Ask an Anglican Anything

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Caritas6744

New member
I left the RC church in 2007 and joined the Anglican Church of Canada. You are welcome to ask why? I’m not interested in bashing the RC church. Please don’t bash the Anglican church. Let’s be civil here.
 
The Catholic Church was founded by our Lourd Jesus Christ. I ask you, who founded the anglican church, and why? What were the reasons?
 
You are correct, Jesus founded a church. Did he mean to found the RC church as it is currently manifest? Did he choose to found the orthodox church. That the “church” has splintered with time is a reflection of the vanity of man. I believe there is goodness in each path that leads to Jesus. For some it’s the RC church, for others it’s Greek Orthodox, for some it’s Calvinism and for others it’s Anglicanism. Debating the origins doesn’t change what is.
 
Do you believe in the real presence in the Eucharist.
What caused you to join the Anglicans
 
Why didn’t you become Eastern Orthodox instead? I am aware Anglicans can vary from being Reformed to extremely Catholic in type, where do you fall in? And lastly, what specific teaching of the RCC do you reject other than the papal and ecclesiastical claims? Veneration of the Saints, purgatory, etc, maybe none of those, maybe all and more.
 
GiftofMercy said:
Do you believe in the real presence in the Eucharist.
What caused you to join the Anglicans
Click to expand...
I do believe in the real presence. My leaving is complicated. I have issues with the authority of the Papacy. I am a minimalist on the role of Mary in salvation. I appreciate a greater role for lay people and women in the church.
 
Do they have a canonization process? Is St. Thomas Becket recognized as a saint in the Anglican Church?
 
The Anglican Church is basically the Roman Catholic Church how King Henry VIII wanted it. It is an entire offshoot of Jesus’ Church which caters to the whims of a murderous king who didn’t like his wife (nor his other wives). Then, generations and centuries after Henry’s time, this breakaway began tampering with the otherwise intact Roman Catholic belief system they had maintained (allowing female “ordination” etc.).

Why did you abandon the Jesus’ church for that ?
 
po18guy said:
What is an Anglican?
Click to expand...
Some would say that the “Church in England” is the Anglican church and began with St. Augustine of Canterbury who was commissioned by the Pope in the 5th century to bring the Brits to faith.

More precisely however, Anglicanism was formalized by Elizabeth 1 and Thomas Cranmer in the 16th Century following Henry X111’s split with Rome on the matter of sovereignty and authority.

That Henry split with Rome is unfortunate. However, a line of Christianity ensued thereafter that did not recognize the Pope as the head of the church. Many of the traditions are consistent with ancient practice.
 
LukeShalz said:
caters to the whims of a murderous king
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t say this. I don’t think Henry had any desire to break from Rome. Don’t forget, the middle ages was a murderous time on many fronts. RC’s are not immune to madness either. Henry desired a male heir who would protect the realm when alliances were falling all over Europe. That the Pope did not grant Henry an annulment could have been viewed as entirely political as he was catering to the whims of Charles, the Holy Roman Emperor.
 
Caritas6744 said:
I wouldn’t say this. I don’t think Henry had any desire to break from Rome. Don’t forget, the middle ages was a murderous time on many fronts. RC’s are not immune to madness either. Henry desired a male heir who would protect the realm when alliances were falling all over Europe. That the Pope did not grant Henry an annulment could have been viewed as entirely political as he was catering to the whims of Charles, the Holy Roman Emperor.
Click to expand...
To add to this, Henry remained Catholic all his life. It’s too simplistic to say Henry only split with Rome because he wanted a divorce. It glosses over a lot of complexity.
 
There is a direct succession from Jesus to Peter to Pope Francis and backwards from Pope Francis to Peter to Jesus. Jesus said to Peter in the Great Commission “What is bound on Earth will be bound in Heaven and what is loose on Earth will be loose in Heaven”. If Peter headed the same church that is the Roman Catholic Church and if Jesus gave him the ability to determine the structure and rules of the Church (and surely the Church would not be forgotten at Peter’s death so of course he should have a successor of equal power, the Pope) why is the Catholic Church not the Church of Jesus Christ, the Messiah, himself and therefore the true church?

And if different Churches are “true” for different people, then I guess there is no absolute truth. What other liberties can people take? Should a Catholic bishop apostatize, and found his own sect of Catholicism (remember he has the Apostolic Succession) which is the same as the Roman Catholic Church in EVERY WAY except that they don’t believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem but instead on Mars… or no… on a Giant hunk of cheese hurdling through the cosmos, and was then “teleported” to a stable in Bethlehem? By your standards, what makes that “church” any less legitimate than any other defiant breakaway who thinks that THEY got it right?

Without absolute truth, everything is arbitrary.
 
So the the succession to the English throne took precedence over obeying the Holy Father, successor to Peter (and obeying the 5th and 7th commandments)? I see…
 
LukeShalz said:
Without absolute truth, everything is arbitrary.
Click to expand...
Here’s the hornet’s nest. Look, the Orthodox don’t recognize the authority of the Pope, yet they are a distinct branch seemingly acknowledged as maintaining apostolic succession. Why is that? The Orthodox have a fundamental variance on the interpretation of the creed.

What is absolute truth?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top