Anglicans: Why don't you come home to Rome?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dempsey1919
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dempsey1919 said:
I know the title of this thread because I started this thread.

I am not dicating anything to you. I don’t want this thread to be locked because the conversation strayed off topic. That was my only reason for asking you not to discuss whether the Catholic view on artificial contraception is right or wrong. A topic of that size needs its own thread.

I know many Anglicans will struggle with the Catholic beliefs regarding artificial contraception and I know that many will not convert because of this. This specific teaching will be the reason many do not come home to Rome.
Click to expand...
I think we will find that trying to limit the scope of responses to your question will be difficult. As you stated, many in the large Anglican communion feel strongly about the right of families and individuals to practice family planning in accordance with their own beliefs. If you remove this reason for not coming “home to Rome” you will exclude responses that provide some of the informaiton you are seeking. From my view, it is kind of like asking “What is favorite Italian food?” but then trying to excludes the answers that contain “lasagna.”

I agree that this could easily morph into a debate about the merits of NFP. We will all have to work at keeping our posts relevant and not straying into the weeds.

God Bless!
 
emeraldcoast said:
The title of the post is “Anglicans: Why don’t you come home to Rome?”

Are you trying to dictate to me what my reasons for not “coming home to Rome” should be?? Sorry, not going to work with this Anglican…

God Bless!
Click to expand...
Why are you aggressive to those who want to be your friends??🤷
 
Cinette said:
Why are you aggressive to those who want to be your friends??🤷
Click to expand...
Sorry Cinette and anyone else that I may have offended. My intention was not to offend but to share my point of view with those that are interested.

God Bless!
 
slyboots said:
Alexia,
This thread is not about fighting hunger, poverty, or world health. it is about what keeps people from becoming Catholic.
There are other threads which discuss these other issues.
Our Church addresses those issues around the world. Perhaps that could give you the impetus to look into joining us.
Click to expand...
I think you might want to read back a number of posts. Your reply has very little to do with what we were discussing. If you had read any of my previous posts, I doubt you would be asking me to “look into joining us.” It is to say the least, not quite on the mark.
 
Cinette said:
I understand what you are saying but you must understand also that there are many other people who are excited about all kinds of issues and will debate furiously. What you must do is look for other threads regarding other issues.

Insofar as Anglicanism is concerned I would love to see them all unite with us but at the same time I would not like to see some do so and leave the Anglican Church in the hands of some goofy, crazy liberals who will wreak havoc and turn the Anglican Church into a haven for homosexuals and the like. I used the word liberals only in the “laisser faire” sense.

I would also like to apologise for the use of the word homosexuals because there are many who live normal respectable lives without trying to change their subculture into the mainstream of normality - that was a mouthful! :eek:

😛
Click to expand...
No doubt we “crazy liberals” will do just that. LOL
 
Cinette said:
Ever heard of Natural Family Planning? It works!🙂
Click to expand...
According to some of your own, it may work for some, but certainly not for all. I’ve never been convinced it offers anything but contraception under another name, and as I said, some Catholics have explained that much better than I. I too reject the Roman church because of its stance against contraception. It is both a reasonable means to plan families and means to prevent disease. Abstinence of course works perfectly. Unfortunately, it is not accepted by most people as a viable means of birth control.You either treat the problem or you sit on the sidelines and castigate those who don’t follow your wishes. The first saves lives, the second makes angry opponents in my opinion.
 
AlexiaMusing said:
Is there something you are driving at? I was born into a Catholic family, and converted about 20 years ago. Your point? Is there something I 'm doing wrong being new as you put it? I don’t certainly mean to offend anyone. I’m slightly bewildered I guess???
Click to expand...
I guess my point is, I think you used to post under a different name, and you are a very recent (< 1 month) convert to Episcopalian church. It’s just a little strange that you are referring to us as “Romans” when you yourself claimed to be Catholic just a few months ago.
 
AlexiaMusing said:
According to some of your own, it may work for some, but certainly not for all. I’ve never been convinced it offers anything but contraception under another name, and as I said, some Catholics have explained that much better than I.** I too reject the Roman church because of its stance against contraception.** It is both a reasonable means to plan families and means to prevent disease. Abstinence of course works perfectly. Unfortunately, it is not accepted by most people as a viable means of birth control.You either treat the problem or you sit on the sidelines and castigate those who don’t follow your wishes. The first saves lives, the second makes angry opponents in my opinion.
Click to expand...
“I too reject the Roman church because of its stance against contraception.”

You see that remark is where I like to make my point. The Chuch didn’t begin with us. WE don’t lay down the rules. WE obey. We can’t say to God I don’t like this or that. That is what Henry VIII said and promptly started his own church. He wanted to be the boss. He wanted to custom build the church.

Think about it. We may not LIKE something. We may like to trade in our husbands/wives for a new model every now and then but we simply CAN’T. There is also culture of life which we must obey and strive for.

You said “it doesn’t work for some”. I think you may be thinking of the rythmn method. Actually, you may be right it may not work for some. What if it doesn’t? Are we to reject the Church for that??

:tsktsk: :tsktsk:
 
emeraldcoast said:
Hi Tom,

The CC teaching on birth control is one reason why I don’t join the CC and that is nested with HIV/AIDS education policy.
Click to expand...
When it comes to coming home ot Rome, the course of action chosen by individual Anglicans is one approach, and the course chosen by Anglican churches is another.

In my opinion, Birth control and HIV/AIDS are rather small topics to stall out a genuine quest for Christ’s Church. Take the Eucharist: the CC teaches this is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, hidden under the appearance of bread and wine. The idea is that no King (or Queen for that matter) has the authority or capacity to institute this Sacrament. This presentation of the consecrated Host relies on the unbroken chair of Apostolic Succession.

Angicans contemplating the infalability of the Pope need to fix their attention on just what has already passed. Ultimately, the Early Church Fathers recognized the supremacy of the Pople in matters dealing with Faith and Morals. The very scriptures themselves come from the CC - and Protestantism decided that this was too much so did their own editing.

I am guessing that any effort to return ‘home’ would involve a genuine setting aside of preconceived ideas and humble prayer to know God’s Will in this area. No small order - but one that will require both prayer and study. Truly, to simply draw a line in the sand and say, ‘This is not appropriate’ without a solid basis rather then personal convenience, annecdote or habit is the issue. No one said returning ‘home’ would be easy - and, in reality, it may just be too much of an effort. It really depends on where it is you really want to be.

God bless.
 
Ok. The top answers seem to be:
  1. Artificial contraception
  2. Papal infallibility
  3. The Blessed Mother as advocate for us
If I am correct in this, and I may not be, then perhaps the next step is to give links to the threads where these issues are discussed and explained more fully. Hopefully with more understanding of the catholic views on these matters we can help remove the barriers.

Oh yeah. For those that won’t join us because we don’t give out condoms as a means to stop AIDS…I repeat condoms are not the answer.
 
slyboots said:
Ok. The top answers seem to be:
  1. Artificial contraceptionIt is not easy but there are solutions. Being Christian is not a walk in the park!
  2. Papal infallibilityRead Patrick Madrid’s book “Pope Fiction”. This won’t be a difficult one to overcome
  3. The Blessed Mother as advocate for us Scott Hahn’s book “Hail Holy Queen” is a gem
If I am correct in this, and I may not be, then perhaps the next step is to give links to the threads where these issues are discussed and explained more fully. Hopefully with more understanding of the catholic views on these matters we can help remove the barriers.You sound like a very reasonable person.

I think that the advantages and the truth of the Catholic Church far outway the “Inconveniences”

Oh yeah. For those that won’t join us because we don’t give out condoms as a means to stop AIDS…I repeat condoms are not the answer.Hear! Hear!
Click to expand...
Sex is not recreation. It is a consequence of a deep and intimate love - it is personal, not a public demonstration for the voyeurs!!

👍

:tiphat:

I’m off to have my coffee! :coffeeread:
 
emeraldcoast said:
Hi Cinette,

If you are referring to NFP - “Navy Familiy Planning” I am very aware of how that works, after ten overseas deployments for my husband in our 18 year marriage. Our children are spaced seven years apart, based on when my husband was ashore (and at home), since cohabitation is key to successful family planning. We do love our shore duty babies!🙂

As far as Natural Family Planning, I am not sure how it would prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. Please explain how NFP can prevent/decrease the spread of HIV/AIDS between a husband and wife, if one is infected.

God Bless!
Click to expand...
I see your point. No, I suppose in a case like that a condom might help…sometimes! they are known to tear I understand.

You sound like a really fun person:)
 
Dempsey1919 said:
I know the title of this thread because I started this thread.

I am not dicating anything to you. I don’t want this thread to be locked because the conversation strayed off topic. That was my only reason for asking you not to discuss whether the Catholic view on artificial contraception is right or wrong. A topic of that size needs its own thread.

I know many Anglicans will struggle with the Catholic beliefs regarding artificial contraception and I know that many will not convert because of this. This specific teaching will be the reason many do not come home to Rome.
Click to expand...
Anglicans are mostly Anglophone and Anglos are known to have a sense of humour.:extrahappy: :clapping: :rotfl:
 
When my husband and I converted Papal infallibility was his barrier which after reading up on the real meaning of it became no barrier at all.
catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

My problem was a previous “marriage” I entered into at 17 years old to escape the “oppression” of my parents and which my boyfriend planned on ending when we were 21 so we could “have our freedom”. The tribunal recognized an illict union when they saw it. They declared it null and not a marriage at all.

After that it was no problem at all.
 
Janet_S said:
I guess my point is, I think you used to post under a different name, and you are a very recent (< 1 month) convert to Episcopalian church. It’s just a little strange that you are referring to us as “Romans” when you yourself claimed to be Catholic just a few months ago.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm, okayyyyyy. Sorry I seemed to have intruded on some dream or something. Take care lady.
 
I am a conservative Anglican and I DO consider myself “Catholic”. I just don’t accept the Roman Church as the ONLY expression of Catholicity and what it means to be “Catholic”. I accept the the Three historic creeds, “Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian”, the first four Ecumenical Councils and the first five centuries of Eastern and Western Fathers of the Church. I accept the Councils of the undivided Church. After 500 AD the Church began its unfortunate split of East and West, so any Councils after that formal split in the 1000s AD ARE NOT Ecumenical, but rather LOCAL councils by the Eastern Patriarchs and in the West Councils of the LOCAL Patriarch known as the Bishop of Rome.
As an Anglican I see the Church in England at the “Reformation” reaffirming its Autocephallous character enjoyed before Whitby and the Norman Conquest of 1066. At that time the Anglican Bishops sought to restore the English and Anglican Church to authentic and real Apostolic Catholicity the Church had before the beginnings of the East/West Schism.
As an Anglican I see the 1662 BCP and the American 1928 BCP and the recent BCP of the Reformed Episcopal Church and the 39 Articles of Religion as expressions of historic and authentic Catholicity. I cannot accept the “Roman Novelties” of Papalism, Purgatory, Marian Dogmas, Invocation of Saints, and the Semi- and Neo-Pelagianism of the Council of Trent with its Dogmas of “Merit” and “works-righteousness”, that we “merit” final Justification by our good works. So no, I will not be swimming the Tiber any time soon and give up authentic and historic Apostolic Christianity. So sign me “Catholic, but not Roman”.
 
katze said:
I am a conservative Anglican and I DO consider myself “Catholic”. I just don’t accept the Roman Church as the ONLY expression of Catholicity and what it means to be “Catholic”. I accept the the Three historic creeds, “Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian”, the first four Ecumenical Councils and the first five centuries of Eastern and Western Fathers of the Church. I accept the Councils of the undivided Church. After 500 AD the Church began its unfortunate split of East and West, so any Councils after that formal split in the 1000s AD ARE NOT Ecumenical, but rather LOCAL councils by the Eastern Patriarchs and in the West Councils of the LOCAL Patriarch known as the Bishop of Rome.
As an Anglican I see the Church in England at the “Reformation” reaffirming its Autocephallous character enjoyed before Whitby and the Norman Conquest of 1066. At that time the Anglican Bishops sought to restore the English and Anglican Church to authentic and real Apostolic Catholicity the Church had before the beginnings of the East/West Schism.
As an Anglican I see the 1662 BCP and the American 1928 BCP and the recent BCP of the Reformed Episcopal Church and the 39 Articles of Religion as expressions of historic and authentic Catholicity. I cannot accept the “Roman Novelties” of Papalism, Purgatory, Marian Dogmas, Invocation of Saints, and the Semi- and Neo-Pelagianism of the Council of Trent with its Dogmas of “Merit” and “works-righteousness”, that we “merit” final Justification by our good works. So no, I will not be swimming the Tiber any time soon and give up authentic and historic Apostolic Christianity. So sign me “Catholic, but not Roman”./QUOT

you make some good points. england was catholic long before the reformation. which meant england believed in Papalism, the magesterium.
i am sure someone with more background can come in and give you a good argument. you have a unique way of looking at this from a perspective i have never considered before. i am not sure if your argument can be backed up. to me, the reformation in england was definitely protestant while retaining some of the catholic aspects of the service. hopefully, someone will come here and look at your argument and comment on it with more expertise than i have!!
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top