Kinda thinking about becoming Episcopal

[OVerisimilitude]

I’d like to edit my first post to remove some personal information. I can’t seem to.

 

[GKC]

I’d like to edit my first post to remove some personal information. I can’t seem to.

It’s been too long.

I think you can sent a message to a monitor, who can authorize changes after a certain time, but I’m not sure.

GKC

 

[OVerisimilitude]

That’s some malarkey right there.

Can someone give me a name I can contact?

 

[GKC]

That’s some malarkey right there.

Can someone give me a name I can contact?

It’s how the place works. I’m a guest here, myself.

On the Non-Catholic forum page there’s a group of moderators, down at the bottom. Not sure how they divide the labor, but I often see Mr. Hilbert’s name setting matters straight on here. Perhaps he can help.

GKC

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. I’m not wholly sure I agree with the celibate, male-only priesthood, something that has developed over the last year-and-a-half of attending both mass and services at an Episcopal church with my Episcopalian fiancee. The female ministers there have proven exceedingly skilled at what they do, really just being spectacular ministers of the Gospels, who bring a pretty different perspective that I’ve found pretty refreshing. I’m well aware of the Church’s sacramental theology, about how the priest “stands in” as it were for Christ in a particular way which is understood as requiring physical male-ness, but it’s an argument I’m not wholly I find especially convincing anymore. Beyond that, the argument in favor of Christ having only chosen male apostles seems to hold as much weight as Paul never telling anybody to free their slaves.

We have a lot in common, but I chose a Trappist Monastery instead of seminary. That was not my true vocation, and I’ve been married for 25 years.

To your question (and I know you know celibacy is a discipline in the Latin Rite, not a doctrine):

Celibacy and the Catholic Priest

Many people believe that the Catholic Church violates the Word of God because it forbids people to marry (cf. 1 Timothy 4:3) or that it is wrong for priests to remain celibate. To get a clearer picture of this issue, let’s examine what the Bible has to say about the subject of celibacy.

Matthew 19:11-12
11Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Jesus offers the celibate life as a gift and tells us that “The one who can accept this should accept it.”

1 Corinthians 7:1
1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.

1 Corinthians 7:7
7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

Paul reveals his own celibacy and offers an earnest wish that more people would follow his example.

1 Corinthians 7:8-9
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Paul concedes that getting married is better than struggling with sexual temptation; for those that “cannot control themselves, they should marry.”

Is Paul completely opposed to marriage? Not at all. The book of Hebrews states:

Hebrews 13:4
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

Why then does Paul recommend celibacy?

1 Corinthians 7:32-35
32I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

From this passage, we can see Paul’s primary reason for advocating celibacy: he wants everyone to live in undivided devotion to the Lord, and in all of these verses, the Bible makes it clear that Jesus calls some men to the priesthood and offers them the gift of a celibate life to be lived in undivided devotion to God. Paul understands that not everyone is offered this gift and that not all to whom it is offered can or will accept it.

There are Catholic priests who are married; typically, these are men who were priests in the Anglican, Orthodox or other faith traditions and have converted to the Catholic faith after they were married in those churches. Under special circumstances, they may be ordained to serve as Catholic priests. Men who are already Catholic when they begin to discern their call to the priesthood must remain celibate.

The Catholic Church forbids no man to marry. However, she does desire that those who will represent Christ, who will stand in persona Christi (in the place of Christ) when administering the sacraments as priests, be like their Lord as fully as possible. This means that like Jesus, they are celibate men prepared to sacrifice their own lives in the service of God and others.

The calling and the gift is offered by God; those who choose to accept it do so freely. Here is an article, “Celibacy is a Gift”, that explains this more fully: catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0102fea5.asp

 

[cheezey]

Celibacy and the Catholic Priest

again, I am amazed.
I had always believed, even before fully understanding each side of the celibacy debate (and that other hotly debated one), that the call to the priesthood and celibacy were not one and the same, but two separate and distinct callings. Based on “The one who can accept this should accept it.”

 

[SteveVH]

It was not merely the intermingling of political and religious figures. It was the melding of political and theological actions. The complicated system of impediments/dispensations/decrees of nullity Henry and the times functioned under was developed and continued to evolve in the period, to permit two things to be done simultaneously: allow the Church to maintain control of the sacrament of marriage, and permit the making/breaking of marriages for reason of state. Theology intertwined with politics. Until Trent, Session XXIV, took it in hand a little. Henry was rightly expecting to get a good outcome, he made the usual case. But he ran into a more powerful nexus of realpolitik.

Eventually, the rise of nationalism was going to bring an end to this sort of hybrid system, in Europe, in general; it was wide-spread in its eventual consequences. And Henry was the match to a lengthy fuse, in England, bringing it to a head, there.

GKC

Like I said, I always learn a lot from you on this topic. Thanks.

 

[Taurks]

To the OP: have you ever considered Orthodoxy? It seems to have all the good elements of Catholicism (Real Presence, high liturgy, structure, etc) without all those negative ones you mentioned (warped emphasis on Mary’s role, monarchical governance, hierarchical infallibility, etc.) I would say, along with Episcopalianism, Orthodoxy might be another good alternative

 

[GKC]

Like I said, I always learn a lot from you on this topic. Thanks.

My pleasure, and thank you, very much.

Occasionally, I’m wrong, don’t forget. I do try to minimize that.

GKC

 

[SteveVH]

To the OP: have you ever considered Orthodoxy? It seems to have all the good elements of Catholicism (Real Presence, high liturgy, structure, etc) without all those negative ones you mentioned (warped emphasis on Mary’s role, monarchical governance, hierarchical infallibility, etc.) I would say, along with Episcopalianism, Orthodoxy might be another good alternative

You should be careful about proselytizing.

 

[lonelypetunia]

I agree.

Me too!! :hug3:

 

[EnglishTeacher]

Well technically it is a little more complicated than that. The Church of England in Henry’s own time was not very different from the Roman Catholic Church. More than anything Henry desired that the Church would swing his way when he wanted.

If you look at the history of his relationship with his six wives, he uses very Catholic determinations in deciding to dissolve his marriage.

Catherine of Aragon: Invalid marriage, married to his brother. Annulled.
Anne Boleyn: Committed incest with brother, had sex with others before marriage. Marriage annulled.
Jane Seymour died in childbirth.
Anne of Cleves: marriage never consummated. Annulled.
Catherine Howard: Possible pre-contract of marriage before marrying Henry VIII. Marriage considered invalid and annulled.
Catherine Howard: survived.

This is a minor point in the discussion, but I can’t help pointing out that there are some inaccuracies in the above list.

Catherine of Aragon: Yes, she was previously married to Henry’s brother Arthur, (who was fifteen at the time of the marriage), but Catherine, a devout Catholic, swore to her dying day that the marriage to Arthur was never consummated because Arthur was physically unable to do so. If what Catherine said was true, then pope had good reason to deny Henry’s petition for nullity. But as we know, when Henry couldn’t get his decree of nullity from the Catholic Church, he broke away and formed his own church so that he could get the annullment he wanted.

Anne Boleyn: There is no evidence that Anne Boleyn committed adultery after being married to Henry, or that she committed incest with her brother. Those charges were trumped up because Henry wanted out of the marriage to Anne. She was growing tiresome to him, and was also getting older and not producing any sons. She was therefore convicted on the adultery charges and executed.

Jane Seymour died in childbirth. True.

Anne of Cleves: marriage never consummated. Annulled. Also true.

Catherine Howard: *Possible pre-contract of marriage before marrying Henry VIII. Marriage considered invalid and annulled. * Not sure about the annullment in this case, but in any rate it doesn’t matter - Henry had her executed for adultery (and unlike Anne Boleyn, there seems to be little doubt of her guilt).

Catherine Parr: survived. True.

Point taken, however, that Henry did remain Catholic in his thought and in his reasons for ending his various marriages (if only in his own eyes).

To the OP - I would think long and hard before entering a church that was formed the way the Anglican Church was. It does seem as though you are thinking the decision over thoroughly, and I hope you choose to remain in the Catholic Church.

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .

So why am I considering becoming Episcopalian?

Honestly, I’m not even sure how to answer that, and that’s part of why I’m writing, to sort of hash it out and see what’s going on, and bounce some ideas around. See what’s up. Hope you guys are game. . . .

OVerisimilitude,

As a conservative Anglo Catholic in the Episcopal Church, whose beliefs are very much in line with many Catholic doctrines; I would caution you about making a rush decision. The Episcopal Church is going through turbulent times; and many of us, whose beliefs are orthodox, deal with the disturbing reality that many in our Episcopacy are departing from the Apostolic faith.

I urge you to dig deeper into the Catholic faith and seek council from a Catholic Priest you trust, before leaving your Catholic faith—and pray hard.

Peace and blessings,
Anna

 

[SteveVH]

OVerisimilitude,

As a conservative Anglo Catholic in the Episcopal Church, whose beliefs are very much in line with many Catholic doctrines; I would caution you about making a rush decision. The Episcopal Church is going through turbulent times; and many of us, whose beliefs are orthodox, deal with the disturbing reality that many in our Episcopacy are departing from the Apostolic faith.

I urge you to dig deeper into the Catholic faith and seek council from a Catholic Priest you trust, before leaving your Catholic faith—and pray hard.

Peace and blessings,
Anna

You are truly awesome, Anna.

 

[Anna_Scott]

You are truly awesome, Anna.

Steve,
I’m a mess most of the time, but I appreciate your kind comment.

Anna

 

[GKC]

This is a minor point in the discussion, but I can’t help pointing out that there are some inaccuracies in the above list.

Catherine of Aragon: Yes, she was previously married to Henry’s brother Arthur, (who was fifteen at the time of the marriage), but Catherine, a devout Catholic, swore to her dying day that the marriage to Arthur was never consummated because Arthur was physically unable to do so. If what Catherine said was true, then pope had good reason to deny Henry’s petition for nullity. But as we know, when Henry couldn’t get his decree of nullity from the Catholic Church, he broke away and formed his own church so that he could get the annullment he wanted.

Anne Boleyn: There is no evidence that Anne Boleyn committed adultery after being married to Henry, or that she committed incest with her brother. Those charges were trumped up because Henry wanted out of the marriage to Anne. She was growing tiresome to him, and was also getting older and not producing any sons. She was therefore convicted on the adultery charges and executed.

Jane Seymour died in childbirth. True.

Anne of Cleves: marriage never consummated. Annulled. Also true.

Catherine Howard: *Possible pre-contract of marriage before marrying Henry VIII. Marriage considered invalid and annulled. * Not sure about the annullment in this case, but in any rate it doesn’t matter - Henry had her executed for adultery (and unlike Anne Boleyn, there seems to be little doubt of her guilt).

Catherine Parr: survived. True.

Point taken, however, that Henry did remain Catholic in his thought and in his reasons for ending his various marriages (if only in his own eyes).

To the OP - I would think long and hard before entering a church that was formed the way the Anglican Church was. It does seem as though you are thinking the decision over thoroughly, and I hope you choose to remain in the Catholic Church.

Concur with your comments on the wives. Save for one point on Catherine of Aragon. It is often thought that if, as Catherine said, her marriage to Arthur was not consummatum, Henry’s quest for a decree of nullity was technically and canonically baseless. Overlooking a couple of reasons that was not necessarily so, one particular one stands out.

The idea of the consummation of the marriage was central to the canonical argument that Henry made in his causa, (he claimed it was consummated and alleged both an impediment of affinity, and the Leventine prohibition against the validity of the marriage between himself and Catherine) but either way a dispensation would arguably have been required, for him to marry Catherine validly. If Arthur and Catherine’s marriage was not consummated, as both Catherine and her duenna maintained, there was still an undispensed impediment arising from the marriage contract between Arthur and Catherine (marriage per verba de presenti ) itself, which is an impediment of the justice of public honesty. This approach, which Wolsey saw as the best solution, was a simpler issue than Henry was claiming, with his contention that the marriage was consummated, and that he and Catherine thus faced an impediment of affinity in the first degree, collateral, and that to dispense from the specific prohibition in Leviticus was ultra vires, even for a Pope, that impediment being of divine, rather than natural law. That claim, of course, added to the presence of Charles V, made it even less likely that Henry would succeed. Politics. But if, as was likely, the marriage between Arthur and Catherine was not consummated, the dispensation received needed to specifically dispense from the impediment of the justice of public honesty.

History is complicated.

And I wouldn’t recommend anyone become an Episcopalian, either. See this thread.

GKC

 

[2HeartsSlave]

My dear brother, please think about Who-not what, but WHO-you would be leaving if you choose to go this way. Our Lord’s presence in the Blessed Sacrament trumps anything anybody else has to offer. He loves you and is ready and waiting to answer all of your question and help you through this rough patch on your way to heaven:thumbsup: keep your eyes on Him and take your trouble to Him in the Eucharist. And don’t leave!

 

[Augusta1990]

Hey everyone. I’m a new poster.

I’m a 28 year-old Catholic guy. I converted to Catholicism when I was 16, got baptized and confirmed and received first communion all in one go. I’m extremely well-read in Catholic theology – I’m ASD/Aspergers (yes, diagnosed) and theology is one of my obsessive interests. I was a daily communicant in college (when such a thing was possible) and I spent a year in seminary for the Diocese of Brooklyn, which I left due to the aforementioned autism making it an incredibly unpleasant experience, especially as it had not yet been diagnosed and I didn’t have what I suppose you might call the proper support. I’m an incoming graduate student in theology at Boston College.

All of that is to establish some credentials; I’m not a poorly-educated Catholic who wishes the church allowed abortion or didn’t teach that there was any such thing as truth or whatever. I take my Catholic faith exceedingly seriously as much as I can, I give great care to its teachings as much as I can, and, for what it’s worth, I really dig the pope.

So why am I considering becoming Episcopalian?

Honestly, I’m not even sure how to answer that, and that’s part of why I’m writing, to sort of hash it out and see what’s going on, and bounce some ideas around. See what’s up. Hope you guys are game.

Off the top of my head, I’d start with the following issues I’ve developed over the last few years.

1. I’m not wholly sure I agree with the celibate, male-only priesthood, something that has developed over the last year-and-a-half of attending both mass and services at an Episcopal church with my Episcopalian fiancee. The female ministers there have proven exceedingly skilled at what they do, really just being spectacular ministers of the Gospels, who bring a pretty different perspective that I’ve found pretty refreshing. I’m well aware of the Church’s sacramental theology, about how the priest “stands in” as it were for Christ in a particular way which is understood as requiring physical male-ness, but it’s an argument I’m not wholly I find especially convincing anymore. Beyond that, the argument in favor of Christ having only chosen male apostles seems to hold as much weight as Paul never telling anybody to free their slaves.

Further, I am increasingly of the opinion that a married priesthood would be a valuable addition to Catholicism’s arsenal, and would do marvels by opening up the priesthood to a vast swathe of the population who had discounted it entirely. Those who say that the priestly ministry is designed in such a way as to make a married priesthood impractical need only be pointed to the numerous denominations – including some of our own autocephalous churches that employ a married ordained ministry quite successfully – to know that that is not the be-all and end-all of the argument. Obviously it can be done, and can be done very well, and our reluctance to try it is because we hold the delibate priesthood as a marker of Catholic identity.

1. I find myself very uncomfortable with some aspects of Catholic teaching, perhaps not the usual ones. I have immense, immense difficulty with how we treat Mary officially – not even the sort of insane folk religion that surrounds her, but full-on doctrinal pronouncements. I’m at the point where if, as some would have it, Mary is ever proclaimed Co-redemptrix, I might simply bolt. I couldn’t accept that, I don’t think. I find much of the cultus surrounding her deeply upsetting. I think the rosary is treated like a magical charm, and the scapular, too. Prayers uttered like spells and glamours. The extent to which this goes on is very troubling.

I understand that maybe I just don’t get Mary. I’ve read True Devotion, and found it, aside from its baroque prose, pretty much everything I don’t like about Marian devotion distilled into a barely-readable tract.

In addition, while I like the pope, and even the papacy more or less, while I believe the pope to be the core and center of Christianity and the arbiter of Christian practice, infallibility really bothers me. Beyond the relatively late date for its claiming, and the intense controversy surrounding its adoption, the very idea of supernatural protections being handed to an institutional body which is itself historically contingent makes very little sense to me. Don’t get me wrong! I’m a big believer in sacred tradition, and I really dig how Yves Congar describes it as that which interprets the Scriptures and which is corrected by them, but I’m not sure how an infallible authority fits into that. To me, it seems we have a self-policing system; controversy will never, ever disappear, but the tradition checks one sort of excess, and the Scriptures another. The teaching body of the Church is the means by which it does this, expressed either corporately through ecumenical or regional councils/synods/whatever, or through the juridical authority of individual bishop, running as high as Rome. I don’t see where infallibility becomes any more necessary than simple obedience to authority.

Basically, neither infallibility of the ordinary magisterium nor of the extraordinary magisterium of the pope seem especially useful, necessary, or justified either from Scripture or Tradition.

I want to stress I am expressing some level of doubt on the matter, and have not reached a firm judgment in the negative.

[continued below because it wouldn’t let me post the whole thing in one go]

You bring up specific points of contention with Catholic doctrine, but that’s really not the way to go about it–and becoming Anglican wouldn’t fix the problem. It all comes down to more foundational issues, the key one being what sort of church it was that Christ founded. Until you can come up with an answer to that question, you won’t be satisfied.

Have you read Newman’s Apologia? Something like that might help get you started.

 

[Augusta1990]

1. I really, really dig Episcopal church governance. I am not a terribly big fan of the monarchical model. I am well aware that the monarchic bishop is not a teaching, and that we could govern the church more or less any way we like, but it really appeals to me. Pastors are not assigned to a parish by their bishop like he’s an admiral and they’re his captains, but rather a parish issues a call for a priest, and then chooses from those who respond. What’s more, they elect their bishops, although I am admittedly not sure of the structure for that. I like the idea of a collaborative relationship between the bishop and his parishes above the CEO relationship where parishes are the local branch. But hey, that’s me, and this isn’t a huge deal either way.
2. I don’t know how I feel about Catholic claims regarding itself as the true church. Part of the reforms of the last few decades have abandoned claims that Protestants are heretics, adopting the “separated brethren” language, which I am starting to think might be entirely incoherent. I’m increasingly of the opinion that the Body of Christ is utterly indivisible, and emanates from Christ in concentric circles, wherein one Christian body and another Christian body may disagree on theology, but are all earnestly seeking after Christ. I suppose I’m after an ecumenical ecclesiology which is capable of encompassing the whole of Christianity. I keep reading histories of Christianity, and it seems to me that, rather than a distinctly European/Catholic phenomenon, the Church developed unevenly across much of the world, in often wildly divergent flavors, unified in a basic faith in the person of Christ as the savior of mankind, but disagreeing in particulars. From the miaphysites to Nestorians, divergent strains of Christian thought have popped up across the world, exceedingly far from a Rome which was incapable of exercising jurisdiction over them; let us not forget the absolute shock of the Portuguese in discovering Christians in India. Are we to hold that, in their geographic and doctrinal separation, they were diminished in their faith, and are we to expect that, upon making contact with Rome, they must necessarily fly into her arms? And are they then held deficient if they fail to do so, their faith lesser for not having access to subsequent ecumenical councils, or their understanding of how Christ was internally configured making them heretics or separated from the Body of Christ? I think these are reasonable questions.

So then, all of that being said, it seems to me sometimes that the Anglican communion, which I am the first to acknowledge is collapsing in on itself, is the only Western Christian body which seems to be able to make any sense of the questions, claims, and positions advanced above, and the only one in which I might feel vaguely comfortable. Of course, I know that that has its limits; I am a pretty low-church Catholic, but I am convinced of Petrine primacy, in some form anyway, and I have immense respect for and devotion to that office and its authority, however we might differ in understanding it. He’s Peter, plain and simple.

Further, I want to stress that my first principle in all of this is that there have certainly been, in the last couple thousand years, men and women smarter than I, and that I am very young, lacking in wisdom and discernment, and must be taught. As such, I try to submit to being taught, and must make clear that every position advanced above is held or considered tentatively, with respect for the teaching that has been given in contradiction; I am in a process of intellectual and spiritual discernment on these things, and do not take this lightly.

In other words, I am not here to say I am wise above all others, that I have solved the mysteries of the universe, or that I am wiser than the men who teach me. I have questions, and I will presume that there are answers for them. My dissatisfaction with those I have found thus far does not preclude that I may yet find those which satisfy my restless mind. Until then, I search.

Lord, be with me.

Thank you for reading this lengthy adventure, and I hope for good responses. God be with you all.

– O! Verisimilitude!

Ok, so now I see you’ve worked on the ecclesiology some. If I were you, I’d focus on that and forget about the points you mentioned in the first part of your post. They’re kind of tangential to the crux of the matter.

 

[plainatheart71]

"perhaps one’s time should be spend focusing on the man on the cross. For there is the true perfection we will see in this life."

Very, very, very good point. I love what you said there.
In our journey of faith we have left churches because of heretical teachings and found ourselves without a church for 1 1/2 years and studying at home. We have found the most truth in the Catholic Faith, that it is the church that Jesus established, that the sacraments are as they should be.
We were sola scriptura until coming into the Catholic Church and that is a lot of the reason we wound up in so many different denominations. There is not one denomination that is going to give you everything you are looking for. But the Catholic Church has the entirety of the traditions and teachings of the apostles & have stood strong for 2000 years.