How has the Anglican Communion gone wrong?

[Contarini]

The self-described orthodox on CAF flock here. For the most part, the non-orthodox do not subscribe to this forum.

That’s changing, which is a good thing.

Anglicans tend to be verbal and well-educated, therefore they talk and disagree noisily, often online.

The proportion of well-educated Anglicans is no doubt higher, at least in the States, where few of the poor and uneducated are drawn to Anglicanism (I do not see this as a good thing, by the way), but given the much higher raw numbers of Catholics, I think there are at least as many verbal, well-educated Catholics as Anglicans!

But more to the point, it’s plainly true that Anglicans have trouble agreeing on even a basic understanding of what Anglican doctrine is. There is simply no comparison between the level of doctrinal diversity found at the official level and among theologically well-informed folks in Anglicanism vs. Catholicism. You’re absolutely right that there’s a lot more theological diversity in Catholicism than the folks here want to recognize (well, they recognize it, but they see it as apostasy!), but you’re way overstating the case.

Noisy Anglican non-believers, lay and clergy alike, know that they won’t be kicked out of their dioceses or hauled up before Rome.

Hauled up before Rome? What planet are you living in? In the past few decades there have been a handful of prominent theologians summoned to Rome. The Internet and real life are full of vocal Catholic dissenters, and very rarely is there any disciplinary action against them. I think that this relative laxity is a very good thing, by the way. But it’s simply nonsense to say that Catholics are cowering in fear of disagreeing with Church teaching. That statement has no relationship to reality that i can see.

Catholic laymen and clergy alike know that disagreement is not tolerated, and therefore they are much quieter.

Again, I just have to wonder what planet you are living on. Perhaps you can go to Notre Dame and explain to Fr. Richard McBrien that he is being too quiet and needs to write more columns in the NCR and give more interviews to the media. . . .

Disagreement is tolerated. It’s officially condemned, and if you are in a prominent position and manage to be really noisy there may be consequences. I’m not saying that the Vatican is a total pushover–but American Catholicism is chock-full of very vocal and prominent dissenters, and disciplinary action only occurs in a minority of cases.

Again, I’m not saying this the way the conservative Catholics on this forum do, as some kind of terrible failure. I think it’s a good thing that there’s so much disagreement and lively debate within Catholicism. But if you don’t notice that this debate is taking place, you either aren’t following Catholic matters very closely or you have a very low threshold for what counts as the suppression of dissent. (I think the latter is more likely)

Edwin

 

[1234]

I am not praising Anglicans for being well-educated. However, it a sociological fact that they are, especially in the US. They argue in public and they argue on the web because they know that they will not be hauled in before some sort of ecclesiastical court. Excommunication is very rare among Anglicans. There is no corresponding Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger’s former job. The Anglican Church is strongest among democracies (interesting, that…), among people who are used to expressing their collective and individual minds. However, most Catholics live in traditional Catholic countries which were repressive for centuries and were repressive into modern times (Franco’s Spain). Many Catholics who were raised or who have roots in these countries now live in the US ( Central and South America). They often become poorly observant Catholics, drop out, join other churches, but don’t bother to argue with the Catholic Church. Anglicans stay in, argue, threaten to leave, argue some more, and if they drop out, either join splinter groups or the RCC–where (I predict) they will continue to argue.

I made no reference to Catholic educational levels, nor should I. It is irrelevant. There are a lot of educated Catholics, who disagree mightily with their church, by the way. But the Catholic Church does not tolerate dissent, especially among its clergy and religious.

 

[PRmerger]

NO, I have never known two Catholics who had the same *religious *beliefs.

There are no 2 Catholics with different beliefs. There are Catholics who profess beliefs consonant with the CC, and then there are Protestants.

 

[Contarini]

I am not praising Anglicans for being well-educated. However, it a sociological fact that they are, especially in the US.

Agreed. My remark about it not necessarily being a good thing was mostly for the benefit of RC readers–I didn’t want them to think that we were engaging in Anglican snobbery, especially after the unfortunate remarks of the Presiding Bishop a few years ago!

They argue in public and they argue on the web because they know that they will not be hauled in before some sort of ecclesiastical court. Excommunication is very rare among Anglicans. There is no corresponding Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger’s former job.

Indeed. But in fact, as I said, very few Catholics get hauled in before an ecclesiastical court either. Of course discipline is stricter in Catholicism–no dispute there. But most Catholics don’t seem afraid of consequences for expressing dissenting views.

The Anglican Church is strongest among democracies (interesting, that…),

How do you go about measuring this?

among people who are used to expressing their collective and individual minds. However, most Catholics live in traditional Catholic countries which were repressive for centuries and were repressive into modern times (Franco’s Spain).

Statistics showing this?

There’s definitely some truth to what you are saying. Post-Tridentine Catholicism did take some very unfortunate turns. But I don’t want to assent hastily to sweeping generalizations that may be somewhat of a stereotype.

I made no reference to Catholic educational levels, nor should I. It is irrelevant. There are a lot of educated Catholics, who disagree mightily with their church, by the way. But the Catholic Church does not tolerate dissent, especially among its clergy and religious.

First of all, there are plenty of educated Catholics who accept the teachings of the Magisterium. Some of them agree with the interpretation of the Magisterium dominant on these forums, others don’t!

And in the second place, my point is that there are, in absolute numbers, plenty of educated Catholics who express dissenting views. I continue to be baffled by how you can possibly live in the same world I do and not notice this!

Sure, on paper the RCC has a very strict attitude to dissent. And by Anglican standards, they enforce this attitude in draconian ways. But what this means in practice is that every so often the Vatican issues a document criticizing some theologian, and in a minority of those cases this affects the theologian’s ability to teach in Catholic institutions or something of that sort. Hans Kung’s career hasn’t suffered much from his condemnation, but sure, there were consequences for him.

I grant that a lot more disciplinary action takes place on a lower level, and this is increasing as more moderate/liberal bishops die or retire and are replaced by more conservative ones. But you still have an immense amount of very vocal dissent going on. I worry that over time there may be a chilling effect, and that this will just put off dealing with the underlying issues for another few decades or centuries. . . . But maybe this is just how it happens. Certainly there are certain things that have happened in the last “thaw” that are never going to be undone.

I come to this as someone who has some sympathy with both sides. I have views that many Catholics consider liberal, and I strongly object to the centralized, authoritarian way that Catholicism has functioned for some centuries. But I also believe in the importance of orthodoxy and the need for church discipline, and on many points I find the “conservative” Catholic theologians a lot more interesting than the “liberals.” Hans Kung seems to be just parroting liberal Protestant theology. Ratzinger is engaging the modern world in a faithful and creative fashion, it seems to me (going back to the 60s and continuing with his work as Pope).

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

It’s the phrase, “Catholics of an orthodox nature”–I know very few ‘orthodox’ Catholics. And most Catholics don’t know *what *they believe about the Eucharist–they’ll say, “Christ is really there”–and can’t define or really discuss “really”

This is quite true and a testament to the poor catechesis the Church provided for its flock.

However, it s NOT a testament to the Truth of Catholicism.

The orthodox RCs I know are all here on CAF. It’s an artificial environment. I know that there *are * out there, maybe located at ‘orthodox’ churches, but I suspect many, if not most, are in artificial ‘communities’ like this one.

LOL!

That you have “met” many Catholics in this artificial environment who can defend their faith is but a small sampling of those in real life who are proclaiming the Truth of Christ and His Church.

If I were orthodox, I would feel comfortable in an Anglican environment, which includes all that I find orthodox.

This is a tautology.

I would feel comfortable in a home that embraces what I believe even if many of my fellow-worshipers don’t .** I tolerate diversity**.

You do not tolerate “diversity”. No thinking person does. There’s a certain idea you have of what’s acceptable and what’s not, and* if it falls outside that which you have proscribed *I can guarantee you that you wouldn’t be so “tolerant” of diversity.

As a Catholic, you in your pew, believe me, are surrounded by many who don’t subscribe to what you believe, or even know what those phrases mean–they are just keeping quiet about it.

This, as I stated above, is quite true. :sad_yes:

Irrelevant to this discussion, but true nonetheless.

You want everyone to believe the same as you do in your church.

Curious statement, indeed, coming from a Christian. Does not your pastor teach that you are to evangelize? How does one do this without wanting someone to believe what you believe?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

This is all a priori, that’s the problem. You make a lot of statements here that you can’t prove. Your thesis is that nine ouf ten Catholics don’t know squat about their faith and are hypocrites and that somehow I have crowned myself as the sultan of orthodoxy wanting everyone around me to be like me. Nonsense, pure boloney. I never said that. In fact, there are plenty of folks here at CAF who think I’m far too liberal for Catholicism and not orthodox enough.

You use the word “most” in the majority of your sentences generalizing Lutherans and Anglicans as bright, intuitive, lucid, and analytical and painting Catholics as going through the motions.

I am also not sure why you characterize CAF as an artificial environment. I have spoken with PLENTY of liberal Catholics in here, hardcore conservatives, and moderates. There are people wanting to learn the faith, people who know it reasonably well, and those who seem to have a masters in theology. I see nothing artificial.

I fail to see why you claim I want everyone to believe as me? It’s rather odd, rather peculiar, and totally alien to my personality if you ask anyone in here. I have struggled through my own journey toward the Church and still am unsure if I’ll stay. I hardly have tried to be a pontiff here. As for your tolerance toward diversity, if you say so. I don’t know you well enough to evaluate but it seems you know me better than most in here to judge my motives.

And again, at the end of your post, you draw more speculative thinking and hypotheticals based on a priori observations, that most wouldn’t consider my orthodox. 1234, you have no idea what most Catholics would consider me. Pure speculation and it’s condescending.

It’s the phrase, “Catholics of an orthodox nature”–I know very few ‘orthodox’ Catholics. And most Catholics don’t know *what *they believe about the Eucharist–they’ll say, “Christ is really there”–and can’t define or really discuss “really”. Anglicans just discuss their differences–noisily. (Many Anglicans and Lutherans also believe that Christ is ‘really’ there, but can discuss it a lot better).

The orthodox RCs I know are all here on CAF. It’s an artificial environment. I know that there *are * out there, maybe located at ‘orthodox’ churches, but I suspect many, if not most, are in artificial ‘communities’ like this one.

If I were orthodox, I would feel comfortable in an Anglican environment, which includes all that I find orthodox. I would feel comfortable in a home that embraces what I believe even if many of my fellow-worshipers don’t . I tolerate diversity. As a Catholic, you in your pew, believe me, are surrounded by many who don’t subscribe to what you believe, or even know what those phrases mean–they are just keeping quiet about it. You want everyone to believe the same as you do in your church. It’s not gonna happen.

"…do most orthodox, practicing, informed Catholics have divergent views anywhere near, remotely near, what Anglicans have as far as divergence? I don’t think so…."

Once again, you are saying ‘orthodox’ , pinning in your definition to strengthen your case. There are* an awful lot* of Catholics in prominent places, both sexes, who have very strongly divergent beliefs from Rome. So much so, I wonder what they stay, except that they have been prominent Catholics for years. Many are religious and are priests. (Rome seems to be backing off an outright attack, but we’ll see…)

And, GH, most ‘orthodox’ Catholics would not regard you as orthodox. Sorry.

 

[1234]

The Anglican Church is strongest among democracies (interesting, that…),

How do you go about measuring this?
Statistics showing this?
There’s definitely some truth to what you are saying. Post-Tridentine Catholicism did take some very unfortunate turns. But I don’t want to assent hastily to sweeping generalizations that may be somewhat of a stereotype.
First of all, there are plenty of educated Catholics who accept the teachings of the Magisterium. Some of them agree with the interpretation of the Magisterium dominant on these forums, others don’t!
And in the second place, my point is that there are, in absolute numbers, plenty of educated Catholics who express dissenting views. I continue to be baffled by how you can possibly live in the same world I do and not notice this!
Sure, on paper the RCC has a very strict attitude to dissent. And by Anglican standards, they enforce this attitude in draconian ways. But what this means in practice is that every so often the Vatican issues a document criticizing some theologian, and in a minority of those cases this affects the theologian’s ability to teach in Catholic institutions or something of that sort. Hans Kung’s career hasn’t suffered much from his condemnation, but sure, there were consequences for him.
I grant that a lot more disciplinary action takes place on a lower level, and this is increasing as more moderate/liberal bishops die or retire and are replaced by more conservative ones. But you still have an immense amount of very vocal dissent going on. I worry that over time there may be a chilling effect, and that this will just put off dealing with the underlying issues for another few decades or centuries. . . . But maybe this is just how it happens. Certainly there are certain things that have happened in the last “thaw” that are never going to be undone.
I come to this as someone who has some sympathy with both sides. I have views that many Catholics consider liberal, and I strongly object to the centralized, authoritarian way that Catholicism has functioned for some centuries. But I also believe in the importance of orthodoxy and the need for church discipline, and on many points I find the “conservative” Catholic theologians a lot more interesting than the “liberals.” Hans Kung seems to be just parroting liberal Protestant theology. Ratzinger is engaging the modern world in a faithful and creative fashion, it seems to me (going back to the 60s and continuing with his work as Pope).

Edwin

The C of E flourished in England, the Empire and the Commonwealth, now democracies. No mystery there. ( It is doing well in Asia and Africa now, as are all Christian churches.) The RCC spread unopposed throughout Catholic Spain’s empire, Mexico, Central and South America. No mystery there. The RCC supported and was supported by Franco. No mystery there. As to dissent, it’s limited among RCC religious and clergy. Consider the Visitation to RCC religious communities of women in the US. Surely they are inquiring about doctrine and observance. Laymen can dissent, but I suspect not to the same extent as in the C of E.

In the last analysis, if you are having trouble deciding what church to remain with, I think where you worship should be determined by what church/denomination/liturgical practice most helps your religious life as a Christian. You, like GH, may be uncomfortable in the C of E, the RCC, AND orthodoxy, all for varying reasons. But in what church do you feel closest to Christ? In what church an you pray, observe and grow as a person and in your worship?

 

[Contarini]

The C of E flourished in England, the Empire and the Commonwealth, now democracies. No mystery there.

So you’re arguing that Anglicanism promoted the spread of democracy, even though the official leaders of Anglicanism during the 17th and 18th centuries, and to some extent even in the 19th, promoted a hierarchical, oligarchical form of government? There’s something about Anglicanism that foments democracy, even while bishops thunder against it?

I think you are moving too quickly from correlation to causation. Not saying you have no point, only that there’s a bit more of a “mystery” than you are admitting. The same is true of arguments that Christianity as a whole promotes democracy or human rights or capitalism or science, or that it leads to the degradation of the environment. All of these arguments start with correlation, pick the bits of evidence that support the correlation, and ignore or explain away the others. And I’m not saying that these kinds of arguments have no value–only that one should admit the difficulties and complexities.

Also, much of Africa and bits of Asia are part of the Commonwealth!

And finally, there are different kinds of “democracy.” Many folks would distinguish between “democracy” (rule by the people) and “liberalism” (individual rights, not particularly what people use it to mean in common parlance today). England was famous for its liberalism–not so much for democracy. France the other way round. Again, these things are trickier than you are admitting!

As to dissent, it’s limited among RCC religious and clergy. Consider the Visitation to RCC religious communities of women in the US. Surely they are inquiring about doctrine and observance. Laymen can dissent, but I suspect not to the same extent as in the C of E.

Note the “surely” and “I suspect.” You have an obvious fact–a vast amount of vocal dissent among Catholic laity, clergy, and religious. Against this you oppose the fact that now a visitation is being made of female religious–this is news precisely because it may lead to a crackdown on the dissent that has been going on for decades with little represssion; and a “suspicion” that Catholic laypeople are less dissenting than those in the C of E.

I suspect that your suspicion is correct–but note that that’s precisely what Jharek and I were arguing against you. You are admitting that there is less diversity, but arguing that this diversity is only in outward expression and not in what people think. You don’t have any evidence for that, You’re arguing in circles. The fact that Catholic dissent is less extreme proves that it is equally extreme but people are afraid of being hauled up in front of a church court, in spite of the fact that you have yet to point to examples of laypeople being hauled up in front of such a court.

To summarize: of course there is stricter discipline in the RCC than in Anglicanism, but it applies mostly to clergy and religious, and even there it is fairly sporadic. Of course there is a lot of diversity of opinion, but it’s less than in Anglicanism, not for the most part because the Church will do something to dissenters but because there is a fairly clear, definable Church teaching and many Catholics consider themselves bound in conscience to uphold it.

One striking thing I’ve found is that lots of Catholics “self-police.” Lots of divorced Catholics, and others who have incurred excommunication latae sententiae, choose not to receive Communion, while faithfully attending Mass. In practice, no one is going to stop them receiving Communion. Even if they don’t dare do so in their local parish church, they could go to some other parish where they aren’t known. Yet it seems, anecdotally, that generally they don’t. That works against your claim that Catholics are dissenting in their hearts but don’t dare express it because the Church will somehow do something to them if they do.

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

Oh, Jharek! Be not far from the Eucharist! Do not let the devil keep you away with doubts!!

But I do understand. Just as a wayward husband ought not come home and announce to his wife, “Honey! I’m sorry! Now let’s get back to business and do it tonight!”. One ought not return to the magnificent, sublime One Flesh Union without great consideration.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Brother, what an awesome testimony. Sin is something we all grapple with. I have my own that sometimes get me down to the point I think I’ll never overcome them. As another poster said, the Eucharist is the ultimate medicine coupled with the strength of confession.

Blessings!

gurney

 

[Anna_Scott]

It’s the phrase, “Catholics of an orthodox nature”–I know very few ‘orthodox’ Catholics. And most Catholics don’t know *what *they believe about the Eucharist–they’ll say, “Christ is really there”–and can’t define or really discuss “really”. Anglicans just discuss their differences–noisily. (Many Anglicans and Lutherans also believe that Christ is ‘really’ there, but can discuss it a lot better).

The orthodox RCs I know are all here on CAF. It’s an artificial environment. I know that there *are * out there, maybe located at ‘orthodox’ churches, but I suspect many, if not most, are in artificial ‘communities’ like this one.

If I were orthodox, I would feel comfortable in an Anglican environment, which includes all that I find orthodox. I would feel comfortable in a home that embraces what I believe even if many of my fellow-worshipers don’t . I tolerate diversity. As a Catholic, you in your pew, believe me, are surrounded by many who don’t subscribe to what you believe, or even know what those phrases mean–they are just keeping quiet about it. You want everyone to believe the same as you do in your church. It’s not gonna happen.

"…do most orthodox, practicing, informed Catholics have divergent views anywhere near, remotely near, what Anglicans have as far as divergence? I don’t think so…."

Once again, you are saying ‘orthodox’ , pinning in your definition to strengthen your case. There are* an awful lot* of Catholics in prominent places, both sexes, who have very strongly divergent beliefs from Rome. So much so, I wonder what they stay, except that they have been prominent Catholics for years. Many are religious and are priests. (Rome seems to be backing off an outright attack, but we’ll see…)

And, GH, most ‘orthodox’ Catholics would not regard you as orthodox. Sorry.

This is all a priori, that’s the problem. You make a lot of statements here that you can’t prove. Your thesis is that nine ouf ten Catholics don’t know squat about their faith and are hypocrites and that somehow I have crowned myself as the sultan of orthodoxy wanting everyone around me to be like me. Nonsense, pure boloney. I never said that. In fact, there are plenty of folks here at CAF who think I’m far too liberal for Catholicism and not orthodox enough.

You use the word “most” in the majority of your sentences generalizing Lutherans and Anglicans as bright, intuitive, lucid, and analytical and painting Catholics as going through the motions.

I am also not sure why you characterize CAF as an artificial environment. I have spoken with PLENTY of liberal Catholics in here, hardcore conservatives, and moderates. There are people wanting to learn the faith, people who know it reasonably well, and those who seem to have a masters in theology. I see nothing artificial.

I fail to see why you claim I want everyone to believe as me? It’s rather odd, rather peculiar, and totally alien to my personality if you ask anyone in here. I have struggled through my own journey toward the Church and still am unsure if I’ll stay. I hardly have tried to be a pontiff here. As for your tolerance toward diversity, if you say so. I don’t know you well enough to evaluate but it seems you know me better than most in here to judge my motives.

And again, at the end of your post, you draw more speculative thinking and hypotheticals based on a priori observations, that most wouldn’t consider my orthodox. 1234, you have no idea what most Catholics would consider me. Pure speculation and it’s condescending.

Gurney,
1234 obviously doesn’t know you at all. You are very honest and open about your beliefs and about your struggles—and you have been a great friend to me----an Episcopalian. You’ve never pressured me to convert. You’ve listen through countless PM’s and e-mails with patience.

1234,
CAF has been a lifeline for me for nearly two years. I’ve worked through some major faith issues with some very “real” people, many of whom are Catholics. I’ll take up for CAF any day of the week.
Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You’re too kind, Anna, and a real blessing from God no matter which communion you choose

Gurney,
1234 obviously doesn’t know you at all. You are very honest and open about your beliefs and about your struggles—and you have been a great friend to me----an Episcopalian. You’ve never pressured me to convert. You’ve listen through countless PM’s and e-mails with patience.

1234,
CAF has been a lifeline for me for nearly two years. I’ve worked through some major faith issues with some very “real” people, many of whom are Catholics. I’ll take up for CAF any day of the week.
Anna

 

[GKC]

I (and who better?) will generalize about Anglicans:

They are a motley crew.

Easy.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m suprised you didn’t bust out the Motley Crue song “Smokin’ in the Boys’ Room”

This is a new saying from GKC…cliches are complicated…like history

Why don’t you use a Tony Stark Iron Man reference like “you have to run before you can walk”

I (and who better?) will generalize about Anglicans:

They are a motley crew.

Easy.

GKC

 

[1234]

I don’t know where you’re coming from, but you are reading me wrong. There* are* a lot of very quiet dissident Catholics out there who don’t subscribe to many RCC teachings, don’t analyze them, don’t blog, don’t yell, don’t join splinter groups, and act a whole lot differently than dissident Anglicans. I have suggested cultural backgrounds and differences (which are well-known) and I get talk from you about blacksmithing. Cut the paranoia. The Anglican Communion includes many Anglican Churches, with different traditions, degrees and emphases in belief, different emphases in liturgy. The RCC has nothing comparable to this; Orthodoxy is closer with all of it national churches. Anglicans do have different cultural traditions than most RCs, as they (the Anglicans) predominate in the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and a lot of other English-speaking countries and English-speaking enclaves (South Africa-not traditionally a democracy by a long shot) in which they could talk amongst each other, , write, argue, and recently blog, set up splinters and steal each others dioceses and parishioners. The RCC does not even attempt to tolerate dissent, not if it can help it. Americans get away with a lot more than most, because of their purse-strings. But RCs often keep quiet, take what they want from the RCC and ignore the rest. All of this has very little to do with education or intelligence. (I mention education, you extrapolate to intelligence–where did *that *come from?–you, not me.)

 

[1234]

There are no 2 Catholics with different beliefs. There are Catholics who profess beliefs consonant with the CC, and then there are Protestants.

Exactly.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Jhareck is not showing paranoia, he’s offended by your tone and generalizations, as am I. You demonstrate an elitist tone that is unfair. And your statement here that Americans “get away with” so much because of “purse strings” is disgusting. Americans don’t just disregard morality and get away with it for $$$. I don’t know where you are getting these broad-brush paintings you throw on the canvass. I have told you that this is offensive, Jharek has said the same, Anna Scott isn’t happy with these statements, so you might take a hint from the posters in here. We all respect Anglicans. I was Anglican for years and cherish much of my time I spent there. I still read the Book of Common Prayer, at least parts of it, for inspiration at times, I know some great Anglicans (especially in here), and I disagree with many of the theological positions of Anglicanism and where they are going right now as a worldwide body. But I don’t draw conclusions that they’re all insincere phonies as you are doing with Catholics. I know phony Catholics but also know a TON of good, orthodox, practicing Catholics. Catholics are sinners like Anglicans. We both fall short. To judge the Catholic Church by the actions of sinners within it is unfair.

Also, it is not the RCC or Roman Catholic Church, it is called “The Catholic Church.” No Roman in the title. There are Latin Rite Catholics, Eastern Byzantine, Maronite, and a bunch of others, but the title of our Church is the Catholic Church.

We all want you here 1234, but what you’re saying is troublesome and hurtful, please don’t draw generalizations with your brethren in Christ on the Catholic side of things. God bless you.

I don’t know where you’re coming from, but you are reading me wrong. There* are* a lot of very quiet dissident Catholics out there who don’t subscribe to many RCC teachings, don’t analyze them, don’t blog, don’t yell, don’t join splinter groups, and act a whole lot differently than dissident Anglicans. I have suggested cultural backgrounds and differences (which are well-known) and I get talk from you about blacksmithing. Cut the paranoia. The Anglican Communion includes many Anglican Churches, with different traditions, degrees and emphases in belief, different emphases in liturgy. The RCC has nothing comparable to this; Orthodoxy is closer with all of it national churches. Anglicans do have different cultural traditions than most RCs, as they (the Anglicans) predominate in the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and a lot of other English-speaking countries and English-speaking enclaves (South Africa-not traditionally a democracy by a long shot) in which they could talk amongst each other, , write, argue, and recently blog, set up splinters and steal each others dioceses and parishioners. The RCC does not even attempt to tolerate dissent, not if it can help it. Americans get away with a lot more than most, because of their purse-strings. But RCs often keep quiet, take what they want from the RCC and ignore the rest. All of this has very little to do with education or intelligence. (I mention education, you extrapolate to intelligence–where did *that *come from?–you, not me.)

 

[PRmerger]

Exactly.

So, if you please, when you are discussing Catholics who dissent from Catholic teaching, please acknowledge that they are, essentially, protestant in their theology.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m just tired of hearing about “Cafeteria Catholics” all the time and this obsession with people who are NOT totally following the CC. We need to focus more on the faith, try to build each other up, talk about the great things about the Catholic Church, and to witness to our Lord’s Great Commission. I think a constant desire to point out what is lacking in our brethren and to try to expose wounds and shortcomings is pointless. We are ALL hypocrites in need of the Saviour, me the foremost of those sinners! But when I leave the confessional, as I did tonight, I don’t walk out looking around to see who is not towing the line and who isn’t dotting every “i” and crossing every “t.” It’s unhealthy and Pharisaic to obsess about what is lacking in our brothers and sisters.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m just tired of hearing about “Cafeteria Catholics” all the time and this obsession with people who are NOT totally following the CC. We need to focus more on the faith, try to build each other up, talk about the great things about the Catholic Church, and to witness to our Lord’s Great Commission. I think a constant desire to point out what is lacking in our brethren and to try to expose wounds and shortcomings is pointless. We are ALL hypocrites in need of the Saviour, me the foremost of those sinners! But when I leave the confessional, as I did tonight, I don’t walk out looking around to see who is not towing the line and who isn’t dotting every “i” and crossing every “t.” It’s unhealthy and Pharisaic to obsess about what is lacking in our brothers and sisters.

As this post appeared directly after mine, but it also has no reference post, I am wondering if you are responding specifically to me, gurney?