology on behalf of christianity.

 

[tomarin]

nobody has any business proselytizing with anybody. now make an apology on behalf of christianity.

aren’t you proselytizing for your belief system right now?

 

[AgnosTheist]

aren’t you proselytizing for your belief system right now?

i was just being sarcastic. like why prohibit one and not the other? lets all respect freedom of expression, freedom of beliefs. as long as there is no arm twisting, it should be okay.