Thankyou for this thread. I too am on the same road - possibly leaving the RCC and trying to work through everything. This thread has helped a lot.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Catherineanne
Well-Known Member
- Sep 1, 2004
- 22,924
- 4,646
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Widowed
This could be a long post.
I have been Anglican all my life, but I have attended other denominations, sometimes for extended periods. I have only occasionally worshipped alongside Romans. When I do I am struck by three things. First, they have much looser ideas of time than Anglicans; they wander in, they wander out, they come and go. Second, they are not as orderly in queueing for the Eucharist, but bundle to the front as if they fear a shortage of hosts. Third, and most importantly, they DONT SING THE HYMNS!!! What is that all about? It is as if they are embarassed to be there.
I recently bought a CD of JPII praying the rosary, because I thought it would assist my spiritual life. Indeed it does. However, even in the Vatican (can't remember which chapel) the singing at the beginning of each mystery sounds embarrased and half hearted. I felt rather sorry for JP, who seemed to be the only one making any kind of an effort.
Admittedly, if someone wants fine singing, then they ought really to go to the Methodists, who will sing at the top of their voices, however weak those voices may be, and it is lovely to hear. But Anglicans will also do their best to sing up, provided they happen to know the tune. And we form an orderly line for the Eucharist, and even reverse the order coming out of pews to walk back in in the right order.
So, those are the differences, as far as I have found them.
Then to Catholicism. In my view, Catholicism ought to be what it says it is; it ought to embrace every believer. To have a Catholicism which is actually anything but catholic, and is instead discriminatory in the Eucharist, strikes me as a contradiction in terms. To have Orthodoxy, which claims to be the one authentic church, but which then closes its communion to Romans and Anglicans, let alone free churches, makes no sense. I am not sure what the Lutherans do (apologies to them!), but as far as I am aware the Anglican communion is the only Catholic apostolic church. This is why I can forgive it for pretty well everything else. If it errs, at least it errs on the side of inclusion and acceptance, rather than on the side of reactionism and exclusion. Any believer on the face of the earth who comes into my church, is free to kneel or stand beside me, and commune with me, and the whole company of heaven. If the Anglican Church changed its policy on this matter, I would reconsider my position. This to me is the one single non negotiable.
Then a smattering of gratuitous tradition. I am not sure why other faiths are allowed theirs, and we are supposed to only believe what we can prove. Where is the fun in that? Tradition tells us that the Church in England was founded by Joseph of Arimathea, who came to England following the Resurrection, and planted a thorn bush in Glastonbury by putting his staff into the ground, where it rooted and grew. This church existed already, long before Augustine sent his missionaries to these islands, and it is this church which continues today.
Don't anyone be misled by talk of Henry VIII and his divorce. The division between the Roman Church and England dates back at least to 1353, and the Statute of Praemunire. As has already been said, the Pope in history has not been the kindly, genial old gentleman we see today. He has been just as corrupt and worldly as any other statesman. He has excommunicated monarchs of pretty well every country in Europe, at one time or another, and he has granted more divorces than you can shake a stick at. When England parted company with the Pope, it was because the Roman church was rotten to the core, and so was its pontif. The Reformation effected the reform of the Roman church, as well as Protestant ones. Don't let anyone tell you the Roman Church is the same today as it has always been. It isn't, and we can all be grateful for that.
Anyone who feels called to worship with Rome, is of course welcome to do so. Anyone who feels that it no longer answers their spiritual needs, is welcome to explore Anglicanism, or any other church, instead. Don't think for one moment that in doing this you part company with the Universal Church; there is no Biblical basis whatsoever for thinking that this is the case.
http://www.tyndale.org/Reformation/1/cooper.html
The delightful tale of how the Bishop of London murdered a citizen of London, but not before that citizen showed Henry VIII how to get rid of the Pope's undue influence in England. Prompted in part by having Bishops capable of murder and perjury.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praemunire
A statute used by Richard Hunne, and later used by Henry.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
LiturgyInDMinor
Celtic Rite Old Catholic Church
I am a Celtic Catholic, not in communion with the See of Rome but CATHOLIC nonetheless.
Upvote
0
The snark level is high in other neighborhoods around here too - Try not to let it get you down.
- Try not to let it get you down.
Upvote
0
Simon_Templar
Not all who wander are lost
By all means, don't allow me to disuade you from posting here. Of the two of us, I am clearly the one who does not belong here.
Upvote
0
Nope. Please don''t Instead, Do what Pam and I, and I suspect the Chalice Thunder/John##### and Swansong/Cola families, do -- look in occasionally, and see if the snark level has dropped to the point where amicable discussion is possible.
How will I know?
Upvote
0
Nope. Please don''t Instead, Do what Pam and I, and I suspect the Chalice Thunder/John##### and Swansong/Cola families, do -- look in occasionally, and see if the snark level has dropped to the point where amicable discussion is possible.
:
eeks in::::looks around, shrugs::
::gives higgs a hug::
::waves::
::leaves::
Upvote
0
Catherineanne
Well-Known Member
- Sep 1, 2004
- 22,924
- 4,646
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Widowed
Upvote
0
Simon_Templar
Not all who wander are lost
I came to Anglicanism because I loved the Tradition behind it and the Church that it once was. What I have gradually come to realize is that what exists today doesn't resemble either.
I find myself more and more asking the question "why am I associated with this group?" and increasingly I don't have a good answer.
At this point I am sticking around because of the forlorn hope that the global south, and maybe ACNA can salvage something worthwhile out of the wreck of the AC, and because of my local congregation.
I am beginning to realize that I have far less disagreement with Rome than I do with mainstream Anglicanism.
Upvote
0
J
JasonV
Guest
Interesting.
I for one decided against TEC because it simply wasn't liberal enough.
Upvote
0
E
euzao
Guest
One thing I have to add: even though the scandals are horrible, the numbers are not THAT big. Olavo de Carvalho made a research that showed that English schools had 20% higher abuse, and in other institution. The problem is not Roman Catholic by itself, nor problem of celibacy. It is actually the MEDIA that is DEEPLY anticatholic, persecuting the Church and its bethren, which often ignorence due the Vatican II crisis and modernist infection. In Italy, a bunch of teachers were acused of children abuse in a Catholic school, and they were not priests, and it passed, by the Media, ignored. And was not only one teacher, but lots of them.
I see plainly now that BBC, Folha de São Paulo, New York Times, are completely ANTICATHOLIC, and I avoid to read them, since they are not trustworthy.
I see plainly now that BBC, Folha de São Paulo, New York Times, are completely ANTICATHOLIC, and I avoid to read them, since they are not trustworthy.
Upvote
0
E
euzao
Guest
This could be a long post.
Don't anyone be misled by talk of Henry VIII and his divorce. The division between the Roman Church and England dates back at least to 1353, and the Statute of Praemunire. As has already been said, the Pope in history has not been the kindly, genial old gentleman we see today. He has been just as corrupt and worldly as any other statesman. He has excommunicated monarchs of pretty well every country in Europe, at one time or another, and he has granted more divorces than you can shake a stick at. When England parted company with the Pope, it was because the Roman church was rotten to the core, and so was its pontif. The Reformation effected the reform of the Roman church, as well as Protestant ones. Don't let anyone tell you the Roman Church is the same today as it has always been. It isn't, and we can all be grateful for that.
Actually, it doesn't mean that. That happenned also with the Church of Portugal, when people didn't know which Pope was the real Pope. To avoid confusion, the monarch made a statue avoiding automatic acceptance for papal decision. That rights that the king had was included in Brazilian Church until the formation of the Republic, making the Emperor a big problem for the Church.
It is not that simple.
Upvote
0
I think you should consider giving you heart to Our Blessed Mother, seeking Her Love and dispatching yourself from seeking salvation within structures.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
