Why would you NOT want to be Anglican?

[valient_Lucy]

Well, of course I did, and I felt equally uncomfortable when I read the history of the Emperor of Constantinople’s near deification by the Eastern church, and by the near deification of the Tsar in the Russian church.

Realistically speaking, I should have become Jewish (always did love Passover) but I’m not giving up ham. Or atheist, but the last time I tried atheism I found that atheism and I just don’t really get along that well.

I meant the Byzantine Emperor.

 

[Swan]

You mean how said king, who was studying for the priesthood, was forced into marrying his brother’s widow, she swearing the marriage was never consumated the years they were married, and said king was seeking to have a son as heir so the country would not be plunged back into decades of civil war as it had just emerged?

Definitely not like that saint Pope Clement Medici, conceived a bastard (his father assinated in the plot immortalized in “Hannibal”), legitimized after his father’s death by a legal loophole, given a cardinal’s hat by his cousin Pope Leo X, Clement serving to look over the Medici family interests as archbishop of Florence, played the willy diplomat when elected pope, ending in the sack of Rome, and his virtual imprisonment by the emperor Charles V, Catherine’s uncle and the real reason for the denial of the annulment? Oh, and by the way, he fathered a son, Alessandro, by the black serving girl.

Really, the demonization of Henry does Rome’s cause no service.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. This is my problem with the “no error” claim. Basically, the way I understand it, is that these mortal men who sinned on so many levels, were not holy in any real sense of the word, somehow managed to be perfect when it came to their official duties? This is a real stretch for me. I have a hard time taking morality lessons from folks who committed acts that make my skin crawl. I realize this is offensive to some, but I find it offensive to be told that these folks are holier, or recognize holiness, more than I. I also find it possible to interpret the scripture that hell shall not prevail against Christ’s church in such a way that it was that true church that split from Rome during the Reformation because Rome had gotten so corrupt. The scripture doesn’t say the name of the church won’t change, only that it will stand. This is just a possible interpretation and I’m sure that there are protestant leaders who thouhg of it long ago. This is in the non-Catholic religion section and I am not trying to be offensive, simply to offer another point of view. In case you’re wondering, I’ve struggled with this issue for a long time and have studied Church and secular history so I am no stranger to the topic. I converted to Catholicism a long time ago but quit practicing a year or so ago over issues such as this.

 

[GKC]

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. This is my problem with the “no error” claim. Basically, the way I understand it, is that these mortal men who sinned on so many levels, were not holy in any real sense of the word, somehow managed to be perfect when it came to their official duties? This is a real stretch for me. I have a hard time taking morality lessons from folks who committed acts that make my skin crawl. I realize this is offensive to some, but I find it offensive to be told that these folks are holier, or recognize holiness, more than I. I also find it possible to interpret the scripture that hell shall not prevail against Christ’s church in such a way that it was that true church that split from Rome during the Reformation because Rome had gotten so corrupt. The scripture doesn’t say the name of the church won’t change, only that it will stand. This is just a possible interpretation and I’m sure that there are protestant leaders who thouhg of it long ago. This is in the non-Catholic religion section and I am not trying to be offensive, simply to offer another point of view. In case you’re wondering, I’ve struggled with this issue for a long time and have studied Church and secular history so I am no stranger to the topic. I converted to Catholicism a long time ago but quit practicing a year or so ago over issues such as this.

Keep in mind that I’m Anglican.

And keep in mind that nothing in RC doctrine suggests or requires that the “mortal men”, up to the Pope, will be sinless, on any level, or perfect, in their duties, or are holy, or recognise holiness, or anything else, exepct that they would not teach as required doctrine, anything that is in error. I’m not an adherent of Vat. I, but “infallible” (as defined) is not “impeccable”.

GKC

 

[flameburns623]

I can’t answer that question for myself–I AM Anglican, and WANT to be–but was shocked recently to learn that an Anglo-Catholic priest who had been holding services at my own church has recently ‘swum the Tiber’ to Rome–along with his deacon. The two of them reportedly are attending the St. Francis de Sales Oratory in St. Louis, the church which apparently is the only authorized church to do full Latin Masses in our area. I didn’t know this priest well and have not spoken to him since learning of his decision–he was not my own parish priest but was using our church to build an Anglo-Catholic congregation–but it was my understanding that he simply grew discouraged that traditional Anglicans could really stand firm aganst the growing tide of heresy in the mainstream Episcopal Church. I hate to speak for him to any extent beyond this but it gives some indication of why some Angicans ‘wouldn’t want to be Anglican’.

 

[DJgang]

Original Poster, Rita88… missing you on this thread!

Wish that you would come back!

 

[Swan]

Keep in mind that I’m Anglican.

And keep in mind that nothing in RC doctrine suggests or requires that the “mortal men”, up to the Pope, will be sinless, on any level, or perfect, in their duties, or are holy, or recognise holiness, or anything else, exepct that they would not teach as required doctrine, anything that is in error. I’m not an adherent of Vat. I, but “infallible” (as defined) is not “impeccable”.

GKC

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here, but I have read many posts on this forum that state very clearly that the RC church has never, ever made an error in teaching. These people insist that regardless of the sins or questionable holiness of past popes, that when it came to their duties as head of the church and their interpretation and implentation of dogmatic decisions, that there was never any mistake made. I find this pretty impossible to believe, that is all I am saying.

 

[mschrank]

1. Because I was one.
2. The same reason I don’t drink non-alcoholic beer. What’s the point?

 

[jmcrae]

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here, but I have read many posts on this forum that state very clearly that the RC church has never, ever made an error in teaching.

That’s true.

These people insist that regardless of the sins or questionable holiness of past popes, that when it came to their duties as head of the church and their interpretation and implentation of dogmatic decisions, that there was never any mistake made.

This is also true. The reason is that the Holy Spirit was protecting the Church. I remember hearing the story of one Pope who was quite the womanizer, etc. He never once in his whole Papacy ever stepped up to the Chair, nor did he ever write any Encyclicals, or teach anything at all. Thus, he taught no error, (because he never taught anything at all) and it is because the Church is being protected by the Holy Spirit.

I find this pretty impossible to believe, that is all I am saying.

A lot of people find Christ’s Resurrection hard to believe, too.

 

[East_and_West]

. I find this pretty impossible to believe, that is all I am saying.

Not hard to believe for some who believes in God.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

Because Henry VIII is it’s founder.

 

[GKC]

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here, but I have read many posts on this forum that state very clearly that the RC church has never, ever made an error in teaching. These people insist that regardless of the sins or questionable holiness of past popes, that when it came to their duties as head of the church and their interpretation and implentation of dogmatic decisions, that there was never any mistake made. I find this pretty impossible to believe, that is all I am saying.

And what I was saying is that you apparently don’t grasp the RC concept of Papal infallibility. Or, likely, the heresy of Donatism.

GKC

 

[1234]

Because Henry VIII is it’s founder.

…a little simplistic, aren’t we?

 

[1234]

I can’t answer that question for myself–I AM Anglican, and WANT to be–but was shocked recently to learn that an Anglo-Catholic priest who had been holding services at my own church has recently ‘swum the Tiber’ to Rome–along with his deacon. The two of them reportedly are attending the St. Francis de Sales Oratory in St. Louis, the church which apparently is the only authorized church to do full Latin Masses in our area. I didn’t know this priest well and have not spoken to him since learning of his decision–he was not my own parish priest but was using our church to build an Anglo-Catholic congregation–but it was my understanding that he simply grew discouraged that traditional Anglicans could really stand firm against the growing tide of heresy in the mainstream Episcopal Church. I hate to speak for him to any extent beyond this but it gives some indication of why some Anglicans ‘wouldn’t want to be Anglican’.

It’s going to happen, flame. High Anglicans flirt with Rome, always have, always will. I can’t understand why they’d put on their water wings–the injunction against ‘artificial’ birth control would see to that, plus papal infallibility…plus…well, never mind–but these things aren’t impediments to the water-prone. These people, mainly MEN, pardon my prejudice, aren’t aware of the realities, but it happens, since Newman, it’s happened and will continue to do so.

They ignore the trad Anglos groups out there, which are probably growing-. Maybe the priest wants to remain a priest–easy in the RC church with the shortage–FIFTY Episcopal priests have converted in the US in recent years and become RC priests, a real boon to the RC’s.

I think that the attraction to the Latin mass says it all–that’s what he–they–wanted all along.

 

[1234]

I meant the Byzantine Emperor.

…er…there are all kinds of Jews, Lucy.

Some even eat ham.

I could give up ham.

Have you tried beef or turkey bacon? Pretty good.

And you could learn to be really funny and tell all those Jewish jokes!

I think that if one wants to have religion, or believes in a deity, or something, Judaism isn’t bad. They traditionally *argue *with God. That comes from being the Chosen People.

 

[1234]

That big ole’ Anglican tent is ripping and the poles are coming down.

Because the Archbishop of Canterbury is just a figurehead, there is no one in charge, no one at all. There is no one to correct error.

One can believe whatever one wants. Transubstantiation? Sure. Consubstantiation? Okay. Bread and grape juice? Why not.

There is only one Truth, but the whole idea of Anglicanism is Catholicism and protestantism living together “in tension”. YOU can believe anything you want, because your church does not believe in Truth, just truth.

I say this in all Christian charity. Really.

You should try the Hindus.

“Believe in Jesus? Sure! Believe in Mary? Sure! Just make a little room next to all their other gods. NO problemo.”

Christianity has a very hard time in India. Hinduism embraces everything. Ditto Buddhism.

I think that you’ll find that, as Mark Twain said, the reports of (the Anglican Communion’s) death have been greatly exaggerated.

People who want answers become Roman.

People who are not sure but want to talk about it…become Anglican

 

[1234]

The Anglican Church is having a huge crisis right now and is about to break apart into a number of factions over homosexuality, ordination of women and interpretation of scripture. Many of them are swimming the Tiber, as I once did!

No one pays attention to those joining the Anglican Communion or the myriads that leave Rome, drop away, stop attending, stop donating, or join other faiths…did you read the latest Pew Report? the number of people allegedly Catholics, over one billion, is not reflected in any way in Mass attendance, lay support, number of priests and religious, number of churches, schools or degree of support by any criterion.

religions.pewforum.org/

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

…
I think that you’ll find that, as Mark Twain said, the reports of (the Anglican Communion’s) death have been greatly exaggerated.

People who want answers become Roman.

People who are not sure but want to talk about it…become Anglican

We’ll know soon. There’s a conference of Lambeth non-attenders planned prior to the coming Lambeth Conference. The significant thing about this conference may well prove to be the millions of Anglicans not represented at it.

Having worshiped among Anglicans for a number of years, it is quite cruel to suggest that those who join them are not interested in answers. And given the answers that the teachings of the Church contain, just “wanting” answers is not enough to make one a Catholic. Because some of those truths are hard, not gentle, and one does not get to pick and choose (and remain a good Catholic).

I returned home to the Church because it became abundantly clear that Anglicanism was simply not equipped to hold and defend even the truths it acknowledged.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I meant the Byzantine Emperor.

You mean the Roman Emperor.

 

[SIA]

No, I know exactly what I said and I meant to say it.

Just because ++Akinola is orthodox doesn’t mean that his Province is totally anglo-catholic. Anglicanism IS the big tent. Refer to the Elizabethan Settlement. It allows the belief of transubstantiation, consubstantiation, whatever.

I was speaking of Anglicanism. I would have brought up the Episcopal church if I was talking about Unitarian Universalists.

I think that your wish here is to lump Anglicans, Episcopalians and Unitarians all together. After all, you just said that Anglicanism (the most conservative of the three even though it is the big tent) allows for a variety of beliefs. That is an utter insult to Anglicans worldwide who have adhered to the core teachings of Anglicanism.

 

[PaulinVA]

I think that your wish here is to lump Anglicans, Episcopalians and Unitarians all together. After all, you just said that Anglicanism (the most conservative of the three even though it is the big tent) allows for a variety of beliefs. That is an utter insult to Anglicans worldwide who have adhered to the core teachings of Anglicanism.

I am at a loss to understand your comment.

There is no insult in at all in stating the fact that, while the 28th Article clearly is against transubstantiation, there are high church Anglicans who hold that belief. LIkewise, it is no insult to say that some believe in consubstantiation and some hold to the belief that there is no change at all.

The insult was directed at the Episcopal church, which is looking more like Universalists every day. For that I am truly sorry.