I am an Anglican, but I love the Catholic church

[Londoner]

You only love the Church to the extent it doesn’t get in the way of anything you personally want to do, it seems.

As a former Anglican who became a Catholic, I completely see where you are coming from, but as a former Anglican, I can also completely see where the OP is coming from. For me, there reached a point where I began to see the contradictions inherent in my position. I came from the extreme Anglo-Catholic end of the spectrum and had grown up trying to hold a number of inconsistent beliefs, e.g. the 39 Articles say that the bishop of Rome has no jurisdiction in this realm of England, but the pope is the head of the universal Church to which we belong; the magisterium of the Catholic Church is binding upon the Church of England, except where it has made clear errors such as saying that we have no valid apostolic succession, orders, or sacraments; the Church of England is the Catholic Church in England, despite the existence of an actual Catholic Church in England and Wales, which, curiously, is recognised as such by the pope. Eventually I couldn’t persist in these beliefs any longer, but the OP has clearly not reached that stage.

As I read it, the OP believes that the Anglican Church is an entirely valid church to which to belong. He presumably believes that it is a properly constituted church with validly consecrated bishops in apostolic succession, and valid orders and sacraments, and presumably also accepts the Church’s doctrine as presented in the Book of Common Prayer, 39 Articles, and so on. Assuming that that is the case, it doesn’t seem unreasonable of him to think that the Anglican Church would be a good option for somebody wanting to be married and have children while also following a calling to ordination. When he says how much he loves the Catholic Church I don’t think he is saying that he accepts it as the one and only true Church established by Jesus Christ during his earthly ministry and governed by the successor of St Peter.

 

[Qoheleth1]

This is correct; I firmly believe that the Anglican church is valid and part of the universal church. I also believe Lutheran doctrine in its modern incarnation is valid in terms of theology. As far as I see it, there are differences but they are not as stark as many believe.

Further, i am not convinced confessional Calvinist denominations are preaching the gospel truthfully and believe it to be an abhorrent theology.

At base, however: if you believe in one God who exists in three co-eternal persons and that you believe Jesus died and rose again three days later for your sins and you strive to keep His commandments you are a Christian. No matter your label.

 

[Londoner]

I would agree with that. There are some people who post on here who are strongly opposed to all kinds of Protestantism, as if they were not also Christians, albeit separated from us by some aspects of doctrine and Church polity. Had I not grown up in the extreme High Church Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church of England I perhaps would still be an Anglican today. I was, as I say, brought up with some plainly wrong ideas about the Church of England. I suppose the alternative would have been to have shifted to a more moderate type of Anglicanism that didn’t pretend that it was actually Catholic, in the sense of actually being a part of the Catholic Church. Out of interest, are you an Anglican in the sense of belonging to TEC or do you belong to one of the many churches that are also called Anglican, but which are not part of the Anglican Communion?

 

[Qoheleth1]

I’m currently Anglican Church in North America. It’s not associated with the communion and the archbishop of Canterbury says it will “be a long time 'til that happens,” which really means never.

The Lutheran church has made great strides trying to dialogue and reach agreements with the Catholic church which I find uplifting.

 

[Episcopalian]

This is correct; I firmly believe that the Anglican church is valid and part of the universal church. I also believe Lutheran doctrine in its modern incarnation is valid in terms of theology. As far as I see it, there are differences but they are not as stark as many believe.

A friend of mine, who is a Lutheran deacon on the way to priesthood actually had helped guest con-celebrate (I think that’s the word?) At my Episcopal Church.

I saw him walking down the aisle during the opening procession and had to do a double take!

It was only after he explained that the Lutheran Church and Episcopal one were in communion, which is pretty interesting!

When I was a Catholic, I always thought that each belief system was firmly separated and each believed their own was the sole valid one.

To hear that two distinct Protestant branches are in communion is STILL confusing/jarring to me at times!

 

[dochawk]

Fair. But I’m afraid that the most liberal Catholics would see the fact that something as fundamental to the Priesthood (in the West)

That the ignorant will refuse to understand is hardly an argument for anything . . .

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Priests cannot marry. What we allow is for married men to become priests. In the Byzantine Tradition, a man must have his wife’s permission to enter the seminary. If she says NO, the bishop won’t accept him.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

I respectfully disagree.
A married person can be submissive, obedient, discerned, committed, passionate, and loving.
How can priests share with the people, when they do not faced the same problems that their married brothers and sisters face? Most of the great men and women of the Bible were married, including Moses.

 

[HopkinsReb]

How can priests share with the people, when they do not faced the same problems that their married brothers and sisters face?

By that logic, a priest also has to be an engineer, a plumber, a lawyer, and literally every other profession so that they can have faced the same problems that their congregants face.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Yes. Most parishes have pew books where you can follow the Divine Liturgy.

 

[Fauken]

How can priests share with the people, when they do not faced the same problems that their married brothers and sisters face?

How can a doctor treat a patient suffering from yellow fever when that doctor hasn’t had yellow fever or been deathly sick before?

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

Don’t be ridiculous. Engineers, plumbers, lawyers, and people in literally every other profession can get married, if they so choose.
Priests should be allowed to marry.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Don’t be ridiculous. Engineers, plumbers, lawyers, and people in literally every other profession can get married, if they so choose.

You missed the point completely.

If a priest has to be married so that he can face the same problems that his married brothers and sisters face, he also has to be an engineer to face the problems that his engineer brothers and sisters face, a plumber to face the problems that his plumber brothers and sisters face, the son of a single mother to face the problems that children of single mothers face, but also the son of a two-parent family to face the problems that children of two-parent families face, but also the son divorce to face the same problems that children of divorce face, and also a man to face the same problems that men face, but also a woman to face the same problems that women face, but also gay to face the same problems that gay people face, but also straight to face the same problems that straight people face…

As @Fauken pointed out, one doesn’t turn down a doctor because the doctor isn’t sick.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Don’t be ridiculous. Engineers, plumbers, lawyers, and people in literally every other profession can get married, if they so choose.
Priests should be allowed to marry.

Oh, also, if he needs to be married to face the same problems his married brothers and sisters face, he also has to remain unmarried to face the same problems his unmarried brothers and sisters face.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

No, your analogy was wrong. It is not the profession. It is the ability to be married.
We need priests.
And of some very good men want to be married and want to serve God, I say let them.
I am not opposed to women serving as priests either.
God created both men and women. Both men and women should be able to serve God.

 

[HopkinsReb]

No, your analogy was wrong. It is not the profession. It is the ability to be married.

Why would priests need to share in a person’s experiences in one realm of life but not in another?

And of some very good men want to be married and want to serve God, I say let them.

I agree, actually. I take issue with your other line of reasoning, not with your conclusion.

I am not opposed to women serving as priests either.

I always find it funny when I’m more in line with Catholic teaching than an actual Catholic.

God created both men and women. Both men and women should be able to serve God.

Both men and women can and do serve God. Not sure why you would think otherwise.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

You don’t have to be a math teacher to be married.
Men and women should be able to serve God as priests.
We have one priest at my parish. He has so very much to do.
If we had at least one more priest, his life would be a little easier.

 

[HopkinsReb]

You don’t have to be a math teacher to be married.

Literally nobody is making that claim. Why is it that marriage is apparently the only realm of life in which it is important for the priest to have shared in the same experiences as the laity? Why is it not important for the priest to also share in the experiences of a lifelong unmarried person?

Men and women should be able to serve God as priests.

Take that up with the Church that teaches that women can’t be priests as a metaphysical matter. Good luck getting the Catholic Church to change one of its oldest teachings. Again, it’s always funny to me when I’m more in line with Catholic teaching than a Catholic.

We have one priest at my parish. He has so very much to do.
If we had at least one more priest, his life would be a little easier.

Nobody’s arguing against having more priests. But you don’t solve the problem by watering down the faith. Liberal denominations also have shortages despite allowing “married” lesbian women to be “priests.”

 

[Fauken]

You don’t have to be a math teacher to be married.

Literally nobody is making that claim. Why is it that marriage is apparently the only realm of life in which it is important for the priest to have shared in the same experiences as the laity? Why is it not important for the priest to also share in the experiences of a lifelong unmarried person?

Not to mention that unlike teaching, the priesthood is not a profession.

Nobody’s arguing against having more priests. But you don’t solve the problem by watering down the faith. Liberal denominations also have shortages despite allowing “married” lesbian women to be “priests.”

Again, it’s always funny to me when I’m more in line with Catholic teaching than a Catholic.

I’m sorry that’s the case. Though I’m not sorry you’re in agreement.

 

[po18guy]

Joe, the Episcopal communion awaits you! You can have it all - almost anything you can think of and more - over there.

The female supremacist concept of womynpriests has been 100% ruled out. Ever read Ordinatio Sacerdotalis? A single page, I wish that all who are influenced by our morally myopic society would read it.

It is possible that you do not so much have a problem with the Church as you do with Christ. He chose and assembled His Church.