Ask an Anglican Anything

[blackforest]

Did you move to Anglicanism with negative intentions, (“I’m angry with the Pope! I’m leaving! I’ll bet the Anglicans will take me!”), or positive, (“Wow! I’ve read a lot about Anglicanism, and this is something I could really throw myself into!”) ? A little of both?

(I’m asking as a former ACC member with no ill feelings toward the ACC).

 

[De_Maria]

If that’s what you believe and how you feel, you did the right thing. Of course, I think you’re wrong on all those points.

 

[Caritas6744]

Did you move to Anglicanism with negative intentions, (“I’m angry with the Pope! I’m leaving! I’ll bet the Anglicans will take me!”), or positive, (“Wow! I’ve read a lot about Anglicanism, and this is something I could really throw myself into!”) ? A little of both?

My move came after a rather long period of wandering in the desert so to speak and trying to find myself in faith. When I was RC, I was an “all in” RC. I viewed Anglicans as pussy Catholics. I even studied to be a religious for three years. But my wife and I took our practice very seriously. We even used NFP. But I felt empty in my faith journey.

Around 2001 I began visiting other churches similar to in eucharist presentation: Lutherans, Anglican, United Church. I really came to love the Book of Common Prayer service in the Anglican Church. I love the old language of worship. Maybe this is why some RC’s have an affinity to the Latin Mass.

Come 2007 I made the transition completely to Anglican worship. I haven’t been formally “received” into the ACC, but I’m pretty all in. The ACC has become my home in faith and I feel very comfortable here.

 

[Caritas6744]

So he or she likely believes in female ordination and other stuff I would consider heretical.

Probably. Though I don’t know why you would consider it heretical.

 

[Caritas6744]

If that’s what you believe and how you feel, you did the right thing. Of course, I think you’re wrong on all those points.

Which is why leaving for me was a good thing.

 

[AtheistNoMore]

I don’t believe that Pope is the supreme head of the church

So why then do you accept the Archbishop of Canterbury as the supreme head of your church?

 

[Caritas6744]

If that’s what you believe and how you feel, you did the right thing. Of course, I think you’re wrong on all those points.

To be fair, the RC church has changed its doctrine on issues over time. You may have found some of those teachings difficult if you had to accept them now. Like:

• prior to 1965, all non-RC’s were damned to hell - In 1441 Pope Eugene IV in Cantate Domino wrote: “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the ‘eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’; unless before death they are joined with Her.”
• no Pope was considered infallible until 1870
• the RC church used to forbid usury
• one can argue that by making heretofore non-infallible doctrines (like Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Bodily Ascension) infallible and binding on the Catholic faithful, doctrine is being changed as well. Previously it wasn’t required to believe these doctrines and after it was. Making a doctrine infallible is a doctrinal change.

 

[Caritas6744]

So why then do you accept the Archbishop of Canterbury as the supreme head of your church?

He isn’t. He is head of the Anglican Communion - first among equals. The Anglican church is Episcopally lead, Synodically governed and Locally adapted. Our bishops are our teachers. The three great creeds - Apostles, Nicea and Athanasian - constitute our core doctrine and the 39 Articles of faith help direct our faith. We have not supreme teacher so to speak. It’s a bit inefficient, but it works.

 

[GKMotley]

And all Anglican Churches in the Anglican Communion are self-governing.

As are all Anglican jurisdictions not members of the Communion.

 

[GKMotley]

If I recall correctly, the first post I ever made online, anywhere, around 20 years ago, was addressing this same misconception of the role of Cantuar. And the British Sovereign.

 

[blackforest]

My move came after a rather long period of wandering in the dessert so to speak and trying to find myself in faith.

Thanks for sharing your story and . . . kudos to such a fantastic type-o. Wandering in the dessert, indeed.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Caritas6744]

kudos to such a fantastic type-o. Wandering in the dessert,

I just caught that, and corrected it. I love wandering in the dessert.

 

[De_Maria]

Are you sure that you don’t want to argue? Because you’re misrepresenting Catholic Teaching and if you continue, I will argue with you.

 

[Caritas6744]

you’re misrepresenting Catholic Teaching and if you continue, I will argue with you.

How am I doing that? If you are referencing the infallibility thing, then I stand by my comment. Declaring something infallible suggests that now it must be believed by the faithful and prior to, it was not. Otherwise, what’s the point in making it infallible?

 

[LukeShalz]

Oops wrong monarch… doesn’t disprove my point…

 

[LukeShalz]

The Pope, in that instance demands the murder of millions of people. I think there was a commandment about not doing that… The Pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra, which is not the case here, which therefore means that such a command is possibly fallacious. If the Pope is ordering the obvious breaking of a commandment (fallibly) that order is in error.

Please tell me that you see a moral difference between the sentences “Kill millions of people who disagree with you” and “Don’t divorce your wife, it is a sin”. Your example is unrealistic.

Besides, since when is complicated politics an excuse to sin against God, which is therefore compliance with Satan?

 

[pulchraesamicamea]

The church “as an institution administered by humans” has not atoned for the harm it inflicted on the First Nations People of Canada.

This is true. However, the Vatican expressed sorrow about this matter when a group of First Nations members visited the Vatican. The thing is, a lot of the things that are done by the Church are actually government-motivated, not exclusively by the Church.

Also, I want to speak about the Mi’kmaw people of Canada: they are a wonderful First Nations tribe in Quebec, Ontario, and Newfoundland. They embraced Roman Catholicism, and many continue to practice the faith (95%).

You have to note the Canadian government’s policies at that time: “to kill the Indian in the child”. The thing is, we all had misconceptions about their beliefs and their way of life. We thought they were uncivilized. And that’s why we sought to assimilate them in the worst way possible.

We all need to atone. All of us. I’ve been praying for the Cree children since the day I got off the reserve. After that (and even after I became Roman Catholic), I’ve been studying First Nations and Aboriginal beliefs, way of life, culture, trauma, etc. because I absolutely adore their culture.

Don’t continuously blame the Roman Catholic Church only for the harm that we have done, but rather, we all have to repent and pray. Pray for them. Pray that they will not be oppressed no longer. Pray that they will be liberated from intergenerational trauma. We all had one way or another in oppressing them as members of Christian churches. We all have to say that what we did was wrong.

I’m not a member of Aboriginal peoples of Canada, but I am a descendant of Korean Catholics (who are Indigenous- as Koreans are Indigenous to the Korean Peninsula) who was, in opposite, abused and killed for being Catholics. Interestingly, Catholicism was forbidden. My ancestors lost their lives when they were killed by Japanese troops who thought Catholicism was “inferior”. So that’s why I say there’s always two sides to a story.

Sincerely, an Aboriginal studies student.
saweyihtâkosiw

 

[ltwin]

So why then do you accept the Archbishop of Canterbury as the supreme head of your church?

There is no comparison to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope, and never has been. The Archbishop of Canterbury has very little power outside his own diocese. What power he has comes more through persuasion.

In North America and the rest of the world, the Archbishop of Canterbury has no power at all, since all the other Anglican churches have their own archbishops or presiding bishops. Canterbury only has “influence”.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

you’re misrepresenting Catholic Teaching and if you continue, I will argue with you.

How am I doing that?

By claiming that the Church teaches something which it does not and never has.

If you are referencing the infallibility thing, then I stand by my comment.

Then you are no longer simply telling what you believe but are pushing your beliefs upon us. In so doing, you have given me the right to argue with you.

Declaring something infallible suggests that now it must be believed by the faithful and prior to, it was not. Otherwise, what’s the point in making it infallible?

The point is that the Church clarified a point of uncertainty amongst the laity. Some had challenged the belief of Papal infallibility. Thus, the Church took the time to assure and explain that the Doctrine has always been infallible.

Furthermore, there are many errors in all the other things you’ve said, as well.

To be fair, the RC church has changed its doctrine on issues over time.

Not true. There has been development of Doctrine, where the Holy Spirit has guided the Catholic Church into all truth. But the Christian spirit of the Doctrine was not changed.

You may have found some of those teachings difficult if you had to accept them now.

You are misrepresenting Catholic Doctrine. The Catholic Church never taught what you claim.

Like:

• prior to 1965, all non-RC’s were damned to hell …

That’s not true and is easily disproven. From earliest times, the Catholic Church has taught that we are saved in Baptism.

1 Peter 3:21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us…

And, from earliest times, men who denied that heretical baptisms were efficacious, have themselves, been declared heretics. And, in fact, entire sections of the Church have caused schism because they denied that those outside the Church could have efficacious baptisms, because that means that they could be saved.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

• In 1441 Pope Eugene IV in Cantate Domino wrote: “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the ‘eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’; unless before death they are joined with Her.”

Notwithstanding, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ to TEACH all that He commanded. Not you. Thus, the Catholic Church has taken that much misuderstood adage and reformulated it. See the Catechism.

• no Pope was considered infallible until 1870

See my first rebuttal, above.

• the RC church used to forbid usury

The Catholic Church continues to forbid usury. But usury has been redefined to meet modern standards. Briefly, in the past, charging any interest on monies was considered usury. However, since those lending monies to the poor, were making a sacrifice and taking a risk, the Church made it more agreeable for them to help the poor by removing the penalty of charging reasonable interest. The Catholic Church has every right to do so based upon the authority to bind and loose which was given to her by Jesus Christ (See Matt 16:18-19).

• one can argue that by making heretofore non-infallible doctrines (like Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Bodily Ascension) infallible and binding on the Catholic faithful, doctrine is being changed as well.

You can argue whatever you want, but the Catholic Church was appointed the Teacher of Jesus’ commands and no one else.

Previously it wasn’t required to believe these doctrines and after it was.

True.

Making a doctrine infallible is a doctrinal change.

The Doctrines were not made infallible. The Doctrines were infallible before they were extraordinarily defined. The Proclaimations explained this:

Testimonies of Tradition

And indeed, illustrious documents of venerable antiquity, of both the Eastern and the Western Church, very forcibly testify that this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin, which was daily more and more splendidly explained, stated and confirmed by the highest authority, teaching, zeal, knowledge, and wisdom of the Church, and which was disseminated among all peoples and nations of the Catholic world in a marvelous manner — this doctrine always existed in the Church …( Ineffabilis Deus)

b. The Catholic Church did not make it mandatory to believe them, Christ did when He declared that anyone who does not believe the Church is to be treated as a heathen (Matt 18:17).

• Making a doctrine infallible is a doctrinal change.

The doctrines were not made infallible. They have been infallible from before they were extraordinarily defined.