Former Catholic much happier as an Anglican

[jmcrae]

Reformation,

I was a former Protestant minister and am now a Catholic priest. I am much happier as a Catholic. I thank God daily for the grace to come into full communion with Christ’s Church.

Praise the Lord!

 

[1ke]

I was Roman Catholic my whole life.

And, I was raised Episcopalian and became a Catholic at age 25.

It prompts me to think quite often as to what really went wrong in my Catholic life?? What has gone wrong for so many that like me left the Catholic church?

No one can answer this question but you. The door is always open for you to return to the Catholic Church.

I must also state too that transitioning from Catholicism to Anglicanism is like comparing white to ivory or pearl. It is very similar. I know we do have some serious differences in belief on a few things, but practice is almost identical during worship services.

Please look further into the doctrine and theology of the Episcopal Church. “Looks” are not nearly as importance as substance. And, the EC is sadly lacking when it comes to doctrine and theology.

That is why I left.

 

[GKC]

That being granted, how does the current practice of ordination of practicing homosexuals and women affect the validity of orders?

Sort of like the **Enola Gay **affected Hiroshima

Is it possible for a Bishop who attempts the ordination a woman or a practicing homosexual (neither of whom can be validly ordained) be said to have “proper intent” when he ordains heterosexual and/or celibate males? Since his attempts to ordain women and practicing homosexuals shows that he has a defective understanding of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, does it not?

I’m not sure that the inability to ordain a female is on precisely the same ontological level as ordaining a practicing homosexual, but I wouldn’t argue the point at all. I say yes, to your question.

GKC

 

[SuzieB]

Please don’t get bent out of shape about a joke. Laugh with us.

I’'m just glad you did not become pentecostal, I would have had to reach thru the internet and slap you and call you susie.

If you’re talking about me, I’m not Pentecostal, I’m Presbyterian.:yup:

 

[MariaG]

I don’t think it was fair to slam the hierarchy of the Anglican Church when the OP didn’t go there and slam the Pope or any of our other beliefs as many non-Catholic posters here do.

But how did that “prove” his point? He had expressed nothing about discomfort in the Catholic Church but satisfaction with the current church he was in? And a comment that he percieved as nasty proved his point?

And that was my question, not the appropriateness or lack thereof of the other poster. The OP responses to people made little sense.

As we can see the poster, however, has been banned.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[jmcrae]

Sort of like the **Enola Gay **affected Hiroshima

That’s what I thought.

I’m not sure that the inability to ordain a female is on precisely the same ontological level as ordaining a practicing homosexual, but I wouldn’t argue the point at all. I say yes, to your question.

GKC

I realize that these are two different problems. I suppose it must be mind-boggling to see them both happening at the same time.

 

[BloodStaindRose]

But you’re forgeting one thing–
The ONLY Church that Jesus Christ himself began was the Catholic Church–it is the only Church that can be traced to His time…

Here is a timeline of the beginning of different churches:

If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex- monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.

If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.

If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century.

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.

If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774.

If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1605.

If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.

If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as 'Church of the Nazarene," “Pentecostal Gospel.” “Holiness Church,” “Pilgrim Holiness Church,” “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past century.

If you are Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.

 

[GKC]

That’s what I thought.

I realize that these are two different problems. I suppose it must be mind-boggling to see them both happening at the same time.

Say, rather, sad. Very sad.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[reneeville]

No pun intended but you hit the nail square on the head. Those who leave the One True Church seeking congregational comfort… and have left Christ out of the equation.
God’s peace~

I wonder if that’s the purpose of religion, faith, etc., to make us “comfortable?” Doesn’t sound terribly much in snyc with “take up thy cross and follow Me?”

 

[rr1213]

He got banned, Father.

I wonder what he said that got him banned?

 

[puzzleannie]

I It is very similar. I know we do have some serious differences in belief on a few things, but practice is almost identical during worship services.

with the exception that, having rejected the authority of Jesus Christ, given to the Catholic Church, handed on through apostolic succession, Episcopalians and their parent denomination, Anglicans, have rejected the very authority necessary to confect the Eucharist. No Catholic who has understanding and belief in the reality of the Eucharist can possibly leave the Church, no matter what reason or excuse arises. We will pray for the fullness of that understanding and belief for you and for all our separated brethren.

 

[GKC]

with the exception that, having rejected the authority of Jesus Christ, given to the Catholic Church, handed on through apostolic succession, Episcopalians and their parent denomination, Anglicans, have rejected the very authority necessary to confect the Eucharist. No Catholic who has understanding and belief in the reality of the Eucharist can possibly leave the Church, no matter what reason or excuse arises. We will pray for the fullness of that understanding and belief for you and for all our separated brethren.

No, that’s not quite what *Apostolicae Curae *says. It says the Succession was lost, by changes in the Edwardine Ordinal, which resulted in defects of intent and form in the ordination/consecration process. The Orthodox reject the RC claims, but their orders are not judged to have this fault. Likewise the Old Catholics (when they were still orthodox, and the PNCC.

Your prayers are appreciated.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Eileen_T]

Reading some of his posts leads me to think he may have married a divorcee, which is why he left the Church and is now saying the Episcopal Church is the one that has preserved the original Christianity. He is trying to justify what his marriage which does not have CC recognition.

 

[El_Paulo]

I wonder what he said that got him banned?

Asking things like that can get you banned!

 

[Researcher]

ReformationPlus, as do many others, look to the church to find friendship, and to be warmly received by others in the church. This is understandable as being a Christian today means we stand against the current tide in society. It is always comforting to find a church where one is warmly received.

We must understand the difference between the church community and faith. There are many church communities that appear to be dead, in any denomination. The solution is to liven up the faith in the community or to find another church. That does not mean to find another faith. Yes, there are many protestant communities out there that have a vibrant community in faith. Many who have struggled in a community where the faith was not vibrant have had their faith saved by going to another community. One must remember however that their faith is either incomplete or in error.

I may leave my local church due to its lack of fellowship but I will never leave the faith of the Catholic Church.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

And practically, even in the UK, it’s the PM who finally selects bishops. The queen is pretty much obligated to appoint upon the PM reccomendation (or abdicate, I suppose). This is an even odder conundrum in the C of E: Lady Thatcher, I believe a Free Methodist, at least at the time, “appointed,” via HM the Queen, one of the “instruments” of unity in the Anglican Communion: Lord Runcie as Archbishop of Canterbury.

I don’t think this any more odd than for an imperfect human being to be a minister of Christ’s Sacraments.​

ISTM one can defend that way of doing things thus:

• It is Christ the Head of the Church Who shepherds the Church - in this case, the C of E - through His servant the Sovereign, who by His Providence has been appointed to reign over His people;
• Who in turn provides for His Church committed to her care by providing human shepherds;
• & she does this through the agency of her ministers.
  This provision is still His; that there is a chain of responsibility, from Sovereign to PM to bishop-elect, does not make His acts any less His; it is still He Who makes bishops; for His activity is not like a series of dominos, in which the first is connected with the last only mediately, by being in the same series - it is immediate at every point, because He is transcendent.

So the personal qualities of the Sovereign or the PM are - to some degree at least - irrelevant. As Article 26 in the BCP says:

XXVI. Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacrament.

Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and, Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in the receiving of the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.
Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally being found guilty, by just judgement be deposed.