Protestants and Anglicans! I Need Your Opinion

[Justin_A]

Dont get me rong, I was’nt trying to hurry things along. I was just trying to give some helpfull info.

 

[1234]

The last castrati were used in the Vatican choir in the early 20th century. They had the purest soprano voices, it was felt.

 

[Lepanto]

Anyway, could all Protestants and Anglicans who see this give me their best reasons why I should not become Catholic or that I am wrong?

Please note that Anglicans ARE Protestants. It’s important to be aware of this, because many Anglicans like to take comfort in the thought that, although not Catholic, they are not removed from the apostolic Church. The so-called middle way or “via media” paradigm is a fantasy.

King Henry VIII was every bit a Protestant as was Martin Luther, John Calvin, and others of their ilk that went into schism in the 16th century. In fact, he was heavily influenced by Calvin’s “Institutes of the Christian Religion”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutes_of_the_Christian_Religion

Anglicans retained many of the external trappings of the Catholic Church, but doctrinally (which is really what matters) they are Protestant.

 

[Tracy10]

You are where you are because that’s truly where you want to be at the moment.

In the event that you change your mind, you will still be where you want to be at that time.

Why should that result in discontentment?

Trust your intuition. It’s a God-given gift that’s generally more sensible than the brain. Remember the brain has learned nearly everything “IT” knows, from mankind.

Who do you have more faith in – God or man?

 

[bkovacs]

One piece of advice I can give you from a Traditional Catholic to a Traditional Anglican is to read the history of the Church in England before the Reformation. The Good Things!!. And remember that God wants us all to be united under the same Church as we were in the past. I pray that you will return in communion with the Holy See of Rome. We should always ponder why we should be united, and not why we shouldn’t be. We both appreciate the values of tradition, and a clear and never changing faith. I welcome all Traditional Anglicans back into the Catholic Church. Because I feel in my heart that there is so much both of us can offer each other to reach are final destiny. Are communion with God in Heaven.

 

[buffgbob]

Hopefully the pope will extend the Anglican-Rite to England. This will allow entire congregations of traditional Anglicans (as I understand them to be Anglo-Catholics) to come back home to Catholicism. This would include you, I suppose.

Regarding the apparent contridication on salvation outside the Church: I’m suprised noone used this website’s resources!

Quoting from this website (my comments in italics):
catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp

Indifferentists, going to one extreme, claim that it makes no difference what church one belongs to. Certain radical traditionalists, going to the other extreme, claim that unless one is a full-fledged, baptized member of the Catholic Church, one will be damned.

The following quotations from the Church Fathers give the straight story. They show that the early Church held the same position on this as the contemporary Church does—that is, while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847).

…

Justin Martyr

“We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9]. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek, logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason [logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason [logos], whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason [logos] are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid” (First Apology 46 [A.D. 151]).

Here we see Justin Martyr saying that those who lived according to reason were really Christians!

…

Irenaeus

“[The spiritual man] shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, destroy it—men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel. For they can bring about no ‘reformation’ of enough importance to compensate for the evil arising from their schism. . . . True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place *” (ibid., 4:33:7–8).

…

Perhaps one of the most telling manifestations of this seeming paradox is from Origen:

Origen

“[T]here was never a time when God did not want men to be just; he was always concerned about that. Indeed, he always provided beings endowed with reason with occasions for practicing virtue and doing what is right. In every generation the wisdom of God descended into those souls which he found holy and made them to be prophets and friends of God” (Against Celsus 4:7 [A.D. 248]).

“If someone from this people wants to be saved, let him come into this house so that he may be able to attain his salvation. . . . Let no one, then, be persuaded otherwise, nor let anyone deceive himself: Outside of this house, that is, outside of the Church, no one is saved; for, if anyone should go out of it, he is guilty of his own death” (Homilies on Joshua 3:5 [A.D. 250]).

Origen clearly shows it is and always has been Cathlioc idea/doctrine to know that there is no salvation outside the Church and to also know that others can be saved (given invincible ignorance.) It shows the clarification is exactly that: a clarification to help undo any confusion such as the “radical traditionalists” may manifest.

…

One more quote, because who doesn’t love Augustine?!

Augustine

“those who seek the truth with careful industry and are ready to be corrected when they have found it, are not to be rated among heretics” (Letters 43:1 [A.D. 412]).*

 

[ckempston]

I’m seriously considering becoming a part of the Catholic Church. My beliefs are becoming more and more synonymous with them, and I believe history bears their claims.

But I don’t necessarily want to become Catholic at this point in my life! I’m a traditional Anglican and I love my Church, although it is consumed in scandal.

Anyway, could all Protestants and Anglicans who see this give me their best reasons why I should not become Catholic or that I am wrong?

Specifically, wrong on:

Papal Authority

Unicity and Catholicity of the Church

Episcopal Authority

Eucharist

Marian doctrines

Please, Protestants and fellow Anglicans, I want to hear your best reasons. I’m not going to argue, just take into consideration your points of view.

Perhaps I am wrong.

I am in a similar boat, but for me, it seems to come down to what 1ke said: it’s all about who has the authority.

I disagree with several things the church teaches, and I’m uncomfortable with a few others, but then again, I disagree with things that my current church teaches, and am uncomfortable with some of the things they do.

If I was to become Catholic, I would have to, for conscience’s sake, submit even to those things I disagree with (such as the teaching on contraception, although, FWIW, I made my wife stop the pill when I found out most are abortificants - I certainly disagree with some forms of contraception, just not all), and those things I am uncomfortable with, I’m sure would seem more normal over time (veneration, saints, etc.).

 

[Peter_J]

As a late-comer to this thread, I have to say “Wow, less than 24 hours and we’re on page 4.”

I also attended Roman Mass. It was somewhat less beautiful and “high-church” as the Anglican Mass. But that must be a local thing.

Is there an Eastern Catholic parish in your area? Or perhaps an Extra-ordinary Rite (Latin) liturgy?

 

[Peter_J]

Just for instance, the Catholic Church used to teach that only Catholics would go to heaven. Now they teach that many non-Catholics and possibly non-Christians might.

There was a lot of talk on a recent thread (I forget which one) about caution with regard to reading the bible b/c we’re not supposed to interpret it privately.

The same is true about private interpretation of church teachings.

For example, the Bull Unam Sanctum can be considered an official church teaching (more specifically an ex cathedra statement*) but it has been misinterpreted by an immense number of Catholics over the centuries.

Hope that helps.

• To be even more precise Unam Sanctum contains an ex cathedra statement.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi

First - please don’t make such an important decision based upon responses on this Board (however well intended they may be). Take your time, study it out, pray about it - you have time (you are young in your walk and in your life ).

Well said.

Papal Authority

I’m actually coming around to believing the Catholic Church has this right.

Sweet. :clapping:

 

[YADA]

The following quotations from the Church Fathers give the straight story. They show that the early Church held the same position on this as the contemporary Church does—that is, while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847).

…

Justin Martyr

“We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9]. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek, logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason [logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason [logos], whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason [logos] are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid” (First Apology 46 [A.D. 151]).

Here we see Justin Martyr saying that those who lived according to reason were really Christians!

…

Irenaeus

“[The spiritual man] shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, destroy it—men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel. For they can bring about no ‘reformation’ of enough importance to compensate for the evil arising from their schism. . . . True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place *” (ibid., 4:33:7–8).

…

Perhaps one of the most telling manifestations of this seeming paradox is from Origen:*

Origen

“[T]here was never a time when God did not want men to be just; he was always concerned about that. Indeed, he always provided beings endowed with reason with occasions for practicing virtue and doing what is right. In every generation the wisdom of God descended into those souls which he found holy and made them to be prophets and friends of God” (Against Celsus 4:7 [A.D. 248]).

“If someone from this people wants to be saved, let him come into this house so that he may be able to attain his salvation. . . . Let no one, then, be persuaded otherwise, nor let anyone deceive himself: Outside of this house, that is, outside of the Church, no one is saved; for, if anyone should go out of it, he is guilty of his own death” (Homilies on Joshua 3:5 [A.D. 250]).

Origen clearly shows it is and always has been Cathlioc idea/doctrine to know that there is no salvation outside the Church and to also know that others can be saved (given invincible ignorance.) It shows the clarification is exactly that: a clarification to help undo any confusion such as the “radical traditionalists” may manifest.

…

One more quote, because who doesn’t love Augustine?!

Augustine

“those who seek the truth with careful industry and are ready to be corrected when they have found it, are not to be rated among heretics” (Letters 43:1 [A.D. 412]).

Even as a non-catholic, I understood that this was not a change but a constant teaching of the early christians. Any extensive [not cherry picking] reading of the Early Church Fathers gives a pretty clear indication of the grace bestowed upon all men, to seek and do the will of God … what we as Christians and especially Catholic Christians need to concern ourselves with is the abundance of Grace which we have received through Jesus and the Church … “to whom much has been given, much is expected” …

So the one who lives in ignorance but responds to the “law written upon his heart” may find entry into heaven :extrahappy: while I, who have received all of the sacramental graces and a life in the Church may persist in a life of sin, fighting against the love of Christ and be eternally lost. :crying:

[Please Jesus, let that not be my fate ]

 

[Peter_J]

Here is probably a more serious one, Matariel: Unam Sanctum officially taught that one must be subject to the Roman Pontiff in order to be saved; and must remain within the bosom of faithfulness to the Roman Catholic Church. There is another statement to this effect, but I can’t remember the name of it…Cantate something, but I dont have access to sources.

Cantate Domino?

 

[Mark77]

You will never be absolutely sure, so listen to God’s voice in the depth of your heart!

“Faith is man’s response to God, who reveals himself and gives himself to man…” (CCC 26)

Do not judge the church on the failings of it’s members. Look at the original apostles sins and weaknesses, even after having been chosen and taught by Jesus himself.

Read God’s Word (the Truth in Holy Scripture) and the writings of the early church fathers and compare the Truth you find there to the Catholic Church’s teachings in the Catechism, Ecumenical Councils and other magesterial documents.

Be patient and He will reveal it to you.

May God Bless you!

“EGO SUM PANIS VITAE”
(I AM THE BREAD OF LIFE) (Jn 6:35 & 48)

Mark

 

[1234]

I am in a similar boat, but for me, it seems to come down to what 1ke said: it’s all about who has the authority.

I disagree with several things the church teaches, and I’m uncomfortable with a few others, but then again, I disagree with things that my current church teaches, and am uncomfortable with some of the things they do.

If I was to become Catholic, I would have to, for conscience’s sake, submit even to those things I disagree with (such as the teaching on contraception, although, FWIW, I made my wife stop the pill when I found out most are abortificants - I certainly disagree with some forms of contraception, just not all), and those things I am uncomfortable with, I’m sure would seem more normal over time (veneration, saints, etc.).

Oral contraceptives prevent ovulation and are not abortifacients, when used on a regular basis. They do not abort.

They are used as a potential abortifacient in the so-called “Plan B” contraception, which is used in unprotected intercourse which may result in conception, particularly in case of rape.

A married couple who is regularly using oral contraceptives is preventing ovulation, not aborting.

 

[Namesake]

Thanks, Lily M, but I went to Anglican Formation (Anglican version of RCIA) when I was confirmed at age 17. I’m 19 now.

Please don’t take this as a slam. At 19 years of age you are still a child in many ways. Don’t make the mistake of trying to be very sophisticated in your religion. Study a lot, and be open to whatever comes along. Don’t constrict your views, instead, expand them. Find what is true for you. Think for yourself.

 

[TLara]

Oral contraceptives prevent ovulation and are not abortifacients, when used on a regular basis. They do not abort.

They are used as a potential abortifacient in the so-called “Plan B” contraception, which is used in unprotected intercourse which may result in conception, particularly in case of rape.

A married couple who is regularly using oral contraceptives is preventing ovulation, not aborting.

This is in fact not true!!! In some cases were an egg is fertilized it stops it from implanting and thus aborting it!!

 

[ckempston]

This is in fact not true!!! In some cases were an egg is fertilized it stops it from implanting and thus aborting it!!

Yes, 1234 is totally wrong on this. I researched it extensively when I heard it might be true. Many oral contraceptives prevent implantation of a fertilized egg = abortion.

 

[Peter_J]

Oral contraceptives prevent ovulation and are not abortifacients, when used on a regular basis. They do not abort.

They are used as a potential abortifacient in the so-called “Plan B” contraception, which is used in unprotected intercourse which may result in conception, particularly in case of rape.

A married couple who is regularly using oral contraceptives is preventing ovulation, not aborting.

Oral contraceptives are certainly intended to prevent ovulation. My understanding, however, is that none of them do so 100% of the time, and thus can act as an abortifacient when ovulation does occur.

 

[Robbinson]

Oral contraceptives prevent ovulation and are not abortifacients, when used on a regular basis. They do not abort.

They are used as a potential abortifacient in the so-called “Plan B” contraception, which is used in unprotected intercourse which may result in conception, particularly in case of rape.

A married couple who is regularly using oral contraceptives is preventing ovulation, not aborting.

Yes abortion is horrible - but avoiding effective abortion is not the only rationale behind the Church’s teaching on contraception. It also addresses the intimate and respectful relationship in marraige between husband and wife and the conjugal act of love intended to create life and concern disassociating the conjuical act from creation with the fidelity and respect of the marital relationship. Empirically speaking, I think we’ve all witnessed that in our society today and the values of our youth in particular when it comes to sexual relations and respect for intimate relations is sad. I’m Protestant, but have come to agree with the Pope’s pronouncement on this. Its a short read - if you havn’t read it, I would recommend the Popes encyclical letter of 1968 on human life.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[chris_molter]

As someone who used to be a traditional Anglican and is now a Catholic, let me give you the best reason (the only reason, really) to not become Catholic:

Because you’re an Anglican.

What I mean by that, is that if you do not believe all that the Catholic Church teaches, then you ought to remain where you are and continue to read, pray, fast, research, discuss, and whatever else to try to understand where God is calling you. The only reason to come into full communion with the Catholic Church is because you believe she is what she says she is!

There’s a reason why you feel a pull towards the Catholic Church. Keep reading and praying!