NonDenom here, at a crossroads.. Catholic or Episcopalian?

Fantine · Oct 6, 2015

A Church that baptizes infants and confirms them when they're 13 or 14 (with some people saying that should be changed to the age of first communion at age 7!!!!) has no right to expect that any of these people, when they become mature adults, will assent to every single tenet of faith without question.

If that's the kind of Catholics they want, they should change the rules of membership and the time of baptism.

Yes, there is a strong value in a family that prays together and stays together---but the Catholics in that family who were baptized as infants may be praying together and staying together for the values of community, of culture, of heritage--of things that may have little to do with dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's.

I'm not opposed to infant baptism--but don't expect it will result in Catholics who've become or remain Catholics for any of the reasons near and dear to your heart.

QWERTY · Oct 6, 2015

mark46 said:
We cannot know anything for sure. That is the sin of presumption.

However, you have stated two separate areas where you cannot assent to the etching of the Church, that the Church is always right when it speaks about faith and morality, and in the specific teaching with regard to the sinfulness of homosexuality.

What is a sense make me more "nervous" about your statements is your last statement. If I were to poll Catholics, a "good portion" do NOT believe that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. What should I make of this? Should I think that this view is OK because lots of people understand much differently than the Church? Of course NOT, Jesus is truly present, body, blood soul and divinity. We truly receive Jesus at the Table of Plenty.

I agree that the Church's understanding of the definition of the requirements for the sacrament of marriage is very, very important. IMHO, it is even more important to understand that it is the Church that makes such decisions.

It is true that we shouldn't blindly follow our neighbor, but if the majority of Catholics believe something, regardless of what it is, why is it so wrong to consider their beliefs?
And when you really think about it, what is the point of considering all moral teachings infallible? I understand that all positions of God are unchanging and true, but men on Earth, no matter how holy, are imperfect and make mistakes. To say that Church teachings could possibly be fallible would not be a judgment upon God, just the humans' ability to hear His will correctly.

Just playing devil's advocate here, to further understand.

LivingWordUnity · Oct 6, 2015

QWERTY said:
It is true that we shouldn't blindly follow our neighbor, but if the majority of Catholics believe something, regardless of what it is, why is it so wrong to consider their beliefs?
And when you really think about it, what is the point of considering all moral teachings infallible? I understand that all positions of God are unchanging and true, but men on Earth, no matter how holy, are imperfect and make mistakes. To say that Church teachings could possibly be fallible would not be a judgment upon God, just the humans' ability to hear His will correctly.

Just playing devil's advocate here, to further understand.

The Church's moral teachings are based on God's Ten Commandments which are infallible because they come from God. We can see this clearly by looking at how the sections of the Catechism of the Catholic Church are divided.

mark46 · Oct 7, 2015

Fantine said:
A Church that baptizes infants and confirms them when they're 13 or 14 (with some people saying that should be changed to the age of first communion at age 7!!!!) has no right to expect that any of these people, when they become mature adults, will assent to every single tenet of faith without question.

If that's the kind of Catholics they want, they should change the rules of membership and the time of baptism.

Yes, there is a strong value in a family that prays together and stays together---but the Catholics in that family who were baptized as infants may be praying together and staying together for the values of community, of culture, of heritage--of things that may have little to do with dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's.

I'm not opposed to infant baptism--but don't expect it will result in Catholics who've become or remain Catholics for any of the reasons near and dear to your heart.

Hmmm

Many here seem to believe that those who fail to assent to all the teachings of the Church are not "real" or "good" Catholics. Others seem to take the view of the Medieval church, that we are all Catholics for life. IMHO, the difference between these two views of the Church is considerable and very important.

mark46 · Oct 7, 2015

QWERTY said:
It is true that we shouldn't blindly follow our neighbor, but if the majority of Catholics believe something, regardless of what it is, why is it so wrong to consider their beliefs?
And when you really think about it, what is the point of considering all moral teachings infallible? I understand that all positions of God are unchanging and true, but men on Earth, no matter how holy, are imperfect and make mistakes. To say that Church teachings could possibly be fallible would not be a judgment upon God, just the humans' ability to hear His will correctly.

Just playing devil's advocate here, to further understand.

In the end, we must choose between our own personal interpretations of Scripture and the Traditions of the Church and those of the Church. Many choose to believe that one's personal view is more likely to be right. In the end, we are responsible for own conscience. We are required to act as our informed conscience says to act. However, the teachings of the Church must take precedence in almost all cases.

This is why I asked whether you really oppose the Church's teachings in one instance, the definition of the requirements of the sacrament of marriage.

QWERTY · Oct 7, 2015

LivingWordUnity said:
The Church's moral teachings are based on God's Ten Commandments which are infallible because they come from God. We can see this clearly by looking at how the sections of the Catechism of the Catholic Church are divided.

Analogy: Let's say the movies The Godfather and The Godfather Part II are infallible (because they are

) . While the The Godfather Part III is based upon the original source material and seeks to put better understanding into the ending of the second movie, NOBODY would claim that movie is infallible ^_^

regardless of what it is an extension of or if the original cast and crew made it, and saying that is no insult on the original two movies.

That's kind of how I feel about this.
I have no doubt in the Ten Commandments' infallibility, but that doesn't mean the Church teachings that are simply based upon them have to be infallible. For instance, I don't see how planning when you will have kids using certain forms of artificial birth control fits under any of the commandments. Maybe "Shall Not Kill", before science.

I hope that better explains my reservations on it.

mark46 said:
In the end, we must choose between our own personal interpretations of Scripture and the Traditions of the Church and those of the Church. Many choose to believe that one's personal view is more likely to be right. In the end, we are responsible for own conscience. We are required to act as our informed conscience says to act. However, the teachings of the Church must take precedence in almost all cases.

This is why I asked whether you really oppose the Church's teachings in one instance, the definition of the requirements of the sacrament of marriage.

Right now, I choose to believe that while the Church is of God, they are also of the fallible Earth and therefore are prone to all the human errors the rest of us are. I feel the same way about myself; God gave me a brain and conscience to use, but it is fallible and just as prone to error.

I believe my views OR the Church's could be the correct ones. I am not just sticking with my beliefs, but I'm not blindly throwing them out either. I hope that is acceptable. That just makes the most sense to me.

mark46 · Oct 7, 2015

QWERTY said:
I believe my views OR the Church's could be the correct ones. I am not just sticking with my beliefs, but I'm not blindly throwing them out either. I hope that is acceptable. That just makes the most sense to me.

Acceptable to whom? What your are saying is what we are told everyday. You believe that your own personal interpretations of Scripture are on a par with the interpretations of the Church, that have evolved over centuries of prayer and input by the Holy Spirit. This is not an unusual view. Many Christians believe that they need only their own interpretations.

QWERTY · Oct 7, 2015

mark46 said:
Acceptable to whom? What your are saying is what we are told everyday. You believe that your own personal interpretations of Scripture are on a par with the interpretations of the Church, that have evolved over centuries of prayer and input by the Holy Spirit. This is not an unusual view. Many Christians believe that they need only their own interpretations.

You might have misunderstood my position. I never said my interpretations were 'on par' with the Church's. I understand that countless men have put years upon years into studying and praying to come to the conclusions that they have. I'm just saying that, in all aspects of life, the amount of effort and time one puts into something does not always determine the amount of quality in the results.

I'm not here to say I know better. I'm just saying that my thoughts and feelings shouldn't automatically be thrown out just because they are younger than the Church's.

I also never said I felt I "need only [my] own interpretation". I gladly accept that the Church has drawn highly researched and spiritual conclusions on the questions of life. I feel that the Church's opinions should be valued very highly. I just don't subscribe to the idea that when the Church shares an opinion, it is automatically 'fact' upon arrival.

mark46 · Oct 7, 2015

QWERTY said:
You might have misunderstood my position. I never said my interpretations were 'on par' with the Church's. I understand that countless men have put years upon years into studying and praying to come to the conclusions that they have. I'm just saying that, in all aspects of life, the amount of effort and time one puts into something does not always determine the amount of quality in the results.

I'm not here to say I know better. I'm just saying that my thoughts and feelings shouldn't automatically be thrown out just because they are younger than the Church's.

I also never said I felt I "need only [my] own interpretation". I gladly accept that the Church has drawn highly researched and spiritual conclusions on the questions of life. I feel that the Church's opinions should be valued very highly. I just don't subscribe to the idea that when the Church shares an opinion, it is automatically 'fact' upon arrival.

OK, I guess my feeling is that the Church's position is indeed "fact" upon arrival. That does not mean that I never disagree. The difference, I think, is that I start from the position that the Church is right.

chevyontheriver · Oct 7, 2015

QWERTY said:
Right now, I choose to believe that while the Church is of God, they are also of the fallible Earth and therefore are prone to all the human errors the rest of us are. I feel the same way about myself; God gave me a brain and conscience to use, but it is fallible and just as prone to error.

I believe my views OR the Church's could be the correct ones. I am not just sticking with my beliefs, but I'm not blindly throwing them out either. I hope that is acceptable. That just makes the most sense to me.

I do like that I can see you thinking this all out. You are willing to consider things outside of your preconceptions. Not to wildly jump to new positions, but at least to grapple with them. And that kind of thing doesn't happen overnight for most of us. It took me a long time.

The Church has survived with members like us for a long long time. That it has not been reduced to utter ruin yet is testament to God's protection. That protection was promised by Jesus in Matthew 16:18 where he said the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. The idea is that if the Church fails to teach the truth about faith or morals that the gates of hell have indeed prevailed. Another idiomatic way of saying 'gates of hell' is 'jaws of death'. To my view the jaws of death have not yet prevailed against the Church even though we have been mauled by Satan prowling around looking for someone to devour. We humans in the Church have failed over and over again, From me and pope Francis all the way back to Judas and Peter. But God has not let his project fail. He has kept it from error in what it affirms about faith and morals despite our best efforts to mess it up.

God gave us brains and consciences to use. You're right. I think that means you have a better than even chance to come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church got it right doctrinally even if it is challenging to accept because everybody thinks another path is the one for them. I am blatantly appealing to the counter-cultural argument here. The argument that if everybody is doing something, that don't mean nothin'. Particularly in the area of human sexuality the Catholic Church has been counter-cultural for almost all of it's existence. It inherited an Israelite understanding of sexuality (counter-cultural in the ancient world of fertility rites and child sacrifices and temple prostitutes) and maintained it in the midst of a sexual hedonism about as advanced as ours today. And it overcame in a world where homosexuality and child abandonment and all manner of contraception (crocodile dung was said to work very well - honest - I could never have made that one up) were the norm. We were counter-cultural in confronting the Germanic hordes and the Huns too. And were far more earthy than Victorian prudishness would allow. And now we are sticking to that old inheritance from the Israelites even when absolutely everybody else thinks they have a hip new better idea. But the Catholic idea of human sexuality is the real better idea. Look up Paul M. Quay and Christopher West and Janet Smith for more on this. Take your time. If you end up rejecting it, at least you will know what you are rejecting. But you might find yourself changed.

QWERTY · Oct 7, 2015

mark46 said:
OK, I guess my feeling is that the Church's position is indeed "fact" upon arrival. That does not mean that I never disagree. The difference, I think, is that I start from the position that the Church is right.

Oh okay. That's actually an interesting mindset (believing the Church's teachings to be fact, yet still having disagreements).
I'm the kind of person who, if presented with a fact that is counter to my beliefs, my position automatically shifts to fit the fact. I might be weird though when it comes to that. I have a lot of weird thought patterns ^_^

chevyontheriver said:
I do like that I can see you thinking this all out. You are willing to consider things outside of your preconceptions. Not to wildly jump to new positions, but at least to grapple with them. And that kind of thing doesn't happen overnight for most of us. It took me a long time.

The Church has survived with members like us for a long long time. That it has not been reduced to utter ruin yet is testament to God's protection. That protection was promised by Jesus in Matthew 16:18 where he said the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. The idea is that if the Church fails to teach the truth about faith or morals that the gates of hell have indeed prevailed. Another idiomatic way of saying 'gates of hell' is 'jaws of death'. To my view the jaws of death have not yet prevailed against the Church even though we have been mauled by Satan prowling around looking for someone to devour. We humans in the Church have failed over and over again, From me and pope Francis all the way back to Judas and Peter. But God has not let his project fail. He has kept it from error in what it affirms about faith and morals despite our best efforts to mess it up.

God gave us brains and consciences to use. You're right. I think that means you have a better than even chance to come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church got it right doctrinally even if it is challenging to accept because everybody thinks another path is the one for them. I am blatantly appealing to the counter-cultural argument here. The argument that if everybody is doing something, that don't mean nothin'. Particularly in the area of human sexuality the Catholic Church has been counter-cultural for almost all of it's existence. It inherited an Israelite understanding of sexuality (counter-cultural in the ancient world of fertility rites and child sacrifices and temple prostitutes) and maintained it in the midst of a sexual hedonism about as advanced as ours today. And it overcame in a world where homosexuality and child abandonment and all manner of contraception (crocodile dung was said to work very well - honest - I could never have made that one up) were the norm. We were counter-cultural in confronting the Germanic hordes and the Huns too. And were far more earthy than Victorian prudishness would allow. And now we are sticking to that old inheritance from the Israelites even when absolutely everybody else thinks they have a hip new better idea. But the Catholic idea of human sexuality is the real better idea. Look up Paul M. Quay and Christopher West and Janet Smith for more on this. Take your time. If you end up rejecting it, at least you will know what you are rejecting. But you might find yourself changed.

I never made that connection; the fact that the positions they hold have largely been the same for nearly 2,000 years regardless of the culture around them. That is a very amazing feat, and does stand as a testament to their convictions for doing what is right. You've given me something big to think about. That makes me very much rethink some things.

SolomonVII · Oct 8, 2015

Episcopalian is a church with history and traditions too. There are enough Catholics who believe as the OP does that he will fit in with either, but as far as the faith goes, Episcopalian is the better fit for the views of the OP.

QWERTY · Oct 8, 2015

SolomonVII said:
Episcopalian is a church with history and traditions too. There are enough Catholics who believe as the OP does that he will fit in with either, but as far as the faith goes, Episcopalian is the better fit for the views of the OP.

I definitely agree that my views are more inline with the Episcopalians, but if the Catholic Church is the church that Jesus started, than it would feel a little small minded and petty joining another church just because my ideas were in total sync with theirs. That's literally the only thing stopping me.

Though if I'm being honest with myself, I personally don't buy the Apostolicae curae papal bull that Pope Leo XIII issued. I've read over his claims, and the claims of the Anglican response, the Saepius officio, and I think the Pope was most likely in the wrong. With that mindset, it's really just different factions within one 'Church' (especially if you're open to female ordination, like I, most Episcopalians, and some Catholics are).

So many different perspectives to analyze. It's easy to see how people can devote entire lives to studying Christianity.

SolomonVII · Oct 8, 2015

QWERTY said:
I definitely agree that my views are more inline with the Episcopalians, but if the Catholic Church is the church that Jesus started, than it would feel a little small minded and petty joining another church just because my ideas were in total sync with theirs. That's literally the only thing stopping me.

Though if I'm being honest with myself, I personally don't buy the Apostolicae curae papal bull that Pope Leo XIII issued. I've read over his claims, and the claims of the Anglican response, the Saepius officio, and I think the Pope was most likely in the wrong. With that mindset, it's really just different factions within one 'Church' (especially if you're open to female ordination, like I, most Episcopalians, and some Catholics are).

So many different perspectives to analyze. It's easy to see how people can devote entire lives to studying Christianity.

One way of looking at it is that the RC is the church Jesus started, and that the Anglicans started a new church.
Or, it could be that the two share the same history and that at a certain point in history the unity was shattered with two distinct pieces of the same church breaking off of each other.
In that case, which is the one true piece is anyone's guess,.

QWERTY · Oct 8, 2015

SolomonVII said:
One way of looking at it is that the RC is the church Jesus started, and that the Anglicans started a new church.
Or, it could be that the two share the same history and that at a certain point in history the unity was shattered with two distinct pieces of the same church breaking off of each other.
In that case, which is the one true piece is anyone's guess,.

Or, yet another way of looking at this is to believe that when Jesus said he was starting his Church upon Peter, he was saying Peter's faith was the rock he was building it upon instead of physically Peter himself, and that to become a member of the Lord's Church is to simply add yourself to the foundation of the Church by being a faithful believer in the message and life of Jesus. In this perspective, there is no 'true church' on Earth, only different people with different interpretations of the certain moral questions touched upon in the Bible that come together as members of the 'spiritual Church' of God through their unified belief in following the most encompassing lesson Jesus taught, which is to love every single person on Earth as unconditionally as you possibly can, for to love another is to love the Lord.

"Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me".

"He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love."

I'm just theorizing here haha

mark46 · Oct 8, 2015

SolomonVII said:
One way of looking at it is that the RC is the church Jesus started, and that the Anglicans started a new church.
Or, it could be that the two share the same history and that at a certain point in history the unity was shattered with two distinct pieces of the same church breaking off of each other.
In that case, which is the one true piece is anyone's guess,.

I think that you make a very important point.

Anglicans don't believe that Jesus established the Anglican Church from the beginning and that Rome formed a new one. I believe that almost everyone who accepts the idea of a visible Church thinks that we all trace our Traditions and churches back to the Early Church. We disagree with regard to who left this ONE Church, and when they left. Anglicans certainly believe that Rome moved away from the True Church at one point. And Catholics believe the same about Anglicans.

benedictaoo · Oct 8, 2015

SolomonVII said:
One way of looking at it is that the RC is the church Jesus started, and that the Anglicans started a new church.
Or, it could be that the two share the same history and that at a certain point in history the unity was shattered with two distinct pieces of the same church breaking off of each other.
In that case, which is the one true piece is anyone's guess,.

It was started to justify lust and adultery. I'll never understand in a million years how that church still stands, knowing the history how can anyone be apart of that...but I digress. And Im sure I offended somebody, somewhere and this will be reported but its my opinion, how I feel. Just keeping it 100.

benedictaoo · Oct 8, 2015

mark46 said:
I think that you make a very important point.

Anglicans don't believe that Jesus established the Anglican Church from the beginning and that Rome formed a new one. I believe that almost everyone who accepts the idea of a visible Church thinks that we all trace our Traditions and churches back to the Early Church. We disagree with regard to who left this ONE Church, and when they left. Anglicans certainly believe that Rome moved away from the True Church at one point. And Catholics believe the same about Anglicans.

No that's not historical factual. The Anglican Church came to be because of Henry's lust and him wanting an heir to the throne.

QWERTY · Oct 8, 2015

benedictaoo said:
It was started to justify lust and adultery. I'll never understand in a million years how that church still stands, knowing the history how can anyone be apart of that...but I digress. And Im sure I offended somebody, somewhere and this will be reported but its my opinion, how I feel. Just keeping it 100.

Lots of people/places/things start out as bad only to turn into an instrument of good later. Pedigree isn't everything.

mark46 · Oct 8, 2015

benedictaoo said:
No that's not historical factual. The Anglican Church came to be because of Henry's lust and him wanting an heir to the throne.

Are you suggesting that I am mistaken in what Anglicans believe?

NonDenom here, at a crossroads.. Catholic or Episcopalian?

Dona Quixote

[Saint Joseph, pray for us]

Unchanging Deposit of Faith, Traditional Catholic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

[Saint Joseph, pray for us]

Well-Known Member

[Saint Joseph, pray for us]

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

[Saint Joseph, pray for us]

Well-Known Member

[Saint Joseph, pray for us]

Well-Known Member

[Saint Joseph, pray for us]

Well-Known Member

Legend

Legend

[Saint Joseph, pray for us]

Well-Known Member

Similar threads