Any Anglicans / Episcopalians considering switching to RCC?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChurchSoldier
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Anglicanus_Rex said:
Prayer Book Anglicanism *is *Catholicism. It is Catholic in and of itself, without the need to gussy it up with liturgies from Rome or the East. That’s just my humble opinion.
Click to expand...
I’m just curious. Are you ok with things like incense, unleavened host, and crucifixes?
 
Anglicanus_Rex said:
Like?
Click to expand...
They seem to, at first read, ban practices like Eucharistic adoration, the use of icons, the reading from the deuterocannon, and other things that were at the heart of ancient christian worship for centuries. They also deny the infallibility of ecumenical councils which clashes with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox belief
 
DeusExMachina said:
I’m just curious. Are you ok with things like incense, unleavened host, and crucifixes?
Click to expand...
Yes. Theologically, I’m quite Reformed/Calvinistic. Liturgically, quite Catholic. I tend not to dwell much on arguments about low or high liturgy, but given a preference, I would veer strongly toward ancient liturgical customs.
 
DeusExMachina said:
I’m just curious. Are you ok with things like incense, unleavened host, and crucifixes?
Click to expand...
I know you didn’t address this to me, but I’ll throw my two cents in as well. I too am totally fine with these things. If I weren’t ok with them, I’m going to the wrong church. 👍
 
DeusExMachina said:
They seem to, at first read, ban practices like Eucharistic adoration, the use of icons, the reading from the deuterocannon, and other things that were at the heart of ancient christian worship for centuries. They also deny the infallibility of ecumenical councils which clashes with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox belief
Click to expand...
Eucharistic adoration, yes, it does. However, considering Eucharistic adoration itself did not develop in the West until the late medieval period and doesn’t exist in the East at all, it would be hard to argue that it is Apostolic/Catholic.

While Article XXII does address the adoration/worship of images and relics, it in no wise forbids having them. The 7th Ecumenical Council forbid worship of them, too!
 
Anglicanus_Rex said:
Yes. Theologically, I’m quite Reformed/Calvinistic. Liturgically, quite Catholic. I tend not to dwell much on arguments about low or high liturgy, but given a preference, I would veer strongly toward ancient liturgical customs.
Click to expand...
Yet surely you realize the articles themselves don’t really allow for total depravity limited atonement?
 
DeusExMachina said:
Yet surely you realize the articles themselves don’t really allow for total depravity limited atonement?
Click to expand...
IX. Of Original or Birth-sin

Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in the Greek, “Phronema Sarkos”, which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh, is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.

X. Of Free-Will

The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon God: Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.

How do you feel these two contradict total depravity?

Sorry, though, we’re kind of going off topic, I think 🙂
 
Anglicanus_Rex said:
Eucharistic adoration, yes, it does. However, considering Eucharistic adoration itself did not develop in the West until the late medieval period and doesn’t exist in the East at all, it would be hard to argue that it is Apostolic/Catholic.

While Article XXII does address the adoration/worship of images and relics, it in no wise forbids having them. The 7th Ecumenical Council forbid worship of them, too!
Click to expand...
No church recognizes that declaration as valid; it was purely the will of the emperor. And when I say “adoration” I’m not talking about praying in front of the tabernacle for a few hours. I mean literally bowing to the host in the context of holy communion, which is itself quite ancient, dating back to atleast the 2nd or 3rd century.
 
DeusExMachina said:
No church recognizes that declaration as valid; it was purely the will of the emperor. And when I say “adoration” I’m not talking about praying in front of the tabernacle for a few hours. I mean literally bowing to the host in the context of holy communion, which is itself quite ancient, dating back to atleast the 2nd or 3rd century.
Click to expand...
It would be hard to argue that genuflecting before receiving communion was forbidden by the Articles considering many of the theologians who contributed to its development (not to mention Elizabeth herself) genuflected as an act of reverence. The Articles themselves specifically single out what we know today as Adoration.
 
DeusExMachina said:
Oh, I thought you meant Hieria. And FYI, John Calvin did not recognize 2nd Nicaea because he believed it allowed idolatry
Click to expand...
True, but while Anglicanism mirrors many of Calvin’s ideas when it comes to soteriology, the Church ended up rejecting extreme Puritanism and Presbyterianism, especially when it came to liturgical forms.
 
Anglicanus_Rex said:
Eucharistic adoration, yes, it does. However, considering Eucharistic adoration itself did not develop in the West until the late medieval period and doesn’t exist in the East at all, it would be hard to argue that it is Apostolic/Catholic.

While Article XXII does address the adoration/worship of images and relics, it in no wise forbids having them. The 7th Ecumenical Council forbid worship of them, too!
Click to expand...
See I’d argue Article 28 doesn’t explicitly ban the Eucharistic adoration in the sense of what we consider it in the Roman Catholic sense today… Rather it’s pointing out that such practices are not biblical, which is very much true. I agree that based on historical Elizabethan context, it would be even harder to argue that Article 28 is even referring to lifting up a host during mass or genuflecting toward the altar as a sign of respect.

But I agree about Article 22, it doesn’t forbid having icons or images. Simply forbids worshiping them. Which you can argue is a practice the RCC would say they aren’t even doing anyway.
 
Anglicanus_Rex said:
This was something claimed by many more kings of England than just Henry. Again, Henry was just noticed more.
Click to expand...
Henry took it further, in the Henrician Acts of 1534,. But the conflict between the Crown and Rome was of long standing in England. What Henry did was a difference in degree, not in kind, of a process that had been on going in England for +/- 300 years; the increasing independence of the ruling class (monarchy, at the time) from any control from outside the realm. Back at least to Henry II, in the 12th century. Acts of Parliament and Royal decrees limiting and abolishing Papal and Church prerogatives were numerous (Council of Westminster, Council of Clarendon, First Statute of Winchester, Statute of Mortmain, the Writ Circumspecte agatis , the Statue of Carlisle, and the double Statutes of Provisors and Praemunire, for example). It was the birth pangs of nationalism.
 
Padres1969 said:
See I’d argue Article 28 doesn’t explicitly ban the Eucharistic adoration in the sense of what we consider it in the Roman Catholic sense today… Rather it’s pointing out that such practices are not biblical, which is very much true. I agree that based on historical Elizabethan context, it would be even harder to argue that Article 28 is even referring to lifting up a host during mass or genuflecting toward the altar as a sign of respect.

But I agree about Article 22, it doesn’t forbid having icons or images. Simply forbids worshiping them. Which you can argue is a practice the RCC would say they aren’t even doing anyway.
Click to expand...
Quite true. I genuflect every time I receive the Supper. Most in our congregation do as well. I’ve never persobally encountered any opposition to it other than in the writings of the more extreme Puritans that wanted the Church to become Presbyterian.
 
Anglicanus_Rex said:
Quite true. I genuflect every time I receive the Supper. Most in our congregation do as well. I’ve never persobally encountered any opposition to it other than in the writings of the more extreme Puritans that wanted the Church to become Presbyterian.
Click to expand...
Would you be ok with actual bowing to the altar though?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top