Indecisiveness in picking a faith

[Izdaari]

There is an obvious self-serving bias in this, because I went from agnosticism to Anglicanism, but I would just like to mention that we get to have tradition, icons, saints, chanted liturgy, gay priests, women priests, and marriage with or without an intention to have children, and yes, I do mean that you can find all of those in a single parish. We also have a broad plurality of views on the literalism of Scripture, and each one is very sincere in its devotion.

Not every parish, or province, has all of them, but, from your description of your position, it occurs to me that high-church liberal Anglicanism would be well worth your investigation.

Another high-church liberal Anglican here. And we do have all that in my parish.

 

[Izdaari]

As I said before, were I to convert and adopt a faith, it would be the height of self-deceit and cheapening of the tradition itself if I knew from the outset that there’s a list of things that I just don’t think are correct. I believe in an “all the way or not at all” approach.

If you’re a Catholic, but you pick and choose what stuff you’re going to follow, then why be Catholic? You can’t even receive proper penance if you know for a fact that you’re going to go right back to what you were doing.

That’s why I’m not Catholic. Too much stuff I can’t believe in.

 

[Marybeloved]

As I said before, were I to convert and adopt a faith, it would be the height of self-deceit and cheapening of the tradition itself if I knew from the outset that there’s a list of things that I just don’t think are correct. I believe in an “all the way or not at all” approach.

If you’re a Catholic, but you pick and choose what stuff you’re going to follow, then why be Catholic? You can’t even receive proper penance if you know for a fact that you’re going to go right back to what you were doing.

Well said! If only we could get the CINOs to be as intellectually honest as you, things may be much clearer to any seeking person about what our church is and what it’s not.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t see where the Objective Truth is subjective to mans idea of what he somehow concluded in Christianity, and that which he will excuse and deem not evil. but normal.

For example, is this Biblical “gay priests, women priests, and marriage with or without an intention to having children?” Little off course for me. As Izdaari said “Too much stuff I can’t believe in”

 

[Peter_J]

I find the Anglican use liturgy to be very dry. I wouldn’t get any spiritual nourishment from that. That, and I reject the idea of Protestantism as a whole. That’s assuming that I believe Christianity to be completely true, which I don’t.

Not meaning to get technical, but I believe “Anglican Use” only exists in Catholicism.

 

[CMatt25]

Well said! If only we could get the CINOs to be as intellectually honest as you, things may be much clearer to any seeking person about what our church is and what it’s not.

It’s actually the “CINOs” who are not dissenting from who your Church teaches is a Catholic. They’re intellectually honest about and clear to the seeker about who the Catholic Church teaches is a Catholic.

 

[NoWings]

Not meaning to get technical, but I believe “Anglican Use” only exists in Catholicism.

That’s really only relevant between churches. An unchurched heathen like myself doesn’t feel the need to get into the nuts and bolts of rite terminology.

I meant the ordinary Anglican Rite, as opposed to the Sarum Rite (Anglicans still celebrate this, don’t they?).