Torn between two traditions

C. Ray said:

TL;DR: Pope Francis seems to be defective; I may prefer to join a church that doesn't claim indefectability.

I am writing in the hope that a forum-based conversation will help me determine my next steps in approaching my pastor at my current church, or whether I will take the (rather drastic, in my estimation) step of contacting another in another Church.

I am a convert (from a secular upbringing) to the Roman Catholic Church of some twenty years. When I converted, I did not have a particularly mature spiritual life, and did not have a very well informed understanding of the history of Christianity. Of what I did know at the time, the Roman Church made the most sense; it was apostolic, and though it had developed its dogmas, had not revised its dogma in a way that contradicted what had been before. I also understood the case for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome; the protestant schisms were endless because there was no agreed-on authority who could settle doctrinal disputes.

When Jorge Bergoglio was elected as Pope Francis, things began to change for me. His approach of "making a mess" has indeed made a mess of my own certainty. It seems to me and many others besides, that Pope Francis is bringing about a "soft" reformation. With one hand he upholds established doctrine, while with the other he downplays it in the name of the pastroral care of souls. For example in Amoris Laeitia he grants that in some cases, the pastroral care of souls requires that spouses in second marriages can receive the Eucharist, while doing so should be applied within the traditional teaching on remarriage. Which is it that we should keep - the tradition, or the exception to it?

Then there is Francis' change to the Catechism, stating capital punishment is never admissible, despite the fact that throughout history, the Church has taught that it is quite admissible. The change is justified, I am told, because "in this day an age" there's no reason for it; that is to say the truth has not changed but the times have, and how the truth is implemented has to also change.

More recently Francis has claimed that there is greater need to international government, and that there are "some" things for which the nation-state is still suited. The Pope is entitled to his opinions about international politics and climate change, and to voice them. But there are many Catholics who, in their papolatry, hang on his every word and believe what he believes, even what he believes about spaghetti, simply because he is the Pope.

To all this I say "no thanks". The implication for me is that I am not merely rejecting Francis as a spiritual leader, I am rejecting the Papacy itself. For if the Pope may be rotten, and there have been many who were rotten, what are the effects of his rotten acts on a Church which claims to be indefectable? I have seen how apologists for Francis spin his rot inside out trying to make it fit within orthodoxy. Some are more successful than others, but there remains a excess of dross that can't be explained away.

So, I end some days wondering whether I am really a Catholic. But if not Catholic then what? I certainly have always felt a pull towards Anglicanism, which my first girlfriend assured me "was basically Catholic" and which Robin Williams called "Catholic lite". There is something about the Anglican position which I at once despise and admire, namely, its brokenness. The Bishop of Canterbury is not be able to settle any doctrinal disputes. But then, if the the Bishop of Canterbury happens to be a heretic, it is not a deadly threat to the faith itself, because no one expects him to be even close to perfect. It is simply the case that Canterbury is a heretic. I am free to go about my life as orthodox as I please. Canterbury's heresy (if Canterbury is a heretic) doesn't strike at me, because no one in his right mind would be so foolish as to worship Canterbury. But some do worship the Pope, and when the Pope says anything remotely stupid, I necessarily get bent out of shape.

So every Sunday I consider going to my local Episcopalian Church, just to see what's doin'. But I always end up going to the Catholic Church, because... well, who wants to be a turncoat. After all, the Pope is just a man like me, a sinner.

Click to expand...

C. Ray said:

I agree with that entirely, and even were I to jump from Peter's barque I would continue to have the highest regard for the Chair of Peter than can be had for an ecclesial office. I would continue to read papal encyclicals and other official statements, but I would not feel compelled in the slightest to regard anything else he does or says.

That's why I think perhaps I could probably attend a Continuing Anglican or perhaps a conservative Episcopalian church, if there is one near by. There is an Anglican Church in America / Traditional Anglican Church in spitting distance I could attend, which I have on one occasion. I am not sure about the two Episcopal churches, though they seem to be high churchy based on their websites. I haven't visited because I keep giving my local diocesan parishes a second, third, fourth, and fifth chance.

Click to expand...

C. Ray said:

I agree with that entirely, and even were I to jump from Peter's barque I would continue to have the highest regard for the Chair of Peter than can be had for an ecclesial office. I would continue to read papal encyclicals and other official statements, but I would not feel compelled in the slightest to regard anything else he does or says.

That's why I think perhaps I could probably attend a Continuing Anglican or perhaps a conservative Episcopalian church, if there is one near by. There is an Anglican Church in America / Traditional Anglican Church in spitting distance I could attend, which I have on one occasion. I am not sure about the two Episcopal churches, though they seem to be high churchy based on their websites. I haven't visited because I keep giving my local diocesan parishes a second, third, fourth, and fifth chance.

Click to expand...

C. Ray said:

Thanks for everyone's input. I've decided to remain a Roman Catholic. I don't see any positive reason to begin attending any other church.

There are negative reasons that I have been dealing with; that is to say elements of the faith would be removed (noisome popes, inconvenient teachings, certain obligations) were I to go over to an Anglican or Episcopal church, but what would would be added to it? Better music? Maybe. But that is a superficial matter.

No other church tradition could possibly add to what is there already in the Roman Church, which is like a bottomless well. I would only be removing a few troublesome stumblingblocks, while adding others which would be more fundamental to the faith I've already once embraced.

So I'll stay put.

Click to expand...

C. Ray said:

Thanks for everyone's input. I've decided to remain a Roman Catholic. I don't see any positive reason to begin attending any other church.

There are negative reasons that I have been dealing with; that is to say elements of the faith would be removed (noisome popes, inconvenient teachings, certain obligations) were I to go over to an Anglican or Episcopal church, but what would would be added to it? Better music? Maybe. But that is a superficial matter.

No other church tradition could possibly add to what is there already in the Roman Church, which is like a bottomless well. I would only be removing a few troublesome stumblingblocks, while adding others which would be more fundamental to the faith I've already once embraced.

So I'll stay put.

Click to expand...