Why not Rome?

CJtheCatholic · Mar 21, 2010

Hey everyone. I won't go into long, boring details (lol!) but I have been praying and searching for where God is leading me, and I feel strongly He may be leading me out of Rome. But even if no longer ROMAN Catholic, I want to remain Catholic (as far as our ancient creeds, celebration of the Holy Eucharist, apostolic succession, etc). I think the Anglican communion might be where God is leading me. Right now, again, I am seriously seeking and praying for God's light.

The question I had for you guys and gals, especially if you are Anglican/Episcopalian, is this: what makes you not accept the authority of Rome? Do you consider yourself to be Catholic, just not ROMAN Catholic (well, of course you don't consider yourself RC or else you would be lol)? What do you personally believe makes the Church Catholic anyway? Is it communion with Rome or belief in the deposit of faith handed down through tradition and apostolic succession?
Thanks, and God bless all! Oh, and pray for me to recieve wisom (James 1:5-6)!

Speaking of apostolic succession: + =

Neo2 · Mar 22, 2010

The RC church is too narrow rigid and hierarchical for me.
Even if I could accept that, if I were RC, the current scandals would push me into the Anglican Church.

luckyfredsdad · Mar 22, 2010

CJtheCatholic said:
what makes you not accept the authority of Rome?

There is not in Revelation, Scripture or Catholic Tradition any base for Papal Claims! They,[the claims,] are a distortion of the Catholic faith! At least as far as I have been taught. I have sought answers or proof from the Romans over the years and never received any at all that would be acceptable!

Do you consider yourself to be Catholic, just not ROMAN Catholic What do you personally believe makes the Church Catholic anyway? Is it communion with Rome or belief in the deposit of faith handed down through tradition and apostolic succession?

I am a member of the ancient Catholic Church which has been present in the British Isles since the beginning of the Church in Jerusalem after the death of Christ! It doesn't claim to be the whole Church, but simply a showing forth, a Communion of Catholics in a given area, enjoying and propagating the ancient teachings.
To belong to this Church we have to have received baptism by the traditional and accepted forms, [Triune Baptism] also we need to hold the Catholic Faith as revealed by Christ through Scripture and the Apostles, the same being interpreted by the College of Bishops through the Seven Ecumenical Councils!

What do you personally believe makes the Church Catholic anyway? Is it communion with Rome or belief in the deposit of faith handed down through tradition and apostolic succession?

The Church is the Body of Christ.

Communion with Rome is neither here nor there. At the time of Athanasius, and S.Firmilian, the Eastern Church was for the most part out of Communion with Rome and no one thought the worse of it. If Rome holds to the faith then one should be in communion with it. It should be pointed out that the Anglican Church accepts or tolerates most Roman additions to the Deposit of Faith, as inconsequential, as some Orthodox seem to, it is Jurisdiction and Infallibility that are of great consequence. Also it was Rome that breached communion not the Church in England!

Our Faith to be acceptable has to be in line with the teachings of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, these are the Magisterium, the Authority not the Bishop of Rome, but the College of Bishops.

mark46 · Mar 22, 2010

I am a Catholic that has just joined the Anglican Communion. I would note that all baptised Christians are welcome to receive Eucharist in Anglican/Episcopal churches. Also you would not need to be baptised or confirmed again, although many choose to be confirmed again.

WHY NOT ROME?
Perhaps the question is why we should all accept the bishop of Rome as the head of the Church here on earth, able to make pronouncements that are binding on the entire Church? There are many churches that are apostolic and who have the Eucharist and the anceint creeds. EO, OO, Anglicans and Lutherans meet these requirements.

WHY ANGLICAN?
For me, I am part of the English speaking world. Perhaps, if were Greek or Russian or Slavic, I would have joined an Easter Orthodox Church. I don''e mean to take the differences lightly, but for me the differences are relatively small.

Also, the Anglican liturgy is very familiar. We used to joke when I worked in Boston that folks need to be told that the Episcopal Church downtown was not Catholic. If there were no female priests that day, it would be very difficult to tell. Perhaps the alter rails would give it away, since most Catholic churches haven't had alter rails since Vatican II.

WHICH ANGLICAN?
There are many styles of Anglican worship, and many differences between churches and diocese. I'm sure that you will be able to find a high-church worship to your liking. Sometimes one church will have different worship styles at different services. I suggest looking at church websites and attending different churches to see where you are comfortable in finding a home in which you can grow spiritually.

To find a church, go to the TEC and ACNA web sites; both will church locators. These are the largest Episcopal communitees in the US.

CJtheCatholic said:
Hey everyone. I won't go into long, boring details (lol!) but I have been praying and searching for where God is leading me, and I feel strongly He may be leading me out of Rome. But even if no longer ROMAN Catholic, I want to remain Catholic (as far as our ancient creeds, celebration of the Holy Eucharist, apostolic succession, etc). I think the Anglican communion might be where God is leading me. Right now, again, I am seriously seeking and praying for God's light.

The question I had for you guys and gals, especially if you are Anglican/Episcopalian, is this: what makes you not accept the authority of Rome? Do you consider yourself to be Catholic, just not ROMAN Catholic (well, of course you don't consider yourself RC or else you would be lol)? What do you personally believe makes the Church Catholic anyway? Is it communion with Rome or belief in the deposit of faith handed down through tradition and apostolic succession?
Thanks, and God bless all! Oh, and pray for me to recieve wisom (James 1:5-6)!

Speaking of apostolic succession: + =

MKJ · Mar 22, 2010

CJtheCatholic said:
Hey everyone. I won't go into long, boring details (lol!) but I have been praying and searching for where God is leading me, and I feel strongly He may be leading me out of Rome. But even if no longer ROMAN Catholic, I want to remain Catholic (as far as our ancient creeds, celebration of the Holy Eucharist, apostolic succession, etc). I think the Anglican communion might be where God is leading me. Right now, again, I am seriously seeking and praying for God's light.

The question I had for you guys and gals, especially if you are Anglican/Episcopalian, is this: what makes you not accept the authority of Rome? Do you consider yourself to be Catholic, just not ROMAN Catholic (well, of course you don't consider yourself RC or else you would be lol)? What do you personally believe makes the Church Catholic anyway? Is it communion with Rome or belief in the deposit of faith handed down through tradition and apostolic succession?
Thanks, and God bless all! Oh, and pray for me to recieve wisom (James 1:5-6)!

Speaking of apostolic succession: + =

I consider myself to be catholic. I use Catholic Church, with a big "C", as a proper name. I don't like to use Roman Catholic because there are Eastern Catholic Churches which are not part of the Latin Rite, or "Roman Catholic", but are in communion with the Pope.

My understanding of what it is to be catholic is that to be a perfect catholic, as an organization or an individual, would be impossible. It would mean the Church never erred in its understanding, which I do not think to be the case. Just as all individuals are inperfect catholics, so all Churches are. Some are closer to it than others, and all are unified in Christ. This is different than what the Catholic or Orthodox teach, as they maintain that they have not erred (in certian specific ways) and that unity is not only in Christ, but in the Church Militant as well.

My view is that this fracturing of the Church is the inevitable result of sin. All Churches are subject to that. But even if a fracture occurs that is primarily the responsibility of one party, I do not think that this split leaves the other party intact. In the Great Schism, neither the East or West remained whole, they were rent and lost something that was important. The same is true of the Protestant Reformations - both sides are now missing things that are necessary for wholeness. If you rip off an arm, the arm still properly belongs to a body, and the body is still missing an arm. Either might just die, but as long as they are alive they are united formally, if not in space.

So I do not find the Orthodox vie that anything outside Orthodoxy is not part of the Church tenable. I do not find the Catholic view that Protestants are outside of the Church is tenable. (I also find the argument that Anglican orders are invalid is stupid.) But I do think the Church was designed with an apostolic structure, and I do think that it was intended to be sacramental. Anglicanism is about the only place for me.

Imitatio Dei · Mar 22, 2010

MKJ said:
I do not find the Catholic view that Protestants are outside of the Church is tenable. (I also find the argument that Anglican orders are invalid is stupid.)

I suppose it's not proper for me to post in this thread based my denominational status, but I'm going to just clear up something real quick. The RC Church doesn't consider those not in communion "outside the Church", at least in how I'm assuming you are understanding it. The fullness of Christian truth "subsists in" the RC Church, but God's sanctifying (salvific) power is at work in other denominations (and in other religions and even in non-deists). It's a nuanced position, and it rubs people the wrong way I'm afraid sometimes. I'll post a quote to reinforce my point:

"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christ, but who do not however profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter" (Lumen gentium, 15).

It is correct to affirm that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and Christian communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church because of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.

Anywho, I just wanted to point that out. I apologize if I've violated in rules in posting. I hope the OP finds clear discernment and wisdom in their faith journey.

CJtheCatholic · Mar 22, 2010

Very interesting posts so far. One of the things that I see so far that impresses me so much about Anglicans is how inclusive they are. They respect the faith and 'story' of every Christian. And of course, all Christians are welcome to their Eucharistic celebration by virtue of their baptism and faith in Jesus Christ.
Keep posting everyone, I'd love to read what you have to say!
@Imitatio Dei: I don't think you've violated the posting rules! Thanks a lot for your post!

luckyfredsdad · Mar 22, 2010

The RC Church doesn't consider those not in communion "outside the Church", at least in how I'm assuming you are understanding it. The fullness of Christian truth "subsists in" the RC Church

The ,'Christian Truth,' which subsists 'in the RC Church is a sham based on a rejection of Catholic Tradition and on a complete man made fabrication refered to as the 'Petrine Claims and which distorts scripture!.'

but who do not however profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter" (Lumen gentium, 15).

At the Council of Trent, 1564 AD. the new Roman Church in the new creed of Trent, arranged that Clergy and others should "Admit the Holy Scripture according to that sense which our holy mother the Church hath held ....neither will I ever take and interpret them other wise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers!"

Yet how or where were the Petine Claims, as they concern the Bishop of Rome, ever put to the Fathers of the first three centuries?

It is correct to affirm that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and Christian communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church because of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.

I suspect that your reference to the '"Catholic Church,' simply means Rome and thus aids the distortion I have already referred to! At the reformation the question was asked of the followers of Trent,'Where was your Church before Trent?" [Hickes' Discussions.] The point being that Rome was considered a new creation consisting of the Suburbicarian Church of Italy and the Followers of the Bishop of Rome from Trent.

Imitatio Dei · Mar 22, 2010

luckyfredsdad,

I assume this is probably not the place to debate Roman and Anglican ecclesiology. I merely commented on another poster's comment to clear up a common misconception about Roman theology. I have great respect for Anglicans, but for various reasons I am now a Roman Catholic. I vote we allow the OP to have his questions answered and not derail the thread. We can debate ecclesiology elsewhere in the appropriate forum.

luckyfredsdad · Mar 23, 2010

Imitatio Dei said:
luckyfredsdad,

I assume this is probably not the place to debate Roman and Anglican ecclesiology. I merely commented on another poster's comment to clear up a common misconception about Roman theology. I have great respect for Anglicans, but for various reasons I am now a Roman Catholic. I vote we allow the OP to have his questions answered and not derail the thread. We can debate ecclesiology elsewhere in the appropriate forum.

I, for one, cannot see any good reason why we should not debate the question,"Why not Rome?" on this thread? That's the question asked by 'CJtheCatholic' and addressed very obviously to Anglicans.

What you object to I presume is the lack of waffle in one reply. Why not Rome? Simply that Rome is not the Catholic Church in its fullness and is a fusion of two groups, one from a traditional source ,Rome and the other from Northern European Bishops who surrendered their responsibilities in to the hands of the Bishop of Rome at a Robber Council in 1545 at Trent!

LFD.
Anglican Catholic!

CJtheCatholic · Mar 23, 2010

@LFD: If the mods. don't find offense to debate on here, then neither do I. I am actually very interested in hearing what everyone has to say! Let's just remember to be Christians about it all, of course!
Oh, and LFD: I am thinking since you call yourself an Anglo-Catholic, you obviously don't believe you have to be connected to the Church of Rome to be a Catholic!

boswd · Mar 23, 2010

luckyfredsdad said:
I, for one, cannot see any good reason why we should not debate the question,"Why not Rome?" on this thread? That's the question asked by 'CJtheCatholic' and addressed very obviously to Anglicans.

What you object to I presume is the lack of waffle in one reply. Why not Rome? Simply that Rome is not the Catholic Church in its fullness and is a fusion of two groups, one from a traditional source ,Rome and the other from Northern European Bishops who surrendered their responsibilities in to the hands of the Bishop of Rome at a Robber Council in 1545 at Trent!

LFD.
Anglican Catholic!

If you invite him to the debate on this would it be against forums rules for him to do so?

That's what I think he was getting at.

MKJ · Mar 23, 2010

Imitatio Dei said:
I suppose it's not proper for me to post in this thread based my denominational status, but I'm going to just clear up something real quick. The RC Church doesn't consider those not in communion "outside the Church", at least in how I'm assuming you are understanding it. The fullness of Christian truth "subsists in" the RC Church, but God's sanctifying (salvific) power is at work in other denominations (and in other religions and even in non-deists). It's a nuanced position, and it rubs people the wrong way I'm afraid sometimes. I'll post a quote to reinforce my point:

"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christ, but who do not however profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter" (Lumen gentium, 15).

It is correct to affirm that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and Christian communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church because of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.

Anywho, I just wanted to point that out. I apologize if I've violated in rules in posting. I hope the OP finds clear discernment and wisdom in their faith journey.

Yes, I understand that the CC does not think other Christian groups are outside the Church in the way that you mean. They do think that they are not "Churches", which is fair enough in the sense that there is not really more than one Church. But they do think that they themselves constitute the fullness of that Church - that they are "the Church that Christ founded" and others have separated themselves from that. It's that view that I disagree with. If we can say that the various Protestant bodies have not preserved unity with Catholics or each other, we can also say the opposite - Catholics have not preserved unity with these others. Rather like the Fall, when one part of creation fell, the rest came with it.

I have no objection at all with your posting here, I thought your post was simply giving information, and I think that is totally legitimate if you think the Catholic position is being misrepresented. There is no use in disagreeing with an idea that doesn't even exist!

luckyfredsdad · Mar 24, 2010

CJtheCatholic said:
@LFD: If the mods. don't find offense to debate on here, then neither do I. I am actually very interested in hearing what everyone has to say! Let's just remember to be Christians about it all, of course!
Oh, and LFD: I am thinking since you call yourself an Anglo-Catholic, you obviously don't believe you have to be connected to the Church of Rome to be a Catholic!

CJ, I'm not an Anglo Catholic, neither am I in the Canterbury Communion, if I have to have a label it is as a Traditionalist in the Continuing Church! That is that I believe in the Revelation of Christ once revealed to the saints, Recorded in Scripture and interpreted and explained by the Holy Fathers in Council. One of our Irish Bishops said in the 17th,Cent, [Bramhall,] that if it's new it isn't Anglican and I agree with him. For traditional Anglicans Rome is a product of medievalism!
Take care!
LFD.

CJtheCatholic · Mar 24, 2010

luckyfredsdad said:
CJ, I'm not an Anglo Catholic, neither am I in the Canterbury Communion, if I have to have a label it is as a Traditionalist in the Continuing Church! That is that I believe in the Revelation of Christ once revealed to the saints, Recorded in Scripture and interpreted and explained by the Holy Fathers in Council. One of our Irish Bishops said in the 17th,Cent, [Bramhall,] that if it's new it isn't Anglican and I agree with him. For traditional Anglicans Rome is a product of medievalism!
Take care!
LFD.

Do you view the Book of Common Prayer as something that's not Anglican since it was really developed in the 17th century? I mean, that's when it was put together, but I understand it's mostly derived from the ancient liturgy and scripture!
So I think I just answered my own question! lol

Secundulus · Mar 24, 2010

luckyfredsdad said:
What you object to I presume is the lack of waffle in one reply. Why not Rome? Simply that Rome is not the Catholic Church in its fullness and is a fusion of two groups, one from a traditional source ,Rome and the other from Northern European Bishops who surrendered their responsibilities in to the hands of the Bishop of Rome at a Robber Council in 1545 at Trent!

LFD.
Anglican Catholic!

So, whom to choose? A robber council or an adulterous king? Must be the adulterous King since he is Christ's Vicar (Thomas Cranmer's words).

ebia · Mar 24, 2010

Secundulus said:
So, whom to choose? A robber council or an adulterous king? Must be the adulterous King since he is Christ's Vicar (Thomas Cranmer's words).

Given the choice between two imperfect and incomplete expressions of the church, I'm inclined to go for the one that knows it is an imperfect and incomplete expression of the church.

luckyfredsdad · Mar 24, 2010

Secundulus said:
So, whom to choose? A robber council or an adulterous king? Must be the adulterous King since he is Christ's Vicar! (Thomas Cranmer's words).

A most interesting post, especially if it does come from Cranmer? I would be grateful if you could send me the source.

the adulterous King since he is Christ's Vicar.

Remarks by Romans on non Roman's sexual activities would run as comedy if things were not so sad in the present day Roman Church in both Boston and ireland! Also, have you heard about the 9 or 10th century 16yr old pope who had regular sexual activities with his mother? His incestuous practices were so scandalous that both he and his mother were forced to flee Rome?
The source will need some finding as my books are in disorder, but if you wish the source it can be found!

Secundulus · Mar 24, 2010

luckyfredsdad said:
A most interesting post, especially if it does come from Cranmer? I would be grateful if you could send me the source.

Furthermore, at Edwards coronation in 1547, Cranmer calls him the New Josiah and Christs vicar, using the language of both Old Testament theocracy and the claims of the Roman Pontiff.18 This has led some to label Cranmer as an extremist in his Erastianism: Gods temporal and spiritual law does not stand outside the prince but is determined through the prince.19 Cranmer effectively places the King in the power vacuum left by the Pope.20 So, according to Ridley, his obedience to the Prince overrode all his other beliefs.21

18 Cranmer, Writings and Letters, 127.
19 Oliver P. Rafferty, Thomas Cranmer and the Royal Supremacy, The Heythrop Journal 31 (1990): 12949.
20 Maurice Elliott, Cranmers Attitude to the Monarchy: Royal Absolutism and the Godly Prince, Churchman 109/3 (1995): 244.
21 Jasper Ridley, Thomas Cranmer (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966), 410.
Thomas Cranmer the Protestant reformer during the reign of King Henry VIII « Forget the Channel

"Your majesty is God's vice-regent and Christ's vision within your own dominions" said Archbishop Cranmer

Edward VI

You simply rejected one Pope and appointed another.

Remarks by Romans on non Roman's sexual activities would run as comedy if things were not so sad in the present day Roman Church in both Boston and ireland! Also, have you heard about the 9 or 10th century 16yr old pope who had regular sexual activities with his mother? His incestuous practices were so scandalous that both he and his mother were forced to flee Rome?

Click to expand...

The source will need some finding as my books are in disorder, but if you wish the source it can be found!

That's all very nice, but irrelevant. I'm still an Anglican BTW, although your guys (ACC) constantly tell us (ACA) that we're not real Anglicans.

Ironically, by Cranmers own words, you are not a real Anglican either since you reject God's vice-regent, the King/Queen of England.

Secundulus · Mar 24, 2010

ebia said:
Given the choice between two imperfect and incomplete expressions of the church, I'm inclined to go for the one that knows it is an imperfect and incomplete expression of the church.

That is a fair answer, unless the other one is correct in its claims.

Why not Rome?

CJtheCatholic

Guest

Newbie

luckyfredsdad

Guest

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Regular Member

CJtheCatholic

Guest

luckyfredsdad

Guest

Regular Member

luckyfredsdad

Guest

CJtheCatholic

Guest

Well-Known Member

Contributor

luckyfredsdad

Guest

CJtheCatholic

Guest

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

luckyfredsdad

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency