Who or what am I?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Camondw
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Camondw

Guest
I have an odd assortment of beliefs and I am trying to find out where I belong in the faith.

I believe all the statements of the Nicene/Apostles’/Athanasian Creeds. I accept everything from the first 4 ecumenical councils.

I believe that it is though the sacrifice of Christ that I am saved. I am justified by the blood of Christ which eliminates my original sin and gives me a redeemed nature that is able to do good. I believe that I must confess my sins to God to be forgiven. I believe that grace is imparted not imputed in the sacraments. I believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary and I believe that prayers for the dead are efficacious. I believe the Saints will pray for me and with me, as intercessors in the same capacity as my brethren on Earth. I believe int he doctrine of transubstantiation. I believe in the importance of Apostolic succession. In these matters I believe my faith to be very Catholic.

Where I feel I deviate is as follows:
I believe apostolic succession is or may be preserved outside of the Roman church. (for example, in the Anglican Communion many priests have lines of succession that tie into the Roman lines of Apostolic ministry) I believe that there is no instance wherein man may not be flawed. (I do not accept the principle of the infallibility of councils or of ex cathedra) I accept that the Roman church is the intended institution of Christ’s church, however, I believe that salvation is possible and even common outside of the Roman church, though never outside of Christ. I accept the New Testament statement that in order to be saved one must “say with his mouth and believe in his heart…”.

I currently and a participant in the new province of The Anglican Church in North America. However, there are certain sacraments that are not practiced or encouraged in the ACNA such as confession and absolution. Also the ACNA is vague on their understanding of the Eucharist, they tend to have a more con- rather than trans- view of the Holy Eucharist.

I believe that I fall somewhere between Anglican and Catholic. Any advice? Is anyone else in this precarious position? I have many Catholic views, but am not (according to Rome) in communion with them so I aught not receive Eucharist in a Roman church, but I also have a different view of the sacrament than is the typical Anglican view meaning I do not feel completely secure in receiving the Eucharist there either.
 
Camondw said:
Where I feel I deviate is as follows:
I accept that the Roman church is the intended institution of Christ’s church, however, I believe that salvation is possible and even common outside of the Roman church, though never outside of Christ. I accept the New Testament statement that in order to be saved one must “say with his mouth and believe in his heart…”.
.
Click to expand...
I’d say you sound pretty Catholic! Also you don’t deviate from Catholic belief in the above quote. My Catechism is not here right now or I would get you the exact quotes…

Steph
 
If only there was an Anglican use Catholic church near me…i might be happier with that.

Rome requires acceptance of ex cathedra and the infallibility of tradition and councils. I feel that scripture precludes me from ever trusting that a given human statement is flawless.

I take issue with the Assumption of Mary as well, insofar as the Church teaches that she was perpetually without original sin. I am not prepared to accept or argue with it, it is that it is required belief that I take issue with.
 
As shallow as it perhaps sounds, I cannot afford at this point to be Catholic, at least not publicly. It would shatter my marriage and my family. Perhaps the liberality of my view stems from that situation.
 
BTW it shouldn’t be about what you’re happy with, it should be about the truth! 😉
 
There are no Ordinariates nearby.

My struggle is about the truth. Sometimes one cannot help what they believe, they simply believe it.
 
Camondw said:
There are no Ordinariates nearby.

My struggle is about the truth. Sometimes one cannot help what they believe, they simply believe it.
Click to expand...
I think that what we believe is limited to the bounds of our knowledge and so we can always add a little and thus alter the way in which we understand something.

For example, I had similar concerns as your surrounding Mariology and so I undertook some study which I found extremely rewarding!
 
I appreciate the comments from everyone. I enjoy the discussion.

I do not so much have problems with the doctrine or teaching of Roman Mariology, my problem is more the mandatory acceptance of a set of doctrines that presuppose the infallibility of the councils and Popes who issued the doctrine.

I can accept the current Mariology with minimal reservation, what I have the most trouble with is the claim of perfection of church tradition.

The church is made of men, and men in every case are fallible.
 
Though in theory we could trust those whose sanctification was completed in this life. but unless we are going to canonize every person involved in church councils, and decree that their sanctification was completed at the time of the councils, we must admit that the fallen nature of man may have been at work in even the most thorough councils.

If the fallen nature of man is taken into account, how can we possibly trust that any particular statement is purely without error unless the statement is drawn directly from Holy Writ.

But for this, I would already be a Catholic.
 
Camondw said:
I appreciate the comments from everyone. I enjoy the discussion.
Click to expand...
👍
Camondw said:
I do not so much have problems with the doctrine or teaching of Roman Mariology, my problem is more the mandatory acceptance of a set of doctrines that presuppose the infallibility of the councils and Popes who issued the doctrine.
Click to expand...
If you look at it like that, then it does sound like an imposition. However, if you consider that this is the truth as discerned by the Church in order to answer a question…
Camondw said:
I can accept the current Mariology with minimal reservation, what I have the most trouble with is the claim of perfection of church tradition.

The church is made of men, and men in every case are fallible.
Click to expand...
Yes but we’re not talking about made up stuff here, we’re talking about the facts of salvation, discerning the mysteries of the miracle of Jesus Christ. It’s like discovering a range of mountains.

Take the Mother of God thing declared at Ephesus in 431. To deny that Mary is the Mother of God is to put our Salvation in jeopardy. The Church discerned the truth and stated it. We now look back on two thousand years and see the rock on which Jesus’ Church was founded (Matthew 16:18-23) and we see that Jesus promise is fact, and that it still stands today.
 
Camondw said:
Though in theory we could trust those whose sanctification was completed in this life. but unless we are going to canonize every person involved in church councils, and decree that their sanctification was completed at the time of the councils, we must admit that the fallen nature of man may have been at work in even the most thorough councils.

If the fallen nature of man is taken into account, how can we possibly trust that any particular statement is purely without error unless the statement is drawn directly from Holy Writ.
Click to expand...
Because every statement of Council is steeped in Sacred Scripture and bound by its Apostolic foundations, the true measure of anything from Christ. There is no contradiction, only an unfolding continuity, a hermeneutic of continuity which forms the chain of faith, link by link, which we receive from Christ in unbroken Tradition.
 
It is interesting that you accept words written by men (the bible) and not the Church established by Jesus and guided by the Holy Spirit by His command.

😉
 
FightingFat said:
Because every statement of Council is steeped in Sacred Scripture and bound by its Apostolic foundations, the true measure of anything from Christ. There is no contradiction, only an unfolding continuity, a hermeneutic of continuity which forms the chain of faith, link by link, which we receive from Christ in unbroken Tradition.
Click to expand...
I understand and I agree that what you say is the best way possible for fallen man to proceed. However, mankind is fallen and all that we touch is tainted by the curse. As such, even our philosophy is tainted and therefore not the perfect wisdom of God. If our philosophy is not perfect, then we must leave room for improvement and not make claims of perfect consistency, even if we do not currently see the inconsistencies.

Unless there is a claim of Holy Intervention into the councils that preserves a perfect wisdom.
 
JM3 said:
It is interesting that you accept words written by men (the bible) and not the Church established by Jesus and guided by the Holy Spirit by His command.

😉
Click to expand...
I accept the words of scripture as inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit. I accept the words of the Councils as good human doctrine.
 
Camondw said:
I accept the words of scripture as inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit. I accept the words of the Councils as good human doctrine.
Click to expand...
Not that I am inspired and guided, but that the authors of scripture were inspired and guided. I could do with a little inspiration and guidance. :confused:
 
Camondw said:
As shallow as it perhaps sounds, I cannot afford at this point to be Catholic, at least not publicly. It would shatter my marriage and my family. Perhaps the liberality of my view stems from that situation.
Click to expand...
Catholicism, and christianity, is a religion of actions. To have knowledge and not act upon it is to deny the truth of that knowledge. Didn’t Jesus say something about denying Him? James said that faith without works is dead. Both of these speak of the same thing.
 
Camondw said:
I understand and I agree that what you say is the best way possible for fallen man to proceed. However, mankind is fallen and all that we touch is tainted by the curse. As such, even our philosophy is tainted and therefore not the perfect wisdom of God. If our philosophy is not perfect, then we must leave room for improvement and not make claims of perfect consistency, even if we do not currently see the inconsistencies.
Click to expand...
I think that taintedness is very evident in the history of the Church as well. One of the most astounding things I found when studying Church history was that despite the madness, there is no doctrinal contradiction. None of the bad popes ever contradicted the faith as it was deposited, or contradicted another pope (this is clearly evidence in the case of Henry the VIII and his divorce from Catherine of Aragon).
Camondw said:
Unless there is a claim of Holy Intervention into the councils that preserves a perfect wisdom.
Click to expand...
There is the promise of the Holy Spirit, given to the Apostles, by Jesus, that He will be our guide and companion.

[bibledrb]John 15:26-27[/bibledrb]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top