Where do I fit?

[sophgirl]

I am trying to figure out what to describe myself as. Yes, I am Christian - but I mean, more specifically than that.

I don't think most people would have me identify as Catholic --- as just about all Catholic denominations I know of (not just Roman Catholic - but even Independent Catholics) would see a traceable chain of Apostolic Succession as being 100% necessary for most sacraments. Though I believe such a chain of succession is preferable - I don't believe it necessary --- as I don't believe God is going to forsake someone just because the Community of Bishops makes the church an inhospitable place. God is more faithful than that.

However - that said - I don't really fit in as Protestant either. For one thing, I believe that the Blessed Sacrament really *is* the body and blood of Jesus - not just symbolic.

I also believe in the Communion of Saints - and regularly ask for the intercession of saints. Though I am bothered by the political control that has been exerted over the canonization process in the last century or so - and therefore don't know who to turn to to figure out for certain if someone (especially a recent person) should be revered a saint or not.

I also don't believe in Sola Scriptura - as there are many extrabiblical sources of sacred tradition that are best made use of if we are to come to an authentic interpretation of scripture. That said, I also feel that many times Catholics (Roman Catholics especially - but often Orthodox as well) go to the other extreme, which I call Sola Locuta --- in essence, exempting the edicts they hand down from any *real* and *tangible* scriptural scrutiny.

And so forth.

So anyway ---- I'm trying to figure out how to describe myself ---- and I mean, without having to write several paragraphs like I did here. In short --- is there a label?

 

[Dark_Lite]

Your beliefs probably fit into one of the more liberal Old Catholic churches the best.

 

[Mr Dave]

That or Anglican. Methodist maybe at a push too. I don't know enough about Lutheran but that would probably fit.

They're the denoms that are neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant but somewhere between (to varying degrees).

Sounds most like High Anglican to me.

 

[cajunhillbilly]

You would fit just nicely in the Anglican traditions.

 

[sophgirl]

I'm really sorry --- but reading the responses, it looks like everyone quickly noted that I differ from Roman Catholics but am not Protestant --- and stopped reading there.

For example ----

You would fit just nicely in the Anglican traditions.

No, I would not.

Me: Very much emphasize Marian Devotions ---- yet Apostolic Succession, though preferable, isn't necessary. Anglican (on the other hand): Apostolic Succession is a 100% must - but squeamish about Marian devotions.

Guys ---- I took the time to in length explain what I believe when asking where I might fit in. I really wish some of you guys who "helped" answer had taken the time to read what I wrote.

Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[Dark_Lite]

And perhaps you shouldn't criticize what was frankly decent free advice. If you clicked the links, you would find that Anglo-Catholics or certain strains of Old Catholicism are pretty much exactly what you described.

 

[jehoiakim]

Possibly some branch of Eastern Orthodox?

Even if you don't feel that a specific 'denomination' fits you I wouldn't feel too discouraged. While I disagree with you on some of your specifics convictions, the fact that you are so independent speaks volumes to me. You obviously use your brain and come to your thoughts with careful consideration. My concern is more that we have unity in the essentials of the faith. Hopefully we do, but that isn't my point. My point is the Holy Spirit seems to be moving you which is more than I can say for most christians of any 'denomination' of Christians.

Just one point about sola scriptora. I don't know if my take is unorthodox for Protestants, but I believe other writings and traditions can be sacred and certainly add to our understanding and our faith, I just don't hold them in the same place as scripture... if my tradition or the other writings seem to contradict each other I am going to do some serious study to try and understand what both are trying to say I won't necessarily dismiss the text if it seems to contradict the scripture... I try to give them the benefit of the doubt and see if I can get interpret their words differently. If I can't then obviously I fall on the side of scripture, that I believe to be inerrant in it's original text.

 

[lindart]

sophgirl, I see that you are new here. Welcome. I hope you learn from this forum as I am learning. It is especially a blessing when we approach fellow forum members with humble respect and appreciation for their time and input. There is so much to learn here and wonderful posters to meet! God bless you!

 

[cajunhillbilly]

Just one point about sola scriptora. I don't know if my take is unorthodox for Protestants, but I believe other writings and traditions can be sacred and certainly add to our understanding and our faith, I just don't hold them in the same place as scripture... if my tradition or the other writings seem to contradict each other I am going to do some serious study to try and understand what both are trying to say I won't necessarily dismiss the text if it seems to contradict the scripture... I try to give them the benefit of the doubt and see if I can get interpret their words differently. If I can't then obviously I fall on the side of scripture, that I believe to be inerrant in it's original text.

That is my take on the relation between Scripture and tradition as well. Tradition has a place in helping us to understand Scripture and too many Protestant throw out the baby with the bath water. But tradition still has to submit to Scripture.

 

[Obzocky]

I have to agree with those who said some Anglo-Catholic strains are pretty spot on in terms of what you have posted. We certainly are not squeamish about Marian devotions, but each church is different.

Moving on from that;
People get far too wrapped up in specific Christian "labels", sometimes you do not know which denomination you mesh with well until you've ventured into them, talked to people from denominations you've looked at and gone "yes, I can agree with that". The fact that even within denominations individual churches can differ quite a bit can throw spanners in the works.

I would say browse through the Christian communities subforums, ask questions in them, look to churches in your area. Keep asking questions, as many as you can think of, when you find somewhere that satisifes you with their answers you'll find somewhere you can call home.

 

[torpedo]

I use to label myself a christian, but after reading and studying on my own i then became a believer. i guess you can just tell people you love Jesus. there are so many labels out there, all of them have their false teachings, some alot, some a little. Just dont worry about labels. you do not want to be put in a box

 

[sophgirl]

And perhaps you shouldn't criticize what was frankly decent free advice. If you clicked the links, you would find that Anglo-Catholics or certain strains of Old Catholicism are pretty much exactly what you described.

I appologize. I was wrong for allowing my frustration to result in a failure to show proper gratitude. Granted - I wasn't really feeling well at the time (nasty migraine) - but that's no excuse. I'm sorry.

Just one point about sola scriptora. I don't know if my take is unorthodox for Protestants, but I believe other writings and traditions can be sacred and certainly add to our understanding and our faith, I just don't hold them in the same place as scripture... if my tradition or the other writings seem to contradict each other I am going to do some serious study to try and understand what both are trying to say I won't necessarily dismiss the text if it seems to contradict the scripture...

Which is important --- because sometimes a writing from an early Christian may contradict what we think the scripture means on the surface --- but not what the scripture actually means.

I try to give them the benefit of the doubt and see if I can get interpret their words differently. If I can't then obviously I fall on the side of scripture, that I believe to be inerrant in it's original text.

Nobody is talking about putting anything ahead of scripture. (Okay --- I'm not - I can't speak for everyone.) However, sometimes we do mis-interpret scripture. Partly due to the whole lost-in-translation factor ---- but partly, because it is in general possible to misinterpret scripture. (For example, there were some early heretics in the Church who actually cut off parts of their body out of mis-interpretation of something in Matthew.)

I could go on and on here about exactly what the mis-interpretation of theirs was ---- but first of all, I think people here on this forum probably know how those heretics were wrong. But furthermore --- my point isn't the details of how they went wrong --- but rather, the fact that they would have probably caught their error before losing body parts if they had only listened to the traditions of the Church.

Moving on from that;
People get far too wrapped up in specific Christian "labels", sometimes you do not know which denomination you mesh with well until you've ventured into them, talked to people from denominations you've looked at and gone "yes, I can agree with that". The fact that even within denominations individual churches can differ quite a bit can throw spanners in the works.

I've come to identify myself as Catholic. Not Anglo-Catholic, certainly not Roman Catholic, or any major Catholic group ---- just as Catholic. I've spoke to enough others who have assured me that though some of my beliefs are not what the people high-up on the Catholic hierarchy say ---- they don't disqualify me as Catholic. And there's lot of Catholics who share those beliefs ---- though very few of them have been in positions of being compelled to practice said beliefs.

I would say browse through the Christian communities subforums, ask questions in them, look to churches in your area. Keep asking questions, as many as you can think of, when you find somewhere that satisifes you with their answers you'll find somewhere you can call home.

Yeah ---- and sorry I'm so slow to check back at the forum. My life has been hectic the last two weeks.

But anyway, to all of you, thanks.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

I am trying to figure out what to describe myself as. Yes, I am Christian - but I mean, more specifically than that.

I don't think most people would have me identify as Catholic --- as just about all Catholic denominations I know of (not just Roman Catholic - but even Independent Catholics) would see a traceable chain of Apostolic Succession as being 100% necessary for most sacraments. Though I believe such a chain of succession is preferable - I don't believe it necessary --- as I don't believe God is going to forsake someone just because the Community of Bishops makes the church an inhospitable place. God is more faithful than that.

However - that said - I don't really fit in as Protestant either. For one thing, I believe that the Blessed Sacrament really *is* the body and blood of Jesus - not just symbolic.

Lutherans also believe the Eucharist is the real and actual body and blood of Jesus. It's His actual flesh and His actual blood "in, with and under" the bread and the wine. Most, I think, in the Anglican Communion also agree with the Real Presence--Anglo-Catholics certainly do at least.

I also believe in the Communion of Saints - and regularly ask for the intercession of saints. Though I am bothered by the political control that has been exerted over the canonization process in the last century or so - and therefore don't know who to turn to to figure out for certain if someone (especially a recent person) should be revered a saint or not.

I also don't believe in Sola Scriptura - as there are many extrabiblical sources of sacred tradition that are best made use of if we are to come to an authentic interpretation of scripture. That said, I also feel that many times Catholics (Roman Catholics especially - but often Orthodox as well) go to the other extreme, which I call Sola Locuta --- in essence, exempting the edicts they hand down from any *real* and *tangible* scriptural scrutiny.

And so forth.

So anyway ---- I'm trying to figure out how to describe myself ---- and I mean, without having to write several paragraphs like I did here. In short --- is there a label?

I think from what you describe the Anglican Communion fits the bill. I'd pitch for Lutheranism, but we're pretty big on the Sola Scriptura thing

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dark_Lite]

I appologize. I was wrong for allowing my frustration to result in a failure to show proper gratitude. Granted - I wasn't really feeling well at the time (nasty migraine) - but that's no excuse. I'm sorry.

Everybody gets frustrated sometimes, especially in the Theology category. It's happened to me on more than one occasion.

I've come to identify myself as Catholic. Not Anglo-Catholic, certainly not Roman Catholic, or any major Catholic group ---- just as Catholic. I've spoke to enough others who have assured me that though some of my beliefs are not what the people high-up on the Catholic hierarchy say ---- they don't disqualify me as Catholic. And there's lot of Catholics who share those beliefs ---- though very few of them have been in positions of being compelled to practice said beliefs.

What you have listed in your original post isn't really all that much at odds with Catholic theology. The only point of contention (theologically) seems to be your beliefs on apostolic succession. Catholicism teaches that it is necessary to have apostolic succession in order to have valid sacraments. However, it does not teach that it is necessary to have apostolic succession in order to have Christianity. A lot of Protestant denominations don't believe in sacramentalism anyway.

Based solely on what you have written here, you may actually be better off just staying in the Catholic Church. There are people who claim they are Catholic and disagree with far more than what you have presented here. But again, this advice is based solely on what you have written here. I don't know about any other points of contention.

Edit: assuming you are Catholic, that is...

 

[sophgirl]

Based solely on what you have written here, you may actually be better off just staying in the Catholic Church. There are people who claim they are Catholic and disagree with far more than what you have presented here. But again, this advice is based solely on what you have written here. I don't know about any other points of contention.

Oh -- of course I'm staying in the Catholic Church! I'm not leaving the Church --- I'm just leaving Rome's communion within the Catholic Church. And this is something that I have to do. Rome's mis-management of several scandals, and the absence of any other way to hold Rome accountable, prevents me from being able with a clear conscience to regularly attend or to depend upon parishes that Rome controls.

Of course --- my ceasing to depend on parishes that Rome controls.

The only point of contention (theologically) seems to be your beliefs on apostolic succession. Catholicism teaches that it is necessary to have apostolic succession in order to have valid sacraments. However, it does not teach that it is necessary to have apostolic succession in order to have Christianity.

Yeah --- and to me that sounds a lot like saying "Oh, of course you're allowed to live! Yeah --- you are not allowed to eat or drink any food, but who said anything about not being allowed to live?"

Problem with that statement? Everyone knows what happens to you without food --- you starve to death. In short --- you don't get to live.

The sacraments don't exist because of them not being important ---- and if they are that important, then God is not going to deny them to those who don't have access to someone with Apostolic Succession. I mean seriously --- what would you do? Would you give your kid a stone when he asks for bread - or a snake when he asks for fish? (Matthew 7:9-10)

A lot of Protestant denominations don't believe in sacramentalism anyway.

Yeah --- for me not-believing in sacramentalism isn't an option. I can sense the change in the species --- this sense (which must be a gift of discernment) is a major part of what caused me to convert to Christianity in the first place!

Granted - this gift of discernment is something that also would have kept me strong when I was first driven away from Rome's communion a few years ago ----- if it weren't for my stubbornness and hard-headedness. Instead, I lost faith then. All Peter did was deny Jesus three times. Me, on the other hand, I did much worse than that and left Christianity altogether for a while.

Some time later, while in AA, I came back to the RCC, hoping that being in the AA program, I'd be able to avoid taking scandal. Turns out, Rome's mis-management (or should I say, lack of management) of scandals still got under my skin. But this time, after much study and searching, I realized that if they were to drive me off, they still couldn't take away my faith -- unless I let them. I vowed never to let them again take my faith from me.

The reason I search for a label is so that I can maybe find others who are on similar journeys to myself so we can fellowship together ---- even if over long-distance media. And frankly, unless I have a name to go by, there's no way I can find other's to fellowship with like this --- 'coz even if they're out there, I'll never find them.

I think from what you describe the Anglican Communion fits the bill. I'd pitch for Lutheranism, but we're pretty big on the Sola Scriptura thing

But isn't the Anglican Communion very big on believing that Apostolic Succession is a 100% must for the sacraments?

 

[Mr Dave]

A lot of Protestant denominations don't believe in sacramentalism anyway.

A lot do though.

 

[Jedidia]

It's commendable that you have been able to shake off the shame that the church of Rome has not been able to hold themselves accountable to. There must be many that feel that way. Is that a reason for a church-split? Many would think so. But so far I have not heard of any that would bring the people together that shared that experience. In a sence that is what I hear you asking for.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Oh -- of course I'm staying in the Catholic Church! I'm not leaving the Church --- I'm just leaving Rome's communion within the Catholic Church. And this is something that I have to do. Rome's mis-management of several scandals, and the absence of any other way to hold Rome accountable, prevents me from being able with a clear conscience to regularly attend or to depend upon parishes that Rome controls.

Of course --- my ceasing to depend on parishes that Rome controls.

Well, for Catholics (i.e. me), the "Roman" Catholic Church is the Catholic Church. I recognize that some people disagree with this, but I do not change my terminology for those people.

Yeah --- and to me that sounds a lot like saying "Oh, of course you're allowed to live! Yeah --- you are not allowed to eat or drink any food, but who said anything about not being allowed to live?"

Problem with that statement? Everyone knows what happens to you without food --- you starve to death. In short --- you don't get to live.

The sacraments don't exist because of them not being important ---- and if they are that important, then God is not going to deny them to those who don't have access to someone with Apostolic Succession. I mean seriously --- what would you do? Would you give your kid a stone when he asks for bread - or a snake when he asks for fish? (Matthew 7:9-10)

Yeah --- for me not-believing in sacramentalism isn't an option. I can sense the change in the species --- this sense (which must be a gift of discernment) is a major part of what caused me to convert to Christianity in the first place!

What do you believe about the the nature of the sacraments? You believe that apostolic succession is not required to effect them, but you believe that they exist? Can anyone (ordained or not, male or female, of any Christian belief system) effect the sacraments?

Granted - this gift of discernment is something that also would have kept me strong when I was first driven away from Rome's communion a few years ago ----- if it weren't for my stubbornness and hard-headedness. Instead, I lost faith then. All Peter did was deny Jesus three times. Me, on the other hand, I did much worse than that and left Christianity altogether for a while.

Some time later, while in AA, I came back to the RCC, hoping that being in the AA program, I'd be able to avoid taking scandal. Turns out, Rome's mis-management (or should I say, lack of management) of scandals still got under my skin. But this time, after much study and searching, I realized that if they were to drive me off, they still couldn't take away my faith -- unless I let them. I vowed never to let them again take my faith from me.

Would you say your disenchantment with Catholicism is more because of theological disagreement or the way that the Church has handled (or fail to handle, it some people's opinion) certain issues?

The reason I search for a label is so that I can maybe find others who are on similar journeys to myself so we can fellowship together ---- even if over long-distance media. And frankly, unless I have a name to go by, there's no way I can find other's to fellowship with like this --- 'coz even if they're out there, I'll never find them.

It is doubtful you will ever find someone who agrees 100% with you. People rarely ever do. It sounds like some variation of Old Catholicism may be right for you, based on your explications in this post.

 

[sophgirl]

Well, for Catholics (i.e. me), the "Roman" Catholic Church is the Catholic Church. I recognize that some people disagree with this, but I do not change my terminology for those people.

Of course, for you Roman Catholicism and Catholicism may be synonymous --- but for many they are not. If you say "Roman Catholic", then everyone is going to know exactly what denomination you are referring to. On the other hand --- there are several groups who claim the term "Catholic". For example, let's say you have myself, yourself, and a Greek Orthodox person in a room together. You insist that you're the only Catholic in the room. I can insist that all three people in the room are Catholic. And the Greek Orthodox person - we'll, he'll insist that he's the only Catholic in the room, and that neither you nor I are actually Catholic.

However, if you use the term "Roman Catholic", then everyone in the room can know that that term is referring to you, and neither of the other two people in the room.

So unless you believe that the term "Roman Catholic" is incorrect --- might I suggest that at least that can be a term who's usage we agree on? (As opposed to when you use "Catholic" as being interchangeable with "Roman Catholic", that's a usage that I, personally, can't agree with.)

Of course --- it's your decision. You can continue to use the terms synonymously --- but if you do so, I will have to continue to disagree.

What do you believe about the the nature of the sacraments? You believe that apostolic succession is not required to effect them, but you believe that they exist? Can anyone (ordained or not, male or female, of any Christian belief system) effect the sacraments?

As soon as I know an explanation that can be reconciled with scripture, with history, and with my experiences ---- I'll get back to you.

I'm planning on doing this research anyway (one more thing that the community I'm looking for would be helpful with) so since I'm planning on searching the answer anyway --- I don't see why it would be that much more of a burden for me to get back to you when I find it.

I will not apologize for saying know more than I can say with confidence. And all I know for absolute sure in my heart is that either (a) it is possible to confect the sacraments without Apostolic Succession, or (b) it is possible for the blessings of Apostolic Succession to be transmitted unintentionally --- very unintentionally. (Someone has in fact suggested explanation "b" --- and though I consider explanation "a" to be the more likely of the two, I can't completely rule explanation "b" out --- therefore I'm mentioning it as a possibility as well.)

Though I'm pretty sure explanation "a" is far more likely ---- that it is possible to confect the sacrament without Apostolic Succession ---- though I'm not sure what the requirements would be to do so in the absence of Apostolic Succession. Just that it is possible.

As a matter of fact ---- I didn't even say whether I believe it is possible for a lay-person to confect the sacraments ---- or whether it is possible for a priest to be ordained without Apostolic Succession ---- or even a combination of the two. Though as soon as I'm sufficiently confident and ready to state publicly one way or the other ---- I'll answer you on that one too.

Would you say your disenchantment with Catholicism is more because of theological disagreement or the way that the Church has handled (or fail to handle, it some people's opinion) certain issues?

First of all --- I am not disenchanted with Catholicism. I am disenchanted with Roman Catholicism. (As I said --- if you insist on using the terms synonymously, that's your decision --- but if you do, I'll have to continue to disagree --- as I just did again.)

And my main issue is the failure to handle scandals properly -- as well as what I perceive as a willingness on Rome's part to hijack theology for an agenda that doesn't really serve God. I don't really see how I can fully separate the two.

It is doubtful you will ever find someone who agrees 100% with you. People rarely ever do. It sounds like some variation of Old Catholicism may be right for you, based on your explications in this post.

Not looking for someone who agrees 100%.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I do not find it necessary to change my terminology in this particular discussion. In the vernacular, Catholic means exactly one thing: that Church which is headed by the Pope. If you ask the majority of people what they think of when you say the word "Catholic," that's the definition they're going to come up with. You can disagree with my use of the term at your pleasure, but I don't see the need to state it repeatedly since it's already established.

If your main issue is a lack of faith in the Church hierarchy, then that is very different than theological disagreement. The two are very much separate, but still related. One can catalyze the other, and make them intertwined. It is an unfortunate consequence of such a situation. When people with authority are exposed as hypocrites, then any other claim to authority they have tends to be dismissed. And perhaps it is rightly so. How can that source of authority be trusted when it has been shown they do not use their authority correctly.

The failings of men should not have an effect on the theology of Christianity. The Church has always understood clerical offices and the people in those offices to be two different things. This is for good reason: humans sin and fail God all the time. Despite that, God chose to use humans to continue and tend to his Church. With the aid of God, anything is possible.

I think I have given all the advice I can give. If you want a label right now, then I suggest you look into Old Catholicism or possibly Anglo-Catholicism. The theology you espouse sounds very "via media." It may not be 100%, but it sounds close. If you are content to wait before deciding on a label, then I suggest you continue to consider various points of view and different reasonings. The journey is just as important as the destination. In this case, it might even be more important.