Why not Rome?

[mark46]

Here in SC, we can afford to be a local opposition within the TEC. By SC law, and by ruling of the SC Supreme Court, the national TEC can't take over our church property as has happened in other states.

The notion of ACNA being a splinter group will take a few years to deal with. However, I would note that the ACNA is recognized by half the world's Anglicans. In anyc ase, ACNA is not very active in SC because the legal situation. We can continue as conservative Anglicans.

A few people have mentioned ACNA. The funny thing is, I talked to one particular Episcopal priest who said he has no intention of taking his particular parish out of TEC (and his parish is one of the biggest here in the Upstate SC). He said he'd rather stay and be the "loyal opposition" than to simply be another splinter group. And yes, as you might imagine, he's a very traditional, evangelical priest. Most parishes and priests here in SC are though so it's not a surprise so much!

 

[LivingWordUnity]

I'm with TOMUK. I left Rome because I could no longer agree with Papal infallibility and the "new dogmas", so to speak. Yet that's no reason to become Anglican.

What is in any of the dogma's that wasn't already believed in the early Church?

 

[CJtheCatholic]

What is in any of the dogma's that wasn't already believed in the early Church?

I could name quite a few right off the top of my head, but I think that would be an entirely separate thread!

 

[TomUK]

What is in any of the dogma's that wasn't already believed in the early Church?

A rather ironic question considering the early church didn't even speak in terms of dogmas.

 

[Secundulus]

A rather ironic question considering the early church didn't even speak in terms of dogmas.

Those at the Council of Nicea might disagree.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Not a chance in any chance. The minute your leadership started ordaining women and homosexuals was the minute the orthodox church stopped even considering reunification. The Orthodox church rejects liberalism, which is what the anglican church has become. Hence why many anglicans are becoming CATHOLIC, not vice versa.

You have a mistaken idea of the Church my friend! The Church is the Body of Christ! We are made members of Christ and Children of God, through baptism and Instruction in the Faith. We hold to the Catholic Church of the Ages and to Holy Tradition as it has been taught since the beginning! The fact that various groups have abandoned the Revelation of Christ, its recording in Scripture and the Teaching of the Holy Fathers through the Seven Ecumenical Councils, is a tragedy, but it doesn't affect the Body of Christ! Except perhaps to reduce its size. We might regret it and we might have remorse that things have come to this pass. it might make us Good, Bad or indifferent Catholics, yet we who hold to the Church and the ancient teachings remain Catholics.It is surely the Church that makes us Catholics and not we who make the Church. It is our faithfulness to the received teaching that we have to seek and will be what we are judged on. If the Orthodox Church abandons their Anglican brethren this is their business and the judgment will be on them.
Those Anglicans who have abandoned the ancient faith and have added to the Revelation, are no longer Anglicans , but Neo Anglicans.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

What is in any of the dogma's that wasn't already believed in the early Church?

We do not need to look too deep, The Papacy is not in Scripture or Tradition!
Infallibility and Papal Jurisdiction are missing from Revelation or Scripture. They are additions to the Deposit of faith!
The Roman Church, as we know it today is not the ancient catholic church of the fathers but an offspring of Trent!

 

[Ave Maria]

We do not need to look too deep, The Papacy is not in Scripture or Tradition!
Infallibility and Papal Jurisdiction are missing from Revelation or Scripture. They are additions to the Deposit of faith!
The Roman Church, as we know it today is not the ancient catholic church of the fathers but an offspring of Trent!

I'm not trying to debate but I seriously think you should look at this:

Scripture Catholic - THE PRIMACY OF PETER

Scripture Catholic - THE SECOND COMING

Scripture Catholic - THE SECOND COMING

Scripture Catholic - THE SECOND COMING

Scripture Catholic - THE SECOND COMING

God Bless,
Ave Maria (aka Holly)

EDIT TO ADD: I know that some of the links above appear to be the same link but they're actually the same link that just jumps to a particular section on that page so don't think that I copied the exact same link over and over.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Dear Colleague in Christ!

I have not yet read any of your links other than the one regarding, "The Primacy of Peter". I will get back on them, if the owners permit!

I have read this and can find no real proof or even concrete suggestion that the Primacy of Peter any way descends to the Bishop of Rome. Further, I have read the subject for some time and can find no proof that the early Fathers or Councils admitted any Primacy for The papacy.
My research suggests that what primacy the Pope has is in holding the title of Primate of the West. This being given by the Ecumenical Councils is one of place and honour and is to a large extent shared by the Bishop of Constantinople!

What is in any of the dogma's that wasn't already believed in the early Church?

I'm not trying to debate but I seriously think you should look at this:

Scripture Catholic - THE PRIMACY OF PETER

Scripture Catholic - THE SECOND COMING

Scripture Catholic - THE SECOND COMING

Scripture Catholic - THE SECOND COMING

Scripture Catholic - THE SECOND COMING

God Bless,
Ave Maria (aka Holly)

EDIT TO ADD: I know that some of the links above appear to be the same link but they're actually the same link that just jumps to a particular section on that page so don't think that I copied the exact same link over and over.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Dear Colleague in Christ!

I have not yet read any of your links other than the one regarding, "The Primacy of Peter". I will get back on them, if the owners permit!

I have read this and can find no real proof or even concrete suggestion that the Primacy of Peter any way descends to the Bishop of Rome. Further, I have read the subject for some time and can find no proof that the early Fathers or Councils admitted any Primacy for The papacy.
My research suggests that what primacy the Pope has is in holding the title of Primate of the West. This being given by the Ecumenical Councils is one of place and honour and is to a large extent shared by the Bishop of Constantinople!

I was wondering something. In reference to the Early Church quote below, why did the Eastern Church of the Corinthians have to go to the Bishop of Rome to settle a dispute they had?

“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved…Accept our counsel, and you will have nothing to regret…If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger…You will afford us joy and gladness if, being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy.”
St. Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, 1: 58–59, 63, A.D. 80

 

[TomUK]

I was wondering something. In reference to the Early Church quote below, why did the Eastern Church of the Corinthians have to go to the Bishop of Rome to settle a dispute they had?

“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved…Accept our counsel, and you will have nothing to regret…If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger…You will afford us joy and gladness if, being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy.”
St. Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, 1: 58–59, 63, A.D. 80

I think you will find the majority of Anglicans recognising the historical significance and primacy of the bishop of Rome. The problems only start appearing when you consider what the papacy has become. I pray every day that the church may one day become, united under the bishop of Rome as the first among equals. However from my perspective the obstacles aren't coming from the Anglican church but the Roman one.

 

[Cjwinnit]

I think it's best explained in a Jar-Jar Binks voice.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

I was wondering something. In reference to the Early Church quote below, why did the Eastern Church of the Corinthians have to go to the Bishop of Rome to settle a dispute they had?l

Was not the Church at Corinth an outgrowth of the Church of Rome? In New Testament times the Church at Corinth in the main being Roman immigrants? Who else should they go to in a time of trouble, but the Bishop of the nearest See the Bishop of the main city of the Western Empire? I wouldn't have thought that Corinth was classed as an eastern Church by the way!
You still have not answered the question of how the privileges of Peter descend on to the shoulders of the Bishop of Rome?

Even if you could answer any of the questions asked, it wouldn't make any real difference, you have to prove the succession of the Bishop of Rome to S.Peter's prerogative. Again there's nothing in Theology or tradition! If your claim above had any basis at all in reality are you saying the papal claims to be ,"God's Vice Regent on Earth,' can be deduced from the Corinthian business!

But there's an interesting query, according to the Orthodox Church the first 7 or 8 popes were Greeks! If the Corintheans were other than Roman immigrants, who else would they contact but a Bishop of their own type!

 

[CJtheCatholic]

Was not the Church at Corinth an outgrowth of the Church of Rome? In New Testament times the Church at Corinth in the main being Roman immigrants? Who else should they go to in a time of trouble, but the Bishop of the nearest See the Bishop of the main city of the Western Empire? I wouldn't have thought that Corinth was classed as an eastern Church by the way!
You still have not answered the question of how the privileges of Peter descend on to the shoulders of the Bishop of Rome?

Even if you could answer any of the questions asked, it wouldn't make any real difference, you have to prove the succession of the Bishop of Rome to S.Peter's prerogative. Again there's nothing in Theology or tradition! If your claim above had any basis at all in reality are you saying the papal claims to be ,"God's Vice Regent on Earth,' can be deduced from the Corinthian business!

But there's an interesting query, according to the Orthodox Church the first 7 or 8 popes were Greeks! If the Corintheans were other than Roman immigrants, who else would they contact but a Bishop of their own type!

Pretty interesting if I might say so myself! lol

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Was not the Church at Corinth an outgrowth of the Church of Rome? In New Testament times the Church at Corinth in the main being Roman immigrants? Who else should they go to in a time of trouble, but the Bishop of the nearest See the Bishop of the main city of the Western Empire? I wouldn't have thought that Corinth was classed as an eastern Church by the way!
You still have not answered the question of how the privileges of Peter descend on to the shoulders of the Bishop of Rome?

Even if you could answer any of the questions asked, it wouldn't make any real difference, you have to prove the succession of the Bishop of Rome to S.Peter's prerogative. Again there's nothing in Theology or tradition! If your claim above had any basis at all in reality are you saying the papal claims to be ,"God's Vice Regent on Earth,' can be deduced from the Corinthian business!

But there's an interesting query, according to the Orthodox Church the first 7 or 8 popes were Greeks! If the Corintheans were other than Roman immigrants, who else would they contact but a Bishop of their own type!

 

[luckyfredsdad]

I'm not trying to debate but I seriously think you should look at this:

Scripture Catholic - THE PRIMACY OF PETER

Dear Colleague in Christ!

I have read your urls on the "primacy of peter" all of which are interesting, but none of the information therein tells us any thing different from what we already know!

First of all the Roman Church at the Council of Trent, presented its Bishops ,priests and scholars with what is called the Tridentine Creed, which they have to affirm! The first paragraph beginning," I,N. with a firm faith believe everything which is contained in the Creed, which the Holy Roman Church makes use of. Later on They are told, "I also admit Scripture according to that sense which our holy mother the Church hath held hath.....Neither will I ever take and interpret (it) them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers." When, however, we look at the understanding of the Holy fathers of the early century regarding the Primacy of Peter, we get a totally different view of the theory?

The scholar in your quotes conflicts, as I read them, with other Roman Scholars,i.e, Maldonatus, who has been described as an,'eminent,'scholar of the 16t, Cent, who wrote,
" There are amongst ancient authors some who interpret,' on this rock ,' that is,'on this faith, or on this confession of faith on which thou hast called Me the Son of the living God', as Hilary and Gregory Nyssen and Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria ."
The list compiled by Launoy, another Roman scholar, gives 17 Fathers claiming Peter was the rock; 44 For the Rock for it being the Faith of Peter, that faith he confessed; 16 for it being Christ Himse;f and 8 for it being all the apostles.
Archbishop Kenrick in the speech he didn't give at Vat.1. Claimed.."From this it follows either no argument at all, or a very feeble on, can be drawn in proof of the primacy of Peter from the words,'On this rock will I build my church"!

How-and-ever even if it could be proved that this Rock was Peter, it would have been a gift or burden to him alone, as there is no deed of transfer to the Bishop of Rome from him! Neither can many, if any, comments placing the authority on the Bishop of Rome be found. It took some 400yrs or so before the theory developed!

 

[Sphinx777]

.





Why not Rome?







.​

 

[New_Found_Faith]

Jumping in late to address the OP. I haven't read any other posts yet so forgive me if I am restating someone else's points or ignoring some ongoing debate, etc.

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.

I was in your position around a year and a half ago. Like many others, I found TEC after I became disenfranchised with the RCC. I too felt the need to remain "Catholic" in the same sense that you do. Regular celebration of the Eucharist and Apostolic Succession were important to me, but I wanted a more socially progressive Church. I found what I was looking for in TEC.

I would warn you, though, that RC's will insist until they are blue in the face that TEC's orders are not valid and that Apostolic Succession does not exist within most Anglican Churches. They do not recognize our Eucharist as being valid.

But, if you feel that God is leading you from the RCC to TEC, what RC's insist shouldn't matter IMO.

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?

Historically, I don't see any basis for it. If you are familiar with Church history the Popes and Church leadership have been some of the most corrupt officials in World History. The common, nonreligious man demonstrates a higher sense of morality than what the RCC's leadership has demonstrated in centuries and decades past. The Papacy throughout history has been bought and sold and at times has served as little more than a political office.

Aside from that, I don't find a biblical basis for Papal leadership. I personally deem many modern edicts and policies of the Church logically unsound and far from infalliable.

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)?

Kind of. I'm not big on labels. I observe the Catholic sacraments (generally excluding reconciliation). I'm not big on marian devotion or prayers to saints, although it doesn't bother me. I still may pray the rosary on occasion, partially out of habit. I consider myself Episcopalian, but certainly identify more with the "Catholic" label than the "Protestant" one.

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 personally view Catholicism as having more to do with the ancient rituals, scriptures and traditions of the faith rather than having to do with any particular organization based in Rome or elsewhere. This is probably why I identify more closely with the Catholic label than the Protestant one. The rituals and traditions that I practice/observe as an Episcopalian are decidedly more Catholic than Protestant IMO.

Thanks, and God bless all! Oh, and pray for me to recieve wisom (James 1:5-6)!

 

[CJtheCatholic]

Jumping in late to address the OP. I haven't read any other posts yet so forgive me if I am restating someone else's points or ignoring some ongoing debate, etc.



I was in your position around a year and a half ago. Like many others, I found TEC after I became disenfranchised with the RCC. I too felt the need to remain "Catholic" in the same sense that you do. Regular celebration of the Eucharist and Apostolic Succession were important to me, but I wanted a more socially progressive Church. I found what I was looking for in TEC.

I would warn you, though, that RC's will insist until they are blue in the face that TEC's orders are not valid and that Apostolic Succession does not exist within most Anglican Churches. They do not recognize our Eucharist as being valid.

But, if you feel that God is leading you from the RCC to TEC, what RC's insist shouldn't matter IMO.



Historically, I don't see any basis for it. If you are familiar with Church history the Popes and Church leadership have been some of the most corrupt officials in World History. The common, nonreligious man demonstrates a higher sense of morality than what the RCC's leadership has demonstrated in centuries and decades past. The Papacy throughout history has been bought and sold and at times has served as little more than a political office.

Aside from that, I don't find a biblical basis for Papal leadership. I personally deem many modern edicts and policies of the Church logically unsound and far from infalliable.



Kind of. I'm not big on labels. I observe the Catholic sacraments (generally excluding reconciliation). I'm not big on marian devotion or prayers to saints, although it doesn't bother me. I still may pray the rosary on occasion, partially out of habit. I consider myself Episcopalian, but certainly identify more with the "Catholic" label than the "Protestant" one.



I personally view Catholicism as having more to do with the ancient rituals, scriptures and traditions of the faith rather than having to do with any particular organization based in Rome or elsewhere. This is probably why I identify more closely with the Catholic label than the Protestant one. The rituals and traditions that I practice/observe as an Episcopalian are decidedly more Catholic than Protestant IMO.

Thanks for the post! It's nice to hear from other converts, or people who left the RCC, in this particular case. I'm still on the search so I look forward to more people's replies here.

 

[Simon_Templar]

suffice to say, I have been asking myself the same question more and more.