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

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.

Click to expand...

Since this a Catholic board, I will not discuss the shortcomings of the Roman Catholic Church in the centuries around the time of the Reformation.

QWERTY said:

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.

Click to expand...

Apostolicae Curae was over 100 years ago, and a few things have changed since then.

For one, Anglicans bitten by the claim that they did not have apostolic succession any longer, took some action to restore a lineage from uncontested succession. They found bishops from Old Catholic or Orthodox or other places who had valid succession to co-ordain Anglican bishops. It's to the point now that likely every Anglican bishop DOES have a form of apostolic lineage that would be hard to argue against.

On the other hand, Anglicans have entered into ministerial agreements with other groups that clearly do not have apostolic succession, considering their ordinations to be essentially equivalent. If they ARE equivalent, it looks like their ordinations are no longer intended to be equivalent to Catholic or Orthodox ordinations.

So one step closer, another step away. Anglicans worked hard to regain apostolic succession and then worked hard to make it look like that no longer mattered to them. Apostolicae Curae may as well be considered moot at this point because the situation has evolved so much. A new understanding would be more complex by far, considering the above, and with the rapid demise of the Anglican communion. I'm not sure how I would resolve it other than to note that it might have to be resolved by country or continent as different Anglican groups or congregations or individuals would have different trajectories. Some will stay liberal in the American model. Some will transfer to become Catholic. Others, particularly in Africa, will look more like the old Anglicans but without a connection to Canterbury.

mark46 said:

Since this a Catholic board, I will not discuss the shortcomings of the Roman Catholic Church in the centuries around the time of the Reformation.

Click to expand...

Catholics must believe the Reformers were lunatics or morons. That's the only saving grace for the absolute garbage theology they vomited onto the world.

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.

Click to expand...

When we realize that for the vast majority of us, our particular religions are more a matter of birth than choice, such arbitrariness might lead to some humility as to insisting that ours is the True piece, and all others that have broken into different pieces are false pieces.
For most of us the choice was already made in our infancy through baptism. But for those who need to choose, there are good enough reasons to understand the rationality and even necessity of the Catholic teachings on morals and faith, as they stand today.
However, to the extent that the one choosing has already rejected those teachings, and prefers what the a particular Episcopalian denomination has to offer, Catholicism has no special historical claim to be the one true piece of the broken church more than any other of the broken pieces. The tendencies that eventually splintered into Coptic and Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic and Anglican and Lutheran once used to exist in a united Catholic Church. Now they don't. But that is not the same thing as saying that any of the splintered pieces have abandoned their early common history.
Well, except maybe for the Baptists and their Trail of Blood theology, but that is the stuff of myth rather than accepted history.

chevyontheriver said:

For one, Anglicans bitten by the claim that they did not have apostolic succession any longer, took some action to restore a lineage from uncontested succession. They found bishops from Old Catholic or Orthodox or other places who had valid succession to co-ordain Anglican bishops. It's to the point now that likely every Anglican bishop DOES have a form of apostolic lineage that would be hard to argue against

Click to expand...

but at the time of the Reformation, were there not Catholic Bishops who went along with the Church of England?
I am asking because I am not sure on this spot of history

so from a view of pedigree there is no real argument against the Anglican Church

the argument against the legitimacy of Anglican Holy Orders would have to be that they have altered the theology of the Mass and the Priesthood and the Sacraments to the point that these actions have lost their "structural integrity" so to speak
following the metaphor, they were changed so much that they collapsed in on themselves

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.

Click to expand...

well, I did not choose to be born in the USA
it was an accident of fate
but yet I am still expected to follow the laws of the USA, even when I become a mature adult
in fact if I disobey the laws as an adult I am punished more severely then if I broke that law before I turned 18

of course people are free to leave the USA once they are adults
just as people are free to leave the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by our Lord Jesus Christ

I like Jesus, so I am going to keep following Him and not reject His Church

Rhamiel said:

but at the time of the Reformation, were there not Catholic Bishops who went along with the Church of England?
I am asking because I am not sure on this spot of history

so from a view of pedigree there is no real argument against the Anglican Church

the argument against the legitimacy of Anglican Holy Orders would have to be that they have altered the theology of the Mass and the Priesthood and the Sacraments to the point that these actions have lost their "structural integrity" so to speak
following the metaphor, they were changed so much that they collapsed in on themselves

Click to expand...

That is actually the precise argument that the Catholic Church made regarding the Church of England's succession. Once they brought their theology and other things back into conformity, it was too little too late because there were no living bishops with valid succession. So they had/have the right form now but the validity of their succession is (or was) quite dubious. Frankly, the only way to verify apostolic succession for them is probably on a case by case basis.

As to the allure of Anglicanism, back when I worshiped with them I viewed it as a matter of me being as catholic as the Catholic Church would let me be. The High Church brand of Anglo-Catholicism with which I sympathized still rejected key Catholic doctrines (ie, papacy, certain Marian doctrines, etc). I might've stayed there permanently too except two things happened. First, I realized that as much as I loved Anglicanism, it has seen it's day. It will only diminish and probably vanish from here. The Church Our Lord founded will never vanish. It's here until the end. Whatever end. Second, more importantly, I dug deeper with my research and realized that the Catholic Church was legitimately right about everything she teaches. So I made the conversion. It was a no-brainer but there's a limit to how much I can fault an Anglo-Catholic for not seeing how close yet how far away they truly are.

QWERTY said:

Reading over the last few posts, I think it's interesting how many people tend to believe that the very human Catholic Church has the ability to cancel 'Holy orders' (which I take to mean the validity of another church's work in God through different services).

Click to expand...

If you don't understand what Holy Orders are (and it looks like you don't) Google is your friend.

QWERTY said:

Just asked my friend Google, and I think the point I was making still stands.

Click to expand...

Then you need to ask for a clearer answer because you clearly do not understand what "Holy Orders" means. You defined your understanding of it. Your definition is in error.

QWERTY said:

Why do you say that? My understanding that I defined was simply my understanding based on context clues from conversations and readings. While it wasn't the exact definition you claim it needs to be, mine was broad enough to cover it. With Holy orders comes the leadership in a church, which bestows upon the lay people the services of the church. My on-the-fly definition (the validity of a church's work in God through different services) worked just fine for the point I was making.

Furthermore, you can insert the actual, legalistic definition you prefer into my post above in place of my previously understood definition, and the point I was making still stands firm.

You may not realize it, but this 'letter of the law' dispute is only serving to obfuscate the overall message of my post, #129.

I hope it's not being done on purpose in an attempt to avoid the point being made.

If it is being done on purpose (not saying it is but if that's the case) you could simply say "I disagree with the point you were making" and move on. That would be much easier than trying to keep the message hidden within legalistic term disputes.

Click to expand...

Okay, I'll do your homework for you.

Wikipedia said:

Holy orders in the Catholic Church includes three orders: bishop, priest, and deacon. The Church regards ordination as a Sacrament. In the phrase "holy orders", the word "holy" simply means "set apart for some purpose." The word "order" (Latin: ordo) designates an established civil body or corporation with a hierarchy, and ordination means legal incorporation into an ordo. In context, therefore, a holy order is simply a group with a hierarchical structure that is set apart for ministry in the Church.

For Catholics, the church views the last year in the seminary, it is typically in the last year of seminary training that a man will be ordained to the "transitional diaconate." This distinguishes men bound for priesthood from those who have entered the "permanent diaconate" and do not intend to seek ordination as a priest. Deacons, whether transitional or permanent, receive faculties to preach, to perform baptisms, and to witness marriages. They may assist at the Eucharist or the Mass, but are not the ministers of the Eucharist. After six months or more as a transitional deacon, a man will be ordained to the priesthood. Priests are able to preach, perform baptisms, witness marriages, hear confessions and give absolutions, anoint the sick, and celebrate the Eucharist or the Mass. Some priests are later chosen to be bishops; bishops may ordain priests, deacons, and bishops.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_orders_(Catholic_Church)

Click to expand...

It took every last bit of five seconds to find this. Why it escaped you is quite completely beyond me.

But to address your point (to the extent you've even made one), the Catholic Church's modern day bishops can be traced in succession all the way back to Our Lord Himself.

Further, the Church has not "cancelled" any other communion's holy orders. She simply does not recognize, for example, that the Church of England's apostolic succession goes all the way back to Our Lord. The Catholic Church's view is the COE's succession was valid at the time Henry VIII created the COE but succession was ruptured once the COE made changes to liturgy, doctrine and other things.

Later the COE brought their doctrine, liturgy and other things back into compliance. The Catholic Church recognizes that the Anglican form is now correct but, as I said before, it was too little too late because their orders had been invalidated in the Catholic Church's eyes and no living bishops from the COE's founding still lived to provide valid succession for new priests and bishops. So the COE had the right form but lacked valid succession.

Clearly the COE believes it's apostolic succession is valid. Such is their right. The Catholic Church believes (and teaches) otherwise and such is her right.

This isn't a universal thing. For example the Catholic Church has taught that the Orthodox Church has valid orders, valid sacraments and probably valid other things too but I'm not going to do more homework for you. If you're curious about that, use Google. If you don't know how to do that, I can't help you.

Point is though nobody is "cancelling" anything.

thecolorsblend said:

That is actually the precise argument that the Catholic Church made regarding the Church of England's succession. Once they brought their theology and other things back into conformity, it was too little too late because there were no living bishops with valid succession

Click to expand...

it is my understanding that their Sacramental theology is still not in line unacceptable?

QWERTY said:

Reading over the last few posts, I think it's interesting how many people tend to believe that the very human Catholic Church has the ability to cancel 'Holy orders' (which I take to mean the validity of another church's work in God through different services). I don't think God bestowed that particular power upon any human, regardless of their pedigree.

In fact, I think Jesus speaks against that type of behavior in Mark chapter 9:

38)And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. 39)But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. 40)For he that is not against us is on our part. 41)For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.


I know that isn't specifically talking about 'Holy orders', but I think the parallel is close enough for us to realize the point of the section is to say 'Do not impede the work of God in others just because they do not belong to the same club as you'.

It's interesting that, for the true Church, it took all the way up to Vatican II for there to be the understanding that a non Catholic Christian will not 'lose his reward', despite what Jesus clearly said.

I don't expect to change anyone's opinion on the subject, but just food for thought

Click to expand...

well the "very human Catholic Church" would have no such power or authority
the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by our Lord Jesus Christ would have that authority though

you seem to misunderstand Vatican II and pre-Vatican II statements
have you heard of the term "invincible ignorance"? that term was used 100 years before Vatican II by Pope Pius IX
but we can see the concept going back to the times of St. Augustine and some of his teachings (maybe even earlier but I know Augustine for sure talked about such things)
now I am not saying Vatican II did nothing
it made the teaching a lot more clear, this part of theology was not really emphasized

but also remember that Vatican II never said it was "ok" to not be Catholic, read the actual documents
you will see a deep love for the Gospel and the Church

not to be dismissive of the Bible quote you used, it is something to keep in mind
but it also happened before the Holy Spirit came upon the Apostles

Rhamiel said:

it is my understanding that their Sacramental theology is still not in line unacceptable?

Click to expand...

It's tough to be sure because Anglicans have so much latitude with their theology. You can find Anglicans who deny the Real Presence in any form whatsoever while others absolutely believe in transubstantiation. There are tons of beliefs in between as you probably know, all of which are subscribed to by various Anglicans in various times and places. And they ordain women in various Anglican Communion jurisdictions, which is a mess unto itself. So yes, I find it easy to believe their Sacramental theology is all kinds of goofed up. But it's hard to draw universal conclusions about it since they have so few universal rules of any great substance.

mark46 said:

Since this a Catholic board, I will not discuss the shortcomings of the Roman Catholic Church in the centuries around the time of the Reformation.

Click to expand...

Good.

QWERTY said:

That's a good call Mark, because based upon the results of some of my studies into the RCC, it could be very long discussion if delved into accurately.


Good thing we don't judge all people and groups based only on their weakest moments.. right, benedictaoo?

Click to expand...

Seeing that Jesus left His Catholic Church in the hands of sinners, who will, well...sin. who's else hands is He going to leave it in? Of course people will make mistakes but the deposit of faith left to His Catholic Church is never mistaken. And cool it with Roman Catholic bit... its derogatory and was created by the Church of England as a dig against Christ's true Church and it's not allowed in OBOB. Thank you! You sure the Anglicans is not a better fit or you? You seem to be more drawn to that.

mark46 said:

Many believe that someone is not Catholic if they do not "believe and profess all that the Catholic Church believes". In this views, most Catholic should simply quit and join another Church. In that view, eventually after those who didn't agree with anything are pruned, only the pure Church would be less and the Church would be better for it. I'm NOT arguing, just interpreting what I hear from your and others.

Do you think that the pope and Vatican believe that the vast majority who are part of the Church and who don't assent ago all the view of the Church should repent or leave?

Click to expand...

They should leave and here's why...They would be just living a lie. To say Amen and to willfully, knowingly disagree but giving the Amen anyway is nothing more then lip service but ones heart being far from God , and you really can be putting your soul at risk to do that. So yeah, better to leave or at the very least, keep your disagreements to yourself least you lead someone astray and don't Commune to protect yourself. But if you have to do that, why do you want to be Catholic?

Bene - I refer to the Roman Church as the Latin Church to distinguish it from the other Catholic Churches which are members of the Communion of Catholic Churches. Your particular Catholic Church uses the Roman Rite - mine uses Byzantine Rite - but we are both Catholics - as are the Melkites , Maronites Russian Catholics etc etc.

Don't forget that many of your Churches have notice boards outside that say such-and-such Roman Catholic Church.