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

[mark46]

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



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

The point made seemed very clear. Before Vatican II, the general understanding of Catholics and most in Church hierarchy was that only Catholics, with few exceptions went to heaven. People still argue that. However, the statements by the Vatican and the popes make it clear that non-Catholic Christians are our brothers and sisters in Christ, as long as they are members of a Christian church and have been baptized in the name of the Trinity.

I understand your interpretation of the Church's teachings on this subject. I believe that the actions and teachings since Vatican II have a different perspective.

 

[mark46]

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?

I understand your view that the Church should cease its mission of being a hospital for the broken and become a house of the theologically pure. The result of your suggestion would be a very small Church. Perhaps such a Church would be a vibrant one, perhaps not. St John XXIII would probably have disagreed with you. Perhaps such a Church might even listen to the pope from time to time. My suggestion is that those who believe as you do should have their own Rite.

The Church is what it is, and what is has been for 2000 years. We are confused by the thousands of Christian denominations today. Consider the first 1500 years in the West. There is but one church, and many of its members have very different understandings of the faith. And that, IMHO, is the way it should remain.

 

[Rhamiel]

no need for us to be so thin skinned

we can take an honest and introspective look at mistakes, both past and contemporary

but here is one thing that always stuck with me
we talk about people seeing the bad actions of those in authority and leaving the Church....
but from the very beginning, one of the 12 was a thief, traitor, and suicide
so if we have had men like Judas in our ranks from the start, why are people so shocked and amazed when they find one?

 

[benedictaoo]

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.

Which is the reason why you offer your religious assent to all the Church Christ Himself started, offers for our belief. If its Christ's it cant be wrong. If it's Christ's, how could it ever be wrong? If it's His, He gave the Holy Spirit to her to never be wrong. The Church is His bride.

 

[benedictaoo]

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

Great but Jesus didn't start it, Henry did.

 

[benedictaoo]

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

Are you suggesting that I'm mistaken, that Henry didn't create the Church of England that he made himself pope because he wanted to divorce and marry someone else because of lust and wanting a male heir to the throne? Come on Mark, this is taught even in public middle school. And don't bait me anymore okay? It's not Christian like and pope Francis would not agree with that.

 

[mark46]

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.

I disagree with the Church's position with regard to Anglicans. However, the Church has not, and cannot cancel Holy orders. What it can do is to say that the bishops and priests consecrated by a particular church are not priests because the ceremony is invalid for various reasons.

In general, the two reasons given by the Church are that there is no valid line of the bishops celebrating, or that the ceremony itself is insufficient.

 

[benedictaoo]

Pedigree isn't everything.

Wait, you mean Jesus' pedigree? You do know He's the origin?

 

[benedictaoo]

I understand your view that the Church should cease its mission of being a hospital for the broken and become a house of the theologically pure. The result of your suggestion would be a very small Church. Perhaps such a Church would be a vibrant one, perhaps not. St John XXIII would probably have disagreed with you. Perhaps such a Church might even listen to the pope from time to time. My suggestion is that those who believe as you do should have their own Rite.

The Church is what it is, and what is has been for 2000 years. We are confused by the thousands of Christian denominations today. Consider the first 1500 years in the West. There is but one church, and many of its members have very different understandings of the faith. And that, IMHO, is the way it should remain.

There's no way you understand my view and I'd appreciate it if you would stop speaking as if you understand it.

 

[mark46]

Are you suggesting that I'm mistaken, that Henry didn't create the Church of England that he made himself pope because he wanted to divorce and marry someone else because of lust and wanting a male heir to the throne? Come on Mark, this is taught even in public middle school. And don't bait me anymore okay? It's not Christian like and pope Francis would not agree with that.

Yes, I disagree with your interpretations. The Church in England had roots long before Henry. In the 1500's, there were wars being fought, with the pope as a political leader supporting Spain and France. Henry applied to the pope for an annulment, which was routinely granted when a king did not produce a male heir. After several refusals, Henry did NOT make himself pope. He made himself the head of the Church Of England. The English Church moved back under the pope after Henry, and after much back and forth eventually became what it is today under Elizabeth I, a Church not accepting the authority of the Bishop Of Rome. The Church was viewed as the middle way between Protestantism and Catholicism.

 

[benedictaoo]

I disagree with the Church's position with regard to Anglicans. However, the Church has not, and cannot cancel Holy orders. What it can do is to say that the bishops and priests consecrated by a particular church are not priests because the ceremony is invalid for various reasons.

In general, the two reasons given by the Church are that there is no valid line of the bishops celebrating, or that the ceremony itself is insufficient.

They can't but they can deem them to be illicit and they are when practiced outside of jurisdiction and authority. IOW, C of E has no beeswax setting up shop outside the authority of the bishop of Rome. and a bishop has to be legitimate or there is no priest which is why as it stands today we simple do not know if there are any valid priests in the CofE. We know for a fact there are many who are not.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I understand your view that the Church should cease its mission of being a hospital for the broken and become a house of the theologically pure. The result of your suggestion would be a very small Church. Perhaps such a Church would be a vibrant one, perhaps not. St John XXIII would probably have disagreed with you. Perhaps such a Church might even listen to the pope from time to time. My suggestion is that those who believe as you do should have their own Rite.

The Church is what it is, and what is has been for 2000 years. We are confused by the thousands of Christian denominations today. Consider the first 1500 years in the West. There is but one church, and many of its members have very different understandings of the faith. And that, IMHO, is the way it should remain.

Out of curiosity mark, are you from Minnesota?

I ask because you certainly seem as skilled in regards to passive-aggressiveness as the best of us.

 

[benedictaoo]

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.

Come on Anhelyna, I know all that but you also know that it is often used as a dig and I have every right to be offended just like everyone else, we're living in the age of everybody's offended. What's good for the goose.

 

[mark46]

Out of curiosity mark, are you from Minnesota?

I ask because you certainly seem as skilled in regards to passive-aggressiveness as the best of us.

I spent my first semester of college in Saint Paul, and visited much of Minnesota. My sister lives in Minnesota; we visit every year.

 

[benedictaoo]

The point made seemed very clear. Before Vatican II, the general understanding of Catholics and most in Church hierarchy was that only Catholics, with few exceptions went to heaven.

I understand your interpretation of the Church's teachings on this subject. I believe that the actions and teachings since Vatican II have a different perspective.

No, not true. I can help you better understand if you like?
Mark, you may not be awear but you have been misrepresenting Catholics, and being that you are Catholic, you are misrepresenting your own faith. I must ask, why? Could you just be mistaken? I can help...

 

[benedictaoo]

I spent my first semester of college in Saint Paul, and visited much of Minnesota. My sister lives in Minnesota; we visit every year.

so is that a yes to passive aggressiveness?

 

[Anhelyna]

Come on Anhelyna, I know all that but you also know that it is often used as a dig and I have every right to be offended just like everyone else, we're living in the age of everybody's offended. What's good for the goose.

Bene - I don't think it was being used as a 'dig' and we ECs are fed up that no matter how we explain matters people insist on regarding us as RCs [ yes I'm using it deliberately ] with funny hats and not really Catholic.

 

[benedictaoo]

Yes, I disagree with your interpretations. The Church in England had roots long before Henry. In the 1500's, there were wars being fought, with the pope as a political leader supporting Spain and France. Henry applied to the pope for an annulment, which was routinely granted when a king did not produce a male heir. After several refusals, Henry did NOT make himself pope. He made himself the head of the Church Of England. The English Church moved back under the pope after Henry, and after much back and forth eventually became what it is today under Elizabeth I, a Church not accepting the authority of the Bishop Of Rome. The Church was viewed as the middle way between Protestantism and Catholicism.

Are you talking about "Old Catholics"?

 

[mark46]

They can't but they can deem them to be illicit and they are when practiced outside of jurisdiction and authority. IOW, C of E has no beeswax setting up shop outside the authority of the bishop of Rome. and a bishop has to be legitimate or there is no priest which is why as it stands today we simple do not know if there are any valid priests in the CofE. We know for a fact there are many who are not.

Curiously, the Vatican has spoken out on this several times, denying that that there are any Anglican priests. Obviously, an Anglican could be a priest if he was consecrated by Orthodox or some other accepted group.
http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2011/01/20/the-validity-of-anglican-holy-orders/

 

[benedictaoo]

Bene - I don't think it was being used as a 'dig' and we ECs are fed up that no matter how we explain matters people insist on regarding us as RCs [ yes I'm using it deliberately ] with funny hats and not really Catholic.

Serious, it does offend me, it always has. If I were a Catholic in Rome, from Rome, then you can call me a Roman Catholic. But I'm not in Rome nor am I from Rome so I'm just Catholic of the Roman rite.