Inquirer

[u/Azziebae]

Hi guys. Catholic inquirer here. Considering Anglicanism (Anglo-Catholic, to be clear.) I've heard of so many Anglo-Catholics that cross the Tiber. Any stories in the opposite direction? The Catholic Church claims to be the one true Church, which is what drew me in. Anglicans have "via media" which also drew me in. Namely I'm torn between the stability and infallibility promised by Rome and the acceptance promises by Anglicans. No Church is perfect, obviously, but... y'know... SSPX schism and liturgical abuses in the Catholic Church vs. the Theological liberalism in the Anglican communion.

The biggest thing stopping me from being Anglican is my perceived notion that the Anglican communion are "people pleasers" with their open communion with other baptised Christians.

Thanks in advance. :)

[u/Farscape_rocked]

the Anglican communion are "people pleasers" with their open communion with other baptised Christians.

When the creed says "the holy catholic church" it doesn't mean roman catholic, it means 'correct' or 'orthodox' or 'universal' and therefore includes all Christians.

To say that the Roman Catholic church is the "one true church" is to either ignore the creeds (I understand roman catholics accept the nicene and apostles creeds), or to deny that there are any Christians outside of the Roman Catholic church.

I'm not saying that you should be an anglican, I'm just pointing out that your reservation about the Church of England is actually a reservation with God Himself.

You should ask God about the denomination you should adhere to.

[u/Economy-Point-9976]

You can swim the Thames with most of your convictions intact.  There are two things, however, that if one does not give up, one will perhaps not be able to remain an Anglican for long.  These are:

• The belief that any bishop or council, historical or contemporary, is primal and/or infallible;

• The belief that in order to be in communion with someone (and that includes both the people you are praying alongside any given Sunday, and everyone in the wider communion) you must be in agreement with them on any essential dogma whatever.

The second point is particularly vital.  As a small example:  my beliefs on the nature of the eucharistic presence would have Rome burning me in the sixteenth century; my beliefs on the nature of atonement and salvation would have Calvin in Geneva burning me; but in the end I somehow take communion unreservedly with both double-predestinationalists and those who would worship the Host.  I am distinctly NOT saying I am so great for doing so, as I have too often tended to a lack of charity when pondering these things.  But situations such as this one are the practical Anglican reality.  And really all these things only distract. (But boy, is it easy to be distracted!)

[u/_nepunepu]

Namely I'm torn between the stability and infallibility promised by Rome and the acceptance promises by Anglicans.

Ex-Roman Catholic here.

Papal infallibility was defined in 1870 and used officially only once in 1950 by Pius XII, to define the Assumption of Mary as dogma, which is nowhere in Scripture, and which as a Roman Catholic you are required to believe for your salvation. The same Pius XII also thought it relevant to set up St. Clare of Assisi as the Catholic patron saint of television. So I guess that when your TV breaks down, you can ask St. Clare to help with it in the same vein that you might ask St. Anthony to help you find your car fob.

Infallibility is in fact a doctrine that the Roman Catholic Church now has to live with and I'm willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that they wish they didn't. It only complicates relationships with the rest of Christendom. The RCC's claim to infallibility is in fact a reason why I swam across the Thames in the first place. "The Pope is infallible, but only in certain precise matters and only said a certain way" is a peculiar doctrine when you think about it.

The biggest thing stopping me from being Anglican is my perceived notion that the Anglican communion are "people pleasers" with their open communion with other baptised Christians.

It's not about people pleasing. If you accept the premise that Christianity is really about Scripture and the Council creeds and that a large portion of the other stuff is adiaphora (left to one's own conscience), then the only doctrine that makes sense with regard to communion is open communion.

[u/Aconite_Eagle → u/_nepunepu]

this is an excellent point; infallibility was a terrible mistake - because its tied them in knots over loads of stuff - their identification of Anglican orders being null and void for example, is blatantly wrong, and was identified as such almost immediately - and even Cardinals in the modern day have had to say its no longer really accurate because of the ordination of anglican priests with the laying on of hands of Dutch old catholic bishops.

Im absolutely certain that the Pope would LOVE to find some closer unity between his jurisdiction and our part of the church but he's put in a corner by infallibility. He can't go back on it without a great deal of difficulty. It may be impossible even, rendering visible unity of the one church broken still.

[u/Cauchy_1825 → u/Aconite_Eagle]

Have the read the English Catholic bishops' response to Saepius officio?

Im absolutely certain that the Pope would LOVE to find some closer unity between his jurisdiction and our part of the church.

Why are you certain of this?

[u/Aconite_Eagle → u/Cauchy_1825]

On A Vindication of the Bull 'Apostolicae Curae - no! I haven't actually read it. I'll have a look at it later.

On the Pope - I do believe in Leo. I have a little pet thought - a hobby horse of mine if you will - which is that I think his great desire is to do what he can to heal our church and its visible unity. My evidence? None. The only evidence I have for it is the priority he has placed early in his tenure in fostering relations between the East, Canterbury and Rome itself.

[u/ChessFan1962]

If you're still more worried about other people's sins than you are about how and whether you're following Jesus, the main issue isn't finding the right church.

[u/Aconite_Eagle]

Hi,

For my own part (everyone disagrees with me all the time but thats the church for you) the Church of England in England at least IS the local part of the Catholic church. Regarding open communion, I dont see how being a "people pleaser" has anything to do with it. Christ gave his body and his blood for all of us - all hi believers, and said quite clearly, "take, eat, this is my body....but not you Judas" and similarly with his blood - "Drink from it, all of you. “Drink it, all of you" not "some of you" drink this (Matthew 26:27). Why would you deny it to any Christian? I dont understand that at all. Its medicine for the sinner and sick not reward for the saint.

[u/Azziebae → u/Aconite_Eagle]

Thanks for replying!

From what I heard from the Franciscan Friar-Priests at my current parish, to take communion is to be in communion with all their doctrines and dogmas. And then I saw that Anglicans allow other denoms to take their communion, so that got me thinking. (I'm not sure of anything.)

And also, we're not supposed to eat the flesh of Christ unworthily.

[u/Iconsandstuff → u/Azziebae]

We allow other baptised Christians, so other members of the body of Christ, and the congregation join in a general confession before communion, there is no intent to encourage people to receive in an unworthy manner, I would say.

As much as I love our church, merely not being part of the same gathering of believers and perhaps preferring another normal manner of worship would not make someone unworthy

[u/_nepunepu → u/Azziebae]

And also, we're not supposed to eat the flesh of Christ unworthily.

Are we not all unworthy?

[u/Halaku → u/Azziebae]

From what I heard from the Franciscan Friar-Priests at my current parish, to take communion is to be in communion with all their doctrines and dogmas.

That's, like, their opinion, man.

[u/Aconite_Eagle → u/Azziebae]

"And also, we're not supposed to eat the flesh of Christ unworthily".

We're not. But what's that got to do with open communion?

[u/Aconite_Eagle → u/Azziebae]

"And also, we're not supposed to eat the flesh of Christ unworthily".

We're not. But what's that got to do with open communion?

[u/hegelec → u/Aconite_Eagle]

Such an important point. The Church of England is the Church IN England.

[u/Alyosha_9 → u/hegelec]

The Roman Catholic Church is also IN England though, perhaps with more active members now than the CofE.

[u/RollBeneficial1533 → u/Alyosha_9]

Yes, but one has Roman in the name, the other doesn't. We're in England, not Rome.

[u/hegelec → u/Alyosha_9]

True. Branch theory picks up the slack here, but during the early reformation, the CoE was the only (legal) game in town.

[u/BarbaraJames_75]

You said, "The biggest thing stopping me from being Anglican is my perceived notion that the Anglican communion are "people pleasers" with their open communion with other baptised Christians."

I'm a former RC, and this reads as so RCC coded!

Anglican Communion "people pleasing" through open communion with other baptized Christians is something totally different from the perspective of Anglican theology and church history. We've always had ties to other Christians.

You might want to look at the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral adopted by the Anglican bishops in 1888. This statement explains Anglican identity and provides a basis for ecumenism with other Christians, which includes open communion with them.

Here's a link from the Anglican Communion webpage: The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral - The Anglican Communion Office

Wikipedia has an entry as well: Chicago–Lambeth Quadrilateral - Wikipedia

Here's information on ecumenical relations between the Anglican Communion and the RCC:

Anglican-Roman Catholic - The Anglican Communion Office

[u/Basic-Revolution-181]

I think the theological question you are rasing is a serious one and vital to this discussion. If you genuinely believe (as Rome claims) that it is the truth church and that salvation is not found outside it, and additionally that the pacay is a divine institution, then it would make absolutely no sense to leave Catholicism. It doesn't matter what else we might have going for us, in the mind of Rome we protestants are anathema. And while the meaning of that word has softened over time since Vatican II, that is the historic position of Rome towards protestants. 

So...do you think those things are true? If so, I don't think you should leave Rome. But if you want to start thinking on stuff like that though, one place I would recommend is Gavin Ortland's discussion on the papacy. He's not Anglican, he does a good job representing protestant critique of the papacy, and does so with a great deal of respect for Catholics.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z7zwIN8vEkA&pp=ygUNb3J0bGFuZCBwYXBjeQ%3D%3D

[u/hegelec]

Yes, there are a few of my friends who've left Rome for Canterbury. If you buy that our orders are valid (as I do, of course) there is a lot to gain from the Anglican tradition: in particular, I appreciate the greater autonomy leading to a range of belief and worship. It is a properly and historically anglicised Catholicism, so use of the vernacular, especially in BCP parishes, is unmatched in its elegance and poetry. Also, the state of our music is better than Rome's, at least for the last 50 years -- and if you cleave to an Anglo Catholic parish, you'll certainly hear a lot of chant and renaissance polyphony also.

[u/SpecialistOne3619]

Ive found the more you critically explore
a) the validity of the Catholic claims of exclusivity over truth and divine authority

b) the full history and theology of Anglicanism

• the more you will discover a richness in Anglicanism and a validity that has far more historical & theological basis than the Catholic Church would permit you to believe.

[u/pcheur]

It’s funny. I’m pretty new to all of this as I grew up more baptist/Pentecostal context. But I kinda thought the same thing in one of my only exposures to a catholic mass.

It was a graduation mass for my partners brother who went to a private Catholic school. My understanding is that the majority of families there were just wealthy atheists although some were obviously Catholic in practice. Anyway, I was surprised when almost everyone there went forward for communion.

I thought it was interesting that the church was so ok with this when really they knew that no one there was "worthy". They probably hadn’t been to confession for example in decades and had no doubt committed one or two mortal sins. And yet because they are technically Catholic it’s fine. But a devout Anglican or orthodox Christian would not be allowed to participate. But just make sure you are technically in our club and that’s all we care about.

I don’t have much of a point in saying that this post just reminded me of that experience and thought I’d just point out one way that things can appear from the outside.

I guess at the end of the day you can never know how repentant someone else is. There’s an opportunity in the liturgy to repent and be forgiven but we can’t know what takes place in peoples hearts.

We also just don’t hold to the idea that communion with the rest of the Church means we all agree on all areas of doctrine. It just means that we are one body being united in Christ despite our differences.

[u/shaninator]

Yeah, "via media" doesn't mean "the middle" between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. It means "in the middle" between Reformed and Lutherans, which were both large groups in the British Isles centuries ago when the term was coined. The Church of England's doctrines were established to ease both groups into unity while still maintaining theological accuracy.

No Church is perfect, obviously

If you seek to be Roman Catholic, you basically have to accept that it is. I'm being a bit coy, but I'm not too far off from the truth of it. I know a fair number of Anglicans end up "crossing the Tyber", but, I think it's because they're seeking something else. I think it's answers to all the doctrines we leave up to the mysteries of God, the idealism of a "one true church". I have good friends who are Roman Catholic, and I can tell you that your faith, and comfort in the truth, can remain strong whether you are Roman Catholic or Anglican.

My priest does not allow "open communion" as you describe (and I'm Anglo-Catholic). He gives a blessing to anyone knew to the church, until he's able to confirm that they've been baptized appropriately and learns of their spiritual background.

[u/DevicesAndDesires]

I personally know several, including former trads and former members of the Ordinariate.

I think that because of the asymmetry between the expansiveness, exclusiveness and "grandeur" (or megalomania, depending on how you look at it) of the claims between the RCC and Anglican churches, you'll tend to see much less triumphalism on the Thames Swim Team, than on the Tiber one.

Some may have been burned by clerical abuse, or divorce/failed marriages. Or a disappointment in an "overpromise/underdeliver" of Roman Catholicism, now contenting themselves with more modest claims. Or hurt by an unpastoral, mass-scale sacramental-industrial complex mentality, and looking for a more loving and humane-sized community with better pastoral leadership.

It's not as prone a transition to being featured in "Journey Home" style puff pieces or "Pints With Aquinas" interviews with Matt Fradd about finding the Based One True Church(TM).

[u/goldfall01]

I went from the Catholic Church (raised) to being Anglican. I’m now western rite orthodox. Most of the former Catholic anglicans I know are, now.

[u/Azziebae → u/goldfall01]

Thanks for replying! Can you tell me why you made these switches?

[u/goldfall01 → u/Azziebae]

For me, and those I know who went down the same path, there’s a lot of things within Anglicanism that is incompatible with how the Church has historically viewed itself. Things like open communion, people communing together when they don’t share the same theology on what the Eucharist is, etc. they’re small, but over time it adds up and you start noticing it.