Episcopalian Vs. Catholic?

[GKC]

Deborah:

You are right, Henry was downright letigious in his promiscuity. But some of that has to do with wanting at least one male heir (all of the ones born by Catherine and Anne died), on some level you have to blame both his own recklessness along with all of the other criminality of the time and culture. There is something to be said for being a product of one’s environment. Excuses aside, I don’t think that at any time Henry took on the faith of the British people as his own empire, but more just wrestled power from the hands of a foreign entity (the pope(s)) who were intent upon ruling both religiously and politically the entire world. The whole reason for the split in the first place was due to Pope Clement VII basically sitting on the idea of Henry’s annulment for several years. Political manipulations ensued on both sides.

People will discredit the modern church today, for some off handed comment about how Henry was a womanizer and wanted to divorce his wife so he fired the Holy See. The details are much more complicated than that, and involve many more players than just Henry. And while I could never defend such a man, I don’t find attending the church he essentially “founded” or stole from Rome even, to be either that much different, worse off, or unholy.

But hey, stuck in the mud catholics have their reasons for disliking TEC and Anglicans. I guess I now have my reasons for disliking them.

Historically, this is an accurate view of the man and his situation.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Hey, How many people do you know who had six wives and how many playthings on the side? It was very complicated trying to have a boy. He is your guy, old Henry. You gotta go to bat for him, after all. Make an excuse for the old lecher. Anything to have a son. He was a desrarate man. He wasn’t driven by lust. It was all quite noble. He just wanted a boy.

In November 1534 Parliament declared Henry the lecher head of the Church of England. What a joke. His church is coming apart at the seams. Its leadership can’t figure out men marry women. What a mess. No matter, hang in there. Keep the faith English. tut-tut! cheerio! Three cheers for Robinson and Shori, I say.

Grandpere,

As I always do in cases like this, I recommend J. J. Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII, whenver I see folks waving cardboard cutouts. It’s a complicated story. Or, for mind-numbing detail, Kelly’s THE MATRIMONIAL TRIALS OF HENRY VIII.The entire impediment/annulment/dispensation system worked out by the Church at the time was, by specific design, a mixture of theology and politics, and Henry was playing by the rules when he submitted his petition and **causa, with full expectation of getting his decree. Absent one or two political issues, he would have, just as his sister received her two decrees of nullity, the first the same year Henry started his quest. It happened all the time. It is, as I say, complicated. But that’s generally true of history.

And I’ve been meaning to mention. It’s Schori who is the steam-powered yoyo, with miter on hairspray.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[anon52328184]

More often the Lutherans do.

GKC

i have never seen a lutheran church with a red door!

 

[anon52328184]

It was much deeper than Henry wanting a decree of nullity, as you say. And broader too, across Europe.

Rather than reading historical fiction (which is fun, to be sure), I’d recommend J. J. Scarisbrick’s magnificent HENRY VIII bio, for an understanding of the man, the era and the issues. Not to worry, Scarisbrick is RC. The book is essential.

And certainly, reading widely and deeply is recommended. History is complex. And it was Edward VI’s period that saw the shift to the reformed side (that’s addressed to deborahaz).

GKC

no, the books that i listed above are for pleasure reading with history thrown in. they definitely should not be used as a sole source to learn about the reign of henry viii. it gives you a good picture of what it was like for the every day man to live during those days in england. it was during elizabeth’s reign that Catholic Bloody Mary was executed. i am not sure under whose reign the prayer book of 1662 was established , if it was elizabeth or edward vi.

 

[GKC]

i have never seen a lutheran church with a red door!

There’s one a block from me.

And they’re everywhere.

GKC

 

[GKC]

no, the books that i listed above are for pleasure reading with history thrown in. they definitely should not be used as a sole source to learn about the reign of henry viii. it gives you a good picture of what it was like for the every day man to live during those days in england. it was during elizabeth’s reign that Catholic Bloody Mary was executed. i am not sure under whose reign the prayer book of 1662 was established , if it was elizabeth or edward vi.

But that’s the sort of thing reading more history will help you with. Hint. It wasn’t Edward or Elizabeth. And Bloody Mary wasn’t executed at all. You’re thinking of Mary, Queen of Scots.

Books. Get books.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I cannot believe it after reading all of this hate rhetoric. I was considering becoming Catholic, but seriously these boards ruined it for me. Clericalism, home made hatred, and down right False superiority! You need to look at yourselves before you judge someone else! Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. ***Case in point your pederast homosexual priests who molest children! ***

Sacramento CA Diocese faces legal battle upset at release of former priest responsible for molestation.

Before you start raging homicidal about other churches who ordain women and gay men, you should look at the shabby state of your own clerics.

BTW, Gene Robinson came out to his wife before they even got married!!! He also did not abandon her! They remain friends! Unlike you his own wife understands that as a soul he needs to be honest with himself and the world. She could not fault him. These things you say are lies.

Before you start criticizing a king hundreds of years ago who Rejected the pope based upon the Popes own flagrant abuses of power (political and ecumenical) and then start accusing the Episcopal church of always changing look at yourselves! There was a reason why HVIII separated the Church, and that is the same reason why Catholics are allowed to Annul today!

To be quite honest if this was the circumstance that marked his first experience with marriage, at 17 to a woman 6 years his senior, specifically for the purpose of holding the court together, I can understand why he didn’t consider it very SACRAMENTAL.

Christ laid down the Authority of the Church in Peter, he did not say that the church should be ruled by a heavy handed Pope. And while the EC at large does not recognize his authority it is certainly not beneath us to listen to him.

Last I would like to say that Catholics love to think of themselves as persecuted, when in fact they are the most top heavy persecuting egomaniacs around.

Good day.

Marriage at the upper levels of society in those days was almost always for purposes of state or power. The point of keeping it sacramental was what resulted in the system of dispensations/annulments/impediments. It’s very, very complicated. And a hobby of mine.

And I’m out the door.

GKC

 

[anon52328184]

you need to check your facts GKC!! Bloody Mary was Mary I of England who succeeded Edward VI. Mary I was the daughter of King Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon. she was staunchly catholic like her mother.

there were 300 people killed during her reign for heresy including thomas cranmer. she tried very hard to return england to catholicism, but the english were already used to the reform religion.

i think you are the one who needs to read books so you can get your facts straight.

 

[anon52328184]

mary I of england was not executed. she did die a normal death. she thought she was pregnant and was not.

she did try to bring england back to rome again though, but failed.

 

[Peter_J]

kemushi,

I think you’ve made a number of good points. But before getting into them, there’s one thing I’d like to ask you …

BTW, Gene Robinson came out to his wife before they even got married!!! He also did not abandon her! They remain friends! Unlike you his own wife understands that as a soul he needs to be honest with himself and the world. She could not fault him. These things you say are lies.

Do you agree with the Catholic teaching that homosexual acts are sinful? (I emphasize “acts” because I’m perfectly willing to agree that homosexual orientation is not sinful.)

If you don’t agree with that teaching then (to put it bluntly) I don’t think the Roman Catholic Church is really the church for you anyways.

 

[SIA]

mary I of england was not executed. she did die a normal death. she thought she was pregnant and was not.

she did try to bring england back to rome again though, but failed.

Bloody Mary had many killed for the sake of Rome including Cranmer and Lattimer. The children’s song The Three Blind Mice came from Bloody Mary’s tirade against the Church of England proper.

 

[kemushi]

mary I of england was not executed. she did die a normal death. she thought she was pregnant and was not.

she did try to bring england back to rome again though, but failed.

Ok, so according to wikipedia, which I consider fairly reliable, Elizabeth I actually set in place a decree which eventually became the true Protestant Church of England. Mary I had returned England to Catholicism over several years, through parliament and persecutions. She did not “fail” she just died. In fact I would not call 300+ executed dissenters and “heretics” much of a failure! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_I_of_England

Once Elizabeth had the throne, she began what’s called the Elizabethan Religious Settlement.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

When the Act of Royal Supremacy, which had been repealed by Queen Mary, was revived by Elizabeth, it suffered a modification in the sense that the Sovereign was styled “Supreme Governor” instead of “Supreme Head”. In a subsequent “Admonition”, Elizabeth issued an interpretation of the Royal Supremacy, to the effect that she laid claim “to no power of ministry of divine offices in the Church”. At the same time she reasserted in the full the claim made by Henry VIII as to the Authority of the Crown in matters ecclesiastical, and the great religious changes made after her accession were carried out and enforced in a royal visitation commissioned by the royal authority.

And this my friends is the true origin of what we know today as Anglicanism.

Henry the VIII started it, Mary reversed it and stomped out all opposed, and Elizabeth revived and finished it.

GKC: Thanks for the recommend on the book, I am going to look at getting it soon because I have an interest in all of this complicated dry historicity as well!

Grandfather: Pfft. Nevermind. I guess OLD does not always equate to WISE.

 

[kemushi]

kemushi,

I think you’ve made a number of good points. But before getting into them, there’s one thing I’d like to ask you …

Do you agree with the Catholic teaching that homosexual acts are sinful? (I emphasize “acts” because I’m perfectly willing to agree that homosexual orientation is not sinful.)

If you don’t agree with that teaching then (to put it bluntly) I don’t think the Roman Catholic Church is really the church for you anyways.

THANK YOU Peter. I cannot tell you how I struggled with this confusion between Catholic homophobia laced with liberal niceties (I accept homosexual orientation but not homosexual acts) and the generally accepted line of condemnation which states that all homosexuals who are not chaste are Damned to Hell.

Let me AGAIN remind you since I have noticed that so many Catholics suffer from amnesia on this point: catholic priests suffer from just as much homosexuality and sexual depravity as any other religious organization. The difference between our church and yours, is that our priests can marry and live their lives with honesty and integrity. Your priests are condemned to secrecy, abusive pederasty, and eventual excommunication or “laicization”. All of which bear exceedingly evil fruits, to which the Church holds itself completely unaccountable. Do I think homosexual acts consistute SIN? Yes I do! When they are conducted as a matter of sexual exploitation, either of prostitution, rape, child molestation, or acts of gratuitous pleasure, such as the case would be with heterosexual acts.

Let us not forget that heterosexual acts bear just as much sin as a homosexual act. The only legal and scriptural difference being that homosexuals, in absence of the privilege of marriage, have no way of expressing themselves sexually without apparent sin (anything outside of marriage). Hence I am a proponent of Gay Marriage.

 

[mercygate]

THANK YOU Peter. I cannot tell you how I struggled with this confusion between Catholic homophobia laced with liberal niceties (I accept homosexual orientation but not homosexual acts) and the generally accepted line of condemnation which states that all homosexuals who are not chaste are Damned to Hell.

Anybody who persistently and impenitently engages in sexual acts outside of marriage is placing his soul in danger of damnation. It should come as no surprise that homosexual acts fall under this umbrella.

Let me AGAIN remind you since I have noticed that so many Catholics suffer from amnesia on this point: catholic priests suffer from just as much homosexuality and sexual depravity as any other religious organization. The difference between our church and yours, is that our priests can marry and live their lives with honesty and integrity. Your priests are condemned to secrecy, abusive pederasty, and eventual excommunication or “laicization”. All of which bear exceedingly evil fruits, to which the Church holds itself completely unaccountable.

Decide what you are talking about here. You are suggesting that homosexuality among clergy would be “fixed” by dropping the rule of celibacy. Last time I looked, people with same sex attraction were not interested in marriage as it is understood by the Christian faith. You are suggesting that the option to marry would give homosexuals an outlet for their desires. You are suggesting that laicization is an inappropriate discipline for clergy who persistently, vocally, and impenitently maintain a sinful lifestyle.

Do I think homosexual acts consistute SIN? Yes I do! When they are conducted as a matter of sexual exploitation, either of prostitution, rape, child molestation, or acts of gratuitous pleasure, such as the case would be with heterosexual acts.

Let us not forget that heterosexual acts bear just as much sin as a homosexual act. The only legal and scriptural difference being that homosexuals, in absence of the privilege of marriage, have no way of expressing themselves sexually without apparent sin (anything outside of marriage). Hence I am a proponent of Gay Marriage.

The “privilege of marriage” is not withheld because of some arbitrary whim of the Church. It is a matter of natural law. When I was an Episcopalian, I never heard a syllable about natural law. In this case it comes down to the point that the Church cannot change what God has ordained. Check out the first chapter of Romans on this point.

 

[grandfather]

No one is defending him, read the freaking posts above yours. All that is being said now is England splitting from Rome was deeper than Henry wanting a divorce, and you would have to be an idiot not to see that.

You also can’t defend the power Rome wielded over Europe at the time. That is where I will point, as a Catholic, to the Holy See venturing away from what it was originally intended to do. It has since came back, in my opinion, to where it needs to be, simply spiritual leadership.

By all means, keep spitting the same venom you’ve spit throughout this entire thread though, it’s doing wonders for the opinions of those who aren’t Roman Catholic.

This will be my last post. I admit I have been deliberatley provocative.

There has been talk about the Anglican/Episcopal Church reunifying with the Catholic Church they already claim to be part of, especially in the early ecumenical days. Joint statements were produced saying nice things. In a way for many years Anglicanism and Catholicism were separate, but followed fairly parallel paths, despite the terrible martyrdoms of the early years. Relatively lately the Anglicans took a side road that Rome will never take and from which the Anglicans will not retreat. The parallel patways have diverged greatly, not come closer together.

This has caused Anglican unity to become broken. Their own paths have also diverged permanently. Those who call themsleves progressives and have changed traditional morality and practice will never turn back, barring a great miracle of divine intervention. Those who hold to traditional faith and morality will never accept communion with the new agers. Many will leave. It looks like some will become Catholic, some Orthodox, and some break away to start their own separate groups and maintain their traditions away from the progressives. There will be no reunion between Caterbury and the Catholic Church. They are too far gone. The breach is too great.

Ratzinger in an explication on the Church said the groups separated from the true Church can not properly be called church. Many took offense. The truth can be painful.

There can only be one Church. There can not be two or a thousand. There is one body. When you leave it you are no longer part of it. What should be said to those who are not part of the Church, but think they are? What should be said to them when they teach things that are outrageous? They have not gone a little off the path. They believe men can marry men. This is crazy and that has to be said. They teach in the name of church that abortion is morally acceptable . That is what is truly venomous. It is evil, from the serpent.

John the Baptist lost his head for condemning an immoral ruler’s immoral marriage. The Church of England was established to condone one, or several.

The reason for being provocative is that I believe this is a time when someone has to shout fire.

The topics of the debates within Anglicanism are astonishing. They are seriously talking about homosexual marriage as a right, as the right thing to and making it part of their rites, as if it were a sacrament. They condone abortion, the greatest atroicty in human history and believe God is with them. Thy come in His name and teach these things.

It seems impossible that this is happening and not seen as diabolical, but that is clearly what it is.

“Many will come in my name and deceive many”. “If it were possible, even the elect would be deceived”.

We have to pray for these people, but we can not smile at them and make believe they are of us, or that they are not in serious spiritual trouble.

The Africans have said that the issues the progrssives insist on as the right thing are non-negotiable. When we come to the point where things are non-negotiable that says the parties are so far apart that there is no way to repair the breach. They are opposed, as light is from darkness. If we do not call darkness what it is, if we do not call evil evil, we are complicit in it.

We can not make peace with the devil. Light and darkness are incompatible and we are faced with choosing between them, as always.

 

[mercygate]

St. Charles Lwanga and companions: pray for us.

 

[kemushi]

Anybody who persistently and impenitently engages in sexual acts outside of marriage is placing his soul in danger of damnation. It should come as no surprise that homosexual acts fall under this umbrella.

I agree on this point.

Decide what you are talking about here. You are suggesting that homosexuality among clergy would be “fixed” by dropping the rule of celibacy. Last time I looked, people with same sex attraction were not interested in marriage as it is understood by the Christian faith. You are suggesting that the option to marry would give homosexuals an outlet for their desires. You are suggesting that laicization is an inappropriate discipline for clergy who persistently, vocally, and impenitently maintain a sinful lifestyle.

Ok, two things: Episcopal clergy not being decidedly confined by the rule of chastity, gay or straight, is a fundamental aspect of the beliefs of the church. Are you stating that priestly ordination of married men to the church constitutes a betrayal of the church? If so can you justify this in the face of ordination of Catholic priests from other churches who happen to be married? There is obviously no argument against this admission as it is sanctioned by the Vatican.

To include or exclude homosexuality under this distinction is a matter of argument based on the premise of what you call later natural law (I assume by that you mean the Summa Theologica, et al?). It is not a matter of it being fixed, so much as justified by means of theological understanding. I will address you claim of natural law below.

Third, I am NOT saying laicization is inappropriate, in fact I think it isn’t punishment enough for such egregious violations of religious sanctity and moral righteousness as should be upheld within the authority of the church. However I do think such acts of sin and violation are in part contributed to by the church, in it’s very forbidding stance on homosexuality and sexuality in general. It would be one thing to encourage for the purposes of a higher spiritual calling the commitment to celibacy of those ordained. It is another to make it an absolute requirement, which flies in the face of commonly accepted biological necessity such as the expression of sexuality, the ability to build a family, and to experience such love, closeness, and familial ties in life. To strip any individual of that privilege in our society would effectively be the equivalent of removing the freedom to practice religion. Without such miracles and gifts of God, an individual is confined to either absolutely accept their position of obligation, or to riot against it in multifaceted forms. This is not to say that celibacy has no spiritual gifts or fruitful aspects.

The “privilege of marriage” is not withheld because of some arbitrary whim of the Church. It is a matter of natural law. When I was an Episcopalian, I never heard a syllable about natural law. In this case it comes down to the point that the Church cannot change what God has ordained. Check out the first chapter of Romans on this point.

I think the episcopal church is more concerned with giving you the freedom to believe as you see fit. Catholic and other theological wisdom is out there in the world, available for those who seek it. To not “hear of it” does not mean the church runs against it. Also, the only thing I ever hear in reference to the sin of homosexual acts is found in the Old Testament. As for that I have found varying sources which question the intention, and over all it is my understanding that Christ formed a new covenant with man, making the old laws less enforcible, and not once did he mention this sin specifically. He did however mention sexual perversion and fornication, which is why I believe that sex outside of marriage is sin.

religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm

 

[chris_molter]

I think the episcopal church is more concerned with giving you the freedom to believe as you see fit.

That “freedom” is not necessarily a good thing if you’re wrong. Also, I know from experience that you’re wrong about what you say here. Just ask any Episcopalians who are against the “new thing” if they feel “free” to believe as they wish without persecution in TEC.

Also, the only thing I ever hear in reference to the sin of homosexual acts is found in the Old Testament. As for that I have found varying sources which question the intention, and over all it is my understanding that Christ formed a new covenant with man, making the old laws less enforcible, and not once did he mention this sin specifically. He did however mention sexual perversion and fornication, which is why I believe that sex outside of marriage is sin.

To see the Christ’s FULFILLMENT of the Law as any sort of ABROGATION of the Law is an old heresy (Marcionism IIRC). The homsexualists are using some rusty weapons here. But hey, anything to justify the sin du jour. I can’t wait for them to start groping (no pun intended) around for justifications for men keeping a harem, personally.

 

[mercygate]

Ok, two things: Episcopal clergy not being decidedly confined by the rule of chastity, gay or straight, is a fundamental aspect of the beliefs of the church.

Again, what are you saying? Episcopal clergy are absolutely “confined” by the rule of chastity. Single men are “confined” not to engage in sexual relations with anybody. Married clergy are “confined” by the rule of chastity in marriage – which is to enjoy one’s conjugal privileges frequently and with relish.

Are you stating that priestly ordination of married men to the church constitutes a betrayal of the church?

I cannot fathom how you would come up with this given what I wrote. As a matter of fact, the 22 non-Latin Churches in communion with the See of Rome all ordain married men to major Orders. I recently attended a Ukranian Rite Mass celebrated by a Catholic Priest of the Ukranian Church, supported by his wife and 4 daughters as choir, and with two of his 4 sons serviing as Acolytes.

If so can you justify this in the face of ordination of Catholic priests from other churches who happen to be married? There is obviously no argument against this admission as it is sanctioned by the Vatican.

Correct.

To include or exclude homosexuality under this distinction is a matter of argument based on the premise of what you call later natural law (I assume by that you mean the Summa Theologica, et al?).

Actually, I referenced St. Paul in referring to natural law. Catholics do not consider the Creator’s plan to be “a matter of argument.”

It is not a matter of it being fixed, so much as justified by means of theological understanding. I will address you claim of natural law below.

Third, I am NOT saying laicization is inappropriate, in fact I think it isn’t punishment enough for such egregious violations of religious sanctity and moral righteousness as should be upheld within the authority of the church. However I do think such acts of sin and violation are in part contributed to by the church, in it’s very forbidding stance on homosexuality and sexuality in general. It would be one thing to encourage for the purposes of a higher spiritual calling the commitment to celibacy of those ordained.

You are suggesting that the only Christian Church that still upholds the ancient and unchanging teaching on contraception has a “forbidding stance on sexuality in general?” Do you see any contradiction in your position?

It is another to make it an absolute requirement, which flies in the face of commonly accepted biological necessity such as the expression of sexuality, the ability to build a family, and to experience such love, closeness, and familial ties in life.

As for “commonly accepted biological necessity,” I don’t buy it. This is “world talk.” The charism of celibacy “for the Kingdom” is a supernatural gift. Nobody is “absolutely required” to seek ordination. The practice of the Catholic Church (and of all the Orthodox Churches to the extent that they limit episcopal consecration to celibate men) acknowledges the greater good of Our Lord’s counsel in the matter as found in Mt. 19.

To strip any individual of that privilege in our society would effectively be the equivalent of removing the freedom to practice religion.

Since when does “our society” set the standards by which Christians are to live and practice their faith? The Church was practicing clerical celibacy long before “our society” consecrated the “freedom of religion.”

Without such miracles and gifts of God,

You mean the charism to live a celibate life? It is a “gift of God.” Nobody has said it isn’t.

. . . an individual is confined to either absolutely accept their position of obligation,

Huh?

or to riot against it in multifaceted forms.

Huh? again. Let me see if I understand you. You are saying that a man would choose celibacy only by way of abject submission or he must “riot in multifaceted forms”. I have no idea what you are tryng to say.

This is not to say that celibacy has no spiritual gifts or fruitful aspects.

I think the episcopal church is more concerned with giving you the freedom to believe as you see fit.

I agree. The Catholic Church on the other hand is concerned with offering people the freedom to believe and to live as God sees fit.

Catholic and other theological wisdom is out there in the world, available for those who seek it. To not “hear of it” does not mean the church runs against it.

You’re spaking of natural law.

Also, the only thing I ever hear in reference to the sin of homosexual acts is found in the Old Testament. As for that I have found varying sources which question the intention, and over all it is my understanding that Christ formed a new covenant with man, making the old laws less enforcible, and not once did he mention this sin specifically. He did however mention sexual perversion and fornication, which is why I believe that sex outside of marriage is sin.

Well, if the Epistle to the Romans is in your Bible, you might want to see what Paul, using the natural law argument says about homosexual practice. As for the new covenant making the old covenant unenforceable, the natural law position holds that the moral commandments are merely the written version of what is already obvious on the face of the created universe. The arguments that homosexuality is not *really *forbidden in the Old Covenant are contumacious ravings, adolescent in their particularity.

religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htmI hope you don’t take this stuff seriously.

Anyway, the Catholic position on marriage is: one man, one woman, open to life, for life. The natural law, which is not up “for argument,” understands that sexuality is ordered procreation. Same-sex relationships can’t go there.

 

[kemushi]

This will be my last post. I admit I have been deliberatley provocative.

This has caused Anglican unity to become broken. Their own paths have also diverged permanently. Those who call themsleves progressives and have changed traditional morality and practice will never turn back, barring a great miracle of divine intervention. Those who hold to traditional faith and morality will never accept communion with the new agers. Many will leave.

Provocative is not the word for it. I would suggest that you are “Old School”. I am provocative.

There are only a few more points I would like to make about this topic:

1. The idea that I belong to a church that has both provocative leftist view points of theology alongside traditional right leaning views makes me feel like I have made the right decision. The presence of both leaves room for growth for all in both directions. Nothing could be better than that.
2. Rome is not the deciding factor in my salvation, with or without the church, Jesus is the only deciding factor. My proof is in the gospel of the Living Messiah, who like all living creatures grows, Changes, and becomes More Whole throughout it’s development.
3. Think, feel or believe what you will. But do not distribute erroneous and incomplete hearsay about a religion to which you do not belong, and above all do not forget that your own church is the victim of as many flaws as those who you so arrogantly condemn.

If you refuse to look at the state of your own problems, I cannot help you. And I am unwilling to listen to any seemingly rational arguments against my own church, because clearly many issues are being blatantly ignored on the opposite side.

I refuse to believe that protestants of any flavor will be locked out of the kingdom of Heaven on judgment day simply for the fact that they did not adhere wholly and absolutely to the founding church of Rome. While you state the sundry and impeccably petty reasons for the broken apostolic succession, I will be in church, singing beautiful hymns to a traditional pipe organ, taking the Eucharist with full knowledge of his presence, and feel perfectly fine with my decision. It’s a far sight better than a church with a superiority complex, and rampant abuses, neglect and hypocrisy. Plus none of my congregation are so vulgar, cold and inconsiderate as what I have experienced in the catholic parishes which I was considering attending. (A man groping his crotch area in the pew, a woman who smacked her kid on the head outside of the church, and people who cannot even say the Peace without a dirty look on their face.)

Thank you and Good Night! :tiphat: