Anglicanism vs. Catholicism

[Paul_Rimmer]

What I meant was that: “it seems clear to me that they fall in line. . . although they do have some ambiguity.” In other words, while I grant that there is ambiguity, I think that this has been overplayed by Anglo-Catholics.

That’s why I asked. I agree, somewhat. I’m not sure if I read them with the author’s intent, but I’m not sure if that’s so important. That I can really mean them in some plain sense seems enough to me.

Many of the qualifications the Articles and Homilies make–allowing for the importance of good works, the value of tradition if kept in submission to the Scriptures, the real reception of Christ’s Body and Blood in a “heavenly and spiritual manner”–are typical of Continental Reformed theology.

That’s interesting. Maybe I’m more akin to continental Reformed Christianity than I thought. The way you describe the Eucharist is almost identical to what I believe.

You mean that you don’t think the one-bishop-one-city rule is important?

Not particularly. The reason is the advent of globalism. It’s easy enough to travel, and the temporal role of Bishops I think has changed somewhat from what it once was. I see this rule as good and effective for its time, and not very useful now.

But I think Roman Catholics can justify this better than the Orthodox, because they claim (rightly or wrongly) the authority to change the discipline and worship, even the traditional discipline and worship of the Church, and they have robust arguments justifying that authority.

What makes you think that I’m more Roman Catholic than Orthodox?

The way you express youreself, the language you use, the arguments, it’s hard to describe. Your use of the word “transubstantiation” (at least I’m pretty sure that was you) is a good example.

I don’t find them “away from my cultural comfort.” But given the local focus of my ecclesiology, the fact that there’s no Orthodox parish in my town is a major issue.

That makes sense. I know many Americans who are very happy in the Orthodox Church. I, myself, tried it for a while, going to Divine Liturgy and attending Catechism. Both my wife and I felt as though we were on another planet, and the alienation from the service became worse with time. We love the people, though, and certainly saw the majesty and the deep respect for tradition and church history in their Divine Liturgy. A beautiful and noble Church.

 

[Nine_Two]

Christians should always make decisions as part of a community, yes. To reject Protestantism by an individual choice is intrinsically paradoxical–maybe self-defeating. It baffles me that more converts to Catholicism or Orthodoxy do not see how serious a problem this is.

As someone who converted to the Orthodox Church as an individual, I’ll take a shot at this.

I don’t think it is at all paradoxical, or self-defeating. Modern day Evangelicalism may be all about personal choice, and deciding what you believe, but that is a very recent development. With the Reformation each of the major Protestant groups established their own orthodoxy, and actively protected it - even more zealously at times than the Catholics or Orthodox. The Wars of Religion in Germany we not fought over the right of people to choose their own faith, but for the German princes to choose the religion within their domains. Even what we today call Germany never truly had freedom of religion, if you lived in Bavaria you would be Catholic, if you lived in Brandenburg you would be Lutheran (or possibly Calvinist depending on when you did it).

The belief that simply because I was born into a faith, I should continue it, just doesn’t work with me, particularly when I know the faith I was born into is fundamentally wrong (and you’ve already brought up many of those reasons).

Now, unlike you, I risked nothing officially leaving the Anglican Church (I had ceased to have anything to do with it years before, except Christmas and Easter with the family), so I do respect the position you’re in, but I don’t think that means waiting for someone else to decide something is the proper thing. If you already believe your religion to lack fullness, then why wait for the opinion of a man (or possibly woman) who’s religion also lacks fullness for spiritual guidence?

 

[Nine_Two]

Oh, I don’t mean to ignore the East. If they establish a Patriarch of England or the United States, I’ll seriously consider them. Until then, it’s just too far away from my cultural comfort for me to really consider converting.

So what’s your issue with the OCA? Over 50% of the clergy are native, as are the vast majority of the parishoners (including people whose background is in an Orthodox country, but who have assimilated), the head of the Church, not granted the title of Metropolitan out of respect for the situation with Bishops, is a native of California with a German background.

Seems you have your American church.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

So what’s your issue with the OCA? Over 50% of the clergy are native, as are the vast majority of the parishoners (including people whose background is in an Orthodox country, but who have assimilated), the head of the Church, not granted the title of Metropolitan out of respect for the situation with Bishops, is a native of California with a German background.

That’s where my wife and I attended. The liturgy was too foreign for us. I would want an American or English Patriarch (or other Western Patriarch) with a Western Rite liturgy. I really like the Western Rite Orthodox parishes over the world, but none are close to us right now anyway.

 

[Nine_Two]

That’s where my wife and I attended. The liturgy was too foreign for us. I would want an American or English Patriarch (or other Western Patriarch) with a Western Rite liturgy. I really like the Western Rite Orthodox parishes over the world, but none are close to us right now anyway.

But the rite of the liturgy is something altogether different than a patriarchy.

Although I must confess, I would love to some day go to a Western Rite Divine Liturgy, like you one is too far away from me.

I’ve found the individual Parish can change things though. I think if I had lived where I do now and converted I wouldn’t be as comfortable with the Church, it has more of an Eastern feel than my old one. I won’t deny there is an element of comfort level, though I can’t really say how much that would have influenced me in the long run.

 

[Contarini]

That’s where my wife and I attended. The liturgy was too foreign for us.

I’m probably insufficiently sympathetic to this, because my first in-depth exposure to a sacramental/liturgical tradition of Christianity was Romanian Orthodoxy. I certainly found it “foreign,” but I found *all *liturgical worship foreign at that point. (Well, I’d been listening to “With Heart and Voice” and other sacred music radio programs for several years, so in that sense I was somewhat familiar with Western liturgy.) I grew to know and love Eastern and Western liturgy together, and I still love both.

I would miss Western hymns and the Book of Common Prayer if I were to attend a Byzantine church–but attending the church I do, I miss Byzantine liturgy!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

It’s usaully done by distinguishing the two as Dominical; established of our Lord, Gospel based, with form. These are the ones that are generally necessary, i.e. necessary to Christians in general.

The five are commonly called sacraments (commonly called being Anglican-speak for “another name”, as the Fifth Sunday in Lent, commonly called Passion Sunday, the Nativity of Our Lord, or the Birthday of Christ, commonly called Christmas Day. Five Sacraments, two Dominical, established of Our Lord, in form.

Yes, that was the way I was taught to interpret it in the Anglo-Catholic parish where I was confirmed.

I come to this as a student of the Continental Reformation, and I’m generally more struck by the similarities between what was going on in England and what was going on on the Continent than by the differences.

That of course doesn’t deny that there’s real continuity between Anglicanism and the pre-Reformation tradition, or indeed that there was more so (at least in terms of order) than on the Continent. The model hoped for by a number of the Reformers (Bucer, Melancthon, even Calvin) on the Continent seems to have been more or less what happened in England (or at least what appeared to be happening until late in the century): set up an independent ecclesiastical structure in continuity with the historic Catholic Church, but free from Rome and open to the preaching of Protestant doctrine. Then gradually leaven this national church with Protestantism (which the Reformers assumed would eventually convince all people of good will). As I read it, the Puritan movement originated from the cognitive dissonance of realizing that Elizabeth wasn’t going to let this process continue beyond a certain point. Certainly the more hardline nature of Genevan Calvinism (itself influenced by the persecutions and religious wars in France, which quenched the hopes Protestants had had in the 30s and 40s that France would follow in the footsteps of England) played a role as well.

OK–I’m digressing!

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Yes, that was the way I was taught to interpret it in the Anglo-Catholic parish where I was confirmed.

I come to this as a student of the Continental Reformation, and I’m generally more struck by the similarities between what was going on in England and what was going on on the Continent than by the differences.

That of course doesn’t deny that there’s real continuity between Anglicanism and the pre-Reformation tradition, or indeed that there was more so (at least in terms of order) than on the Continent. The model hoped for by a number of the Reformers (Bucer, Melancthon, even Calvin) on the Continent seems to have been more or less what happened in England (or at least what appeared to be happening until late in the century): set up an independent ecclesiastical structure in continuity with the historic Catholic Church, but free from Rome and open to the preaching of Protestant doctrine. Then gradually leaven this national church with Protestantism (which the Reformers assumed would eventually convince all people of good will). As I read it, the Puritan movement originated from the cognitive dissonance of realizing that Elizabeth wasn’t going to let this process continue beyond a certain point. Certainly the more hardline nature of Genevan Calvinism (itself influenced by the persecutions and religious wars in France, which quenched the hopes Protestants had had in the 30s and 40s that France would follow in the footsteps of England) played a role as well.

OK–I’m digressing!

Edwin

Maybe so. But I’m agreeing. And Elizabeth set up the structure to handle the inevitable tension, keep the rowdies from running the place and scaring the horses.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

So do you think that every person who chooses Catholicism or Orthodoxy is a self-proclaimed infallible type?

No.

** I’m confused by this statement. Are you saying since you’re not infallible you can never in your lifetime come to find the right Church where you belong?**

I’m saying that that’s the wrong model.

The Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches can only teach and lead, we must make the decision, it’s free will?

Indeed. But we make decisions as part of a community.

In your previous post you made it sound (perhaps I misread you) that you wouldn’t jump to Rome or Orthodoxy on your own, you’d like your Episcopal diocese to do it and that would be acceptable? Now you don’t even acknowledge them as existing or taking you anywhere? I’m on a roll with confusion today. I’m just misreading your statements apparently.

First of all, I didn’t say I wouldn’t, only that I was reluctant to do so. There’s a difference.

Second, what I meant in my last post was that “Anglicanism” is not some sort of mystical entity (such as “Catholicism” and “Orthodoxy” are both claimed by their adherents to be) which can guide me somewhere. It’s just a bunch of fallible Christians. But since it is the bunch of fallible Christians with whom I presently worship, I take these fallible, sinful, messed-up Christians seriously as the people to whom I have the closest ties and the most responsibilities, and to whose wisdom (imperfect as it is) I should listen, as I hope they listen to mine (such as it is).

Then what’s the point in delving so deep into theology and having all these theories and spending the time if lex orandi, lex credendi does it for you?** It’s a waste of time if you local worship is all you need.**

First of all, I waste a lot of time. I came back to the forum after a week away because when I wasn’t here I was wasting time rearranging my Netflix queue! Wasting time is one of my biggest faults. So on one level, theological speculation is a fun pastime to which I’m addicted.

But I do hope that it’s more than that. I hope that I can influence the community/communities of which I’m part.

**Ultimately don’t you think God expects every man to judge where he belongs? **

Yes, but not in a vacuum.

** What about Augustine? The guy was a Manichaean and a Neo-Platonist, a womanizer, a secularized lost soul. He came to a realization through a long and slow, steady process that he must become a Catholic. And he did. Was he using private judgment and being arrogant?**

Augustine was returning to his mother’s Church, led by his mother’s tears. It wasn’t all about his lonely search for the truth. If it hadn’t been for his Christian upbringing, he might well have settled down as a pagan Neo-Platonist–but Platonism was lacking the name of Christ, which he had been taught to revere.

My mother’s tears are all on the other side. She has changed quite a bit now (she’s told me repeatedly over the last few years that while she hopes I don’t become Catholic or Orthodox, she will understand and respect my decision if I do), but when I first investigated Catholicism she did a good job of imitating St. Monica.

Francis Beckwith was more in Augustine’s position.

I’m not saying that individual conversion doesn’t happen. But when it happens–and in fact this is the way Augustine described it, and his experience has shaped Western Christendom powerfully–it is traditionally seen as being converted by the Holy Spirit, not as “converting” through one’s own choice as is often said today.

** How do you suggest one find his place in Christendom? You’re saying Anglicans won’t get you there**

I said Anglicanism won’t get me there, because nominalism is true with regard to Anglicanism (though possibly false with regard to Catholicism). Anglicanism is just a bunch of people. They have better things to do than get me places. And they aren’t “they,” they are “we.”

you can’t challenge your wife’s views (whatever they are),

Oh, I challenge them all the time–you should ask her! I just don’t disregard them.

** you can’t rely on your bishop to inspire you to other places, you don’t recognize Protestantism as valid and you don’t recognize Catholicism or Orthodoxy as viable choices because you’d have to make the decision to go to one.**

I regard them as viable choices. What I don’t regard as viable is your attitude of “well, you know one of them is true, so just pick one.” I need something more compelling than that.

And in making the decision to go to one you’d be exercising private judgment? That is the weirdest logic I’ve ever heard in here, respectfully?

It’s hardly a point original with me, and it seems rather obvious. It’s actually quite a standard objection.

** How do you make decisions if every decision ultimately has to come from YOU and you don’t trust yourself to make one because it’s “private judgment?” **

Well, I’m not good at making decisions. I admit that.
That is no doubt one reason why I’m drawn to a theology that says that we aren’t supposed to be floating around in a vacuum making decisions on our own.

We make decisions together, as a Christian community.

We are coming to this from very different perspectives–I understand why you are so puzzled!

God bless,

Edwin

 

[JohnnyReb]

So do you think that every person who chooses Catholicism or Orthodoxy is a self-proclaimed infallible type?

No.

I’m saying that that’s the wrong model.

Catholics often accuse Protestants of being “little popes” or being their own Pope, since they decide individually what the truth is, and what the right church is. Of course, people who choose Catholicism and Orthodoxy, or any other branch of Christianity, cannot all be infallible. Its self defeating, since not all churches teach the same thing. Is it possible that Catholics act the same way in choose the Catholic church?

Indeed. But we make decisions as part of a community.

We should, but unfortunately Christians have not always, hence the schisms which have occured, regardless of who is to blame.

Second, what I meant in my last post was that “Anglicanism” is not some sort of mystical entity (such as “Catholicism” and “Orthodoxy” are both claimed by their adherents to be) which can guide me somewhere. It’s just a bunch of fallible Christians. But since it is the bunch of fallible Christians with whom I presently worship, I take these fallible, sinful, messed-up Christians seriously as the people to whom I have the closest ties and the most responsibilities, and to whose wisdom (imperfect as it is) I should listen, as I hope they listen to mine (such as it is).

Here is my question. I am a confirmed Catholic. Recently I went to confession and confessed the sin of going to other Churches and receiving communion there. The most recent church I had attended was Anglican. Why? I wanted to maintain sacramental worship, the liturgy while being open to both Catholic and Protestant ideas. I wanted to remain rooted in traditional Christianity, but do away with things that I questioned about Rome. Orthodoxy seems too inaccessible, and has a few questionable things as well, but not as many as Rome.

 

[GKC]

Catholics often accuse Protestants of being “little popes” or being their own Pope, since they decide individually what the truth is, and what the right church is. Of course, people who choose Catholicism and Orthodoxy, or any other branch of Christianity, cannot all be infallible. Its self defeating, since not all churches teach the same thing. Is it possible that Catholics act the same way in choose the Catholic church?

We should, but unfortunately Christians have not always, hence the schisms which have occured, regardless of who is to blame.

Here is my question. I am a confirmed Catholic. Recently I went to confession and confessed the sin of going to other Churches and receiving communion there. The most recent church I had attended was Anglican. Why? I wanted to maintain sacramental worship, the liturgy while being open to both Catholic and Protestant ideas. I wanted to remain rooted in traditional Christianity, but do away with things that I questioned about Rome. Orthodoxy seems too inaccessible, and has a few questionable things as well, but not as many as Rome.

I’ve know folks in situations like yours. I wish you luck.

GKC

*Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[Contarini]

Catholics often accuse Protestants of being “little popes” or being their own Pope, since they decide individually what the truth is, and what the right church is. Of course, people who choose Catholicism and Orthodoxy, or any other branch of Christianity, cannot all be infallible. Its self defeating, since not all churches teach the same thing. Is it possible that Catholics act the same way in choose the Catholic church?

Sometimes they do. Not necessarily. And of course your position as a confirmed Catholic is very different. Why not just take the Church on trust? At the very worst, it’s highly unlikely to get things more wrong than you will do on your own, or than any Protestant tradition has done.

Here is my question. I am a confirmed Catholic. Recently I went to confession and confessed the sin of going to other Churches and receiving communion there. The most recent church I had attended was Anglican. Why? I wanted to maintain sacramental worship, the liturgy while being open to both Catholic and Protestant ideas. I wanted to remain rooted in traditional Christianity, but do away with things that I questioned about Rome. Orthodoxy seems too inaccessible, and has a few questionable things as well, but not as many as Rome.

I’m a bit confused–if you went to communion in an Anglican church because you didn’t think you could be Catholic any more, why go back to a Catholic priest to confess this “sin”? Do you mean that you changed your mind? (I’m not criticizing you for this–I change my mind on these issues several times a week, and that’s in my more stable periods!)

What are the things you question about Rome? Unless you become Orthodox, I’m reasonably confident that joining any other church will land you in a worse pickle. Anglicanism’s ambiguity is appealing–that’s how I came to join it, though I came from the other side (nondenominational Protestantism of the Wesleyan Holiness tradition). But what you have in Anglicanism is several radically different understandings of Christianity coexisting (more or less), with radically different standards of authority. The version of Anglicanism I was taught by the priest in whose parish I was confirmed is not the version subscribed to by any of my subsequent pastors. Indeed, I think it would be fair to say that the four more-or-less permanent pastors I’ve had (one of them was an “interim vicar” for about a year and a half–I’m excluding the wacky fan of Teilhard de Chardin who filled in regularly for several months between the interim vicar and the new rector) each had significantly different understandings of what Anglicans’ standard of authority is.

Edwin

 

[StevieD]

I don’t see an “Anglicanism vs. Catholicism”. Like Lord Halifax, who I greatly admire (and from whom I borrowed for my signature), it’s never been Anglicanism vs. Catholicism. It’s been some Anglicans vs. some Roman Catholics, and the rest of the Catholics, the majority, I think, caught in the middle, with the saints desiring truth in love.

There is no question in my mind that most of the problems with the genuine Anglican Church (which honors the 39 articles) and Rome could begin to be resolved if Rome would again reconsider the validity of Anglican Orders.

The Mormons consider themselves Christians, it doesn’t mean that they are. It is the same with the Anglican claim to be Catholic.
The 39 Articles themselves would present major problems in an moves to corporate re-union, they confirm that Anglicans are episcopalian Protestants.
The invalidity of Anglican orders was decided after very thorough research by Rome and a subsequent appeal by some Anglican bishops. It isn’t going to be changed. The Church doesn’t go in for doing identical work and producing a different decision.

 

[GKC]

The Mormons consider themselves Christians, it doesn’t mean that they are. It is the same with the Anglican claim to be Catholic.
The 39 Articles themselves would present major problems in an moves to corporate re-union, they confirm that Anglicans are episcopalian Protestants.
The invalidity of Anglican orders was decided after very thorough research by Rome and a subsequent appeal by some Anglican bishops. It isn’t going to be changed. The Church doesn’t go in for doing identical work and producing a different decision.

the Articles are not normative for Anglicanism.

(oops) hit submit too soon. Back in a moment.

GKC

 

[JohnnyReb]

Sometimes they do. Not necessarily. And of course your position as a confirmed Catholic is very different. Why not just take the Church on trust? At the very worst, it’s highly unlikely to get things more wrong than you will do on your own, or than any Protestant tradition has done.

That’s true. Such people are called Cafeteria Catholics. They get criticized very heavily by Catholic online apologists, whom seem to fall into a stream of Catholic fundementalism. Most Catholics I have met have differed from the Church on at least one or two points, such as attending Mass every week but also using birth control.

I’m a bit confused–if you went to communion in an Anglican church because you didn’t think you could be Catholic any more, why go back to a Catholic priest to confess this “sin”? Do you mean that you changed your mind? (I’m not criticizing you for this–I change my mind on these issues several times a week, and that’s in my more stable periods!)

For clarity, I went to my local Catholic parish and confessed leaving the church and receiving the sacrament of the Eucharist in the Anglican church. Its a sin in the eyes of Rome, but not it is, but confessed it anyway.

What are the things you question about Rome? Unless you become Orthodox, I’m reasonably confident that joining any other church will land you in a worse pickle. Anglicanism’s ambiguity is appealing–that’s how I came to join it, though I came from the other side (nondenominational Protestantism of the Wesleyan Holiness tradition). But what you have in Anglicanism is several radically different understandings of Christianity coexisting (more or less), with radically different standards of authority. The version of Anglicanism I was taught by the priest in whose parish I was confirmed is not the version subscribed to by any of my subsequent pastors. Indeed, I think it would be fair to say that the four more-or-less permanent pastors I’ve had (one of them was an “interim vicar” for about a year and a half–I’m excluding the wacky fan of Teilhard de Chardin who filled in regularly for several months between the interim vicar and the new rector) each had significantly different understandings of what Anglicans’ standard of authority is.

Edwin

I came to Catholicism from the path of conservative evangelicalism, namely Pentecostalism. I find Catholicism more inline with historical Christianity than Pentecostalism, that is why I went to the RCC. Pentecostalism has many flaws that you and I would probably agree on from reading this discussion. I too reasoned that the Protestant Reformation was gravely in error. Likewise, the foundational doctrine of Sola Scriptura, I concluded, could not stand up to rational scrutiny. Orthodoxy was inaccessible, Methodism was not as sacramental in practice as it was in theory. Anglican (Episcopal, as I knew it) Christianity seemed to have gone too liberal. Anglicanism almost began to look like it had as much in common with Orthodoxy and Protestantism as it did Catholicism, so it seemd like a good fit to get all streams of Christianity flowing into one sea.

Orthodoxy does have alot of appeal to me. Its historical and Apostolic Christianity. While not disagreeing with things like the Assumption of Mary, they do not declare them dogma and require them to be believed for salvation. In seminary (I studied to be a Protestant minister) I wrote a paper which had a section called “A Sola Scriptura defense of the Orthodox position on Filoque” for my Gospel of John class. My acceptance of Catholicism’s position on the doctrine was rooted in my eventual acceptance of the Pope’s authority.

 

[GKC]

The Mormons consider themselves Christians, it doesn’t mean that they are. It is the same with the Anglican claim to be Catholic.
The 39 Articles themselves would present major problems in an moves to corporate re-union, they confirm that Anglicans are episcopalian Protestants.
The invalidity of Anglican orders was decided after very thorough research by Rome and a subsequent appeal by some Anglican bishops. It isn’t going to be changed. The Church doesn’t go in for doing identical work and producing a different decision.

I waited too long to edit my other post. Here’s the rest.

To resume.

Apostolicae Curae was not the result of particularly thorough research. The 8 man (originally 6) commission first met on 24 Mar, 1896, for a procedural meeting. There followed 10 working meetings, which lasted each, as far as can be determined, around 3 hours each. A final procedural meeting was held, on 7 May 1896. Roughly 2/3s of the working hours addressed historical topics, which was in line with the 2 part charter the commission had. The Edwardine Ordinal was brought up, in the 8th working session. No record is available of a discussion on intent. The commission then wound up its work and passed their conclusions to the Cardinals who were to advise Leo.

The Cardinals met about a month or so later, 16 July 1896. It was a Feria V meeting, under the presidency of the Pope. And lasted around 3 hours. The result was Apostolicae Curae, primarily written by Monsignor Raphael Merry del Val, who had been the secretary for the commission, and in close contact with Herbert, Cardinal Vaughan, both before and after it.

Much was going on behind the scenes, before and after the commission and the Cardinal’s meeting. But the process is not best described as research.

There was no appeal by any Anglican bishops. The process by which Apostolicae Curae came into being was not one that had any Anglican (name removed by moderator)ut, nor was it something the Anglicans could appeal. The Archbishops of York and Canterbury write a politely worded reply, Saepius Officio, which is well worth reading, but probably only if one is interested in the history of what happened.

No one I know of expects a change in the opinions and conclusions expressed Apostolicae Curae.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

That’s true. Such people are called Cafeteria Catholics.

People who take the Church on trust? No, they’re called faithful Catholics
Cafeteria Catholics are people who *don’t *trust the Church but remain part of it anyway.

I agree that many online apologists fall into a fundamentalist attitude.

Most Catholics I have met have differed from the Church on at least one or two points, such as attending Mass every week but also using birth control.

Yes. I know it’s harder as a convert, but you’re already there
I got cold feet earlier and dropped out of RCIA (more than ten years ago now–but I’m still obsessed with Catholicism!).

What exactly are your problems with RC dogma?

Edwin

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Aren’t these two one in the same? A Catholic who is 100% faithful to the magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church would be labeled a “fundamentalist Catholic,” wouldn’t he? It’s not so much an “attitude” I’d say as being a faithful Catholic.

People who take the Church on trust? No, they’re called faithful CatholicsCafeteria Catholics are people who *don’t *trust the Church but remain part of it anyway.

I agree that many online apologists fall into a fundamentalist attitude.

Yes. I know it’s harder as a convert, but you’re already there
I got cold feet earlier and dropped out of RCIA (more than ten years ago now–but I’m still obsessed with Catholicism!).

What exactly are your problems with RC dogma?

Edwin

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Anyone know what happened to the OP? LOL

 

[Soldier_X]

Anyone know what happened to the OP? LOL

He’s joining the Bay Area Swim Team 2010 or the Pacific Swim Team 2010 or something like that.