Dear friends in Christ, I'm new here. Let me give you a brief introduction. I've been a traditional Roman Catholic for several years. For those of you who don't know, traditional Roman Catholics are those people who have rejected to a greater or lesser extent the changes in the liturgy and doctrine that came about with the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). There are many flavours within this movement - from sedevacantists who consider Benedict XVI an anti-pope to regular diocesan faithful - and before I moved back to my home town I used to attend a chapel run by the Society of St. Pius X, formerly excommunicated by John Paul II in 1988, but now engaged in doctrinal talks with the Vatican in order to get regularised. Well, to cut a very long story short, I've come to painfully realise the absolute dead end that traditional Catholicism had logically cornered me into, so I started contemplating other avenues of thought and theological perspectives within the Christian tradition with a renewed interest and open mind, something I hadn't done before in a meaningful sense, only at a superficial level. I'm quite the avid reader, so I've busied myself with theology books and scriptural reading for the last year or so, trying to make sense of it all again. The truth is that I've slowly but decisively become convinced of the legitimacy of many of the classical arguments made by the Reformers against Medieval and Tridentine Catholicism. Suffice it to say, for brevity's sake, that I consider myself a Reformed Catholic or a "High Church Protestant" as I put in my religious affiliation bracket here. I was lurking around this forum and I thought I could join in the discussions and hope to learn from you. You seem a serious and knowledgeable bunch! Recently, after a lot of time without going to church due to my misgivings about Rome, I've finally made up my mind and I have been attending a local Anglican church downtown, the oldest in the island. The chaplain officiates a very reverent mass according to the BCP (he uses the 1928 revision). I'll try to participate here as often as I can. God bless you.
You are more than welcome, friend & brother. We are in the same boat. Traditionalist Catholicism looked very promising for those Roman Catholics (myself included) who saw the consequences of Vatican II. Now, with the increasing marginalization of the "trads", and with SSPX kicking Bishop Williamson out, along with Rome's disrespect shown toward that Society, it's clear that all this was just a fad in the liberal religion that Rome is becoming. "Development of Doctrine" is flowering into its fullest extent: relativism. It is good to have you here. Be sure to read the true works of the Church Fathers, not those edited by Roman rhetoricians of the middle ages. See through the Petrine propaganda and cut away all the years of nonsense! It's great that a fellow Christian soul is taking this so seriously, especially given the harsh line Rome takes on those who leave her embrace.
Sir, I was an atheist from birth to ~2008/2009, never having attended one religious service in my life. I equated popes with non-denominational evangelical fundamentalists in the American South; that was the extent of my education. Having been baptised in the local Roman Cathedral here on April 23, 2011, I thought I had found the truth... and then I found videos of the SSPX, FSSP, etc., and wondered: "why the difference?" The discrepancies in worship had to be explained; and in discovering those, I found theological discrepancies: between the Fathers and Rome, and between the Rome of Trent and the Rome of Vatican 1 and 2. All this led me on a long search which has, ultimately, brought me to Anglicanism. It was a necessity. I have been told by a Franciscan (friar) friend that I must not look at Church history with the dispassionate, objective eyes of an historian (which he implied is an atheistic thing to do), but rather "with the mind of the Church", and "with the eyes of faith" (i.e. submitting my reason to Roman tyranny). He learned, however, that as a Christian I cannot accept what is contrary to fact. Anyone who does that is subordinating his conscience - which is his by right of Christ - to falsehood. We all know who the Father of Lies is. The Novus Ordo Mass simply impoverished my faith day by day, with its informal mood, bare necessities, and horrible music. The theological training of the priests was pathetic, and there were no redeeming factors, period. In the SSPX, however, I saw the sedevacantist mindset, and that it believes there has been no legit Pope since about 1962 or 1958. That's an awfully long time for God not to provide a pope for every generation (as Vatican 1 infallibly declares). There's just too much cognitive dissonance for me, and clearly for you, too.
Clearly. I was born and raised a Roman Catholic. I became hardline in the late twenties when I started attending the SSPX chapel. It's been a long ride. Honestly, I harbour no hard feelings towards Rome and I still am very much Catholic in many aspects of my thought and affections. I certainly don't want my faith to be shaped on the fact that "I'm not Roman Catholic": that is something that irks me about some Protestants.
Welcome! I would love to hear more on this logical dead-end you describe. I'm especially interested in the SSPX angle of your story, as the 'traditionalists' form a small but interesting bunch within the Roman church, and I'd love to hear more of your experiences with them. Yep, pretty much. The holy Scriptures present a wholly different vision of spiritual life than Roman literature presents. A wholly opposite picture, one might say. At the same time I'm extremely glad that you've retained the high-church stance. Many Protestants have abandoned the church and embraced a low-church view, resulting in lack of defence of church institutions, Church Episcopacy , and the Sacraments. The weakening of the sacraments is perhaps the most tragic outcome of all this, because while anybody can preach the Word, only the Church can administer the Sacraments, and many Protestants, in giving up on the Church, joyfully (!) gave up on the Sacraments. At the Savoy Conference of 1661 the Puritans demanded the Eucharist to be celebrated only 3 times a year, as a condition of rejoining the Church. (They were rejected, and ejected.) That's wonderful! Although there are a few misgivings about the 1928 BCP, overall it is largely orthodox in theology and a marked improvement over 1979 (if you're in the US), so congratulations on a good and orthodox chaplain!
Yes. Exactly. So many Protestants have been affected by an "anti-Romanism" opposite-day reactionary beliefs, and it has severely harmed their theology. We should study what the Scripture and the Fathers teach us, not what Rome teaches so as to be opposite of that.
Well, I'll quote my own thoughts on the matter as I posted them in the traditional Catholic forum I used to belong to:
Fisheaters is a great forum to present as an antithesis to this one. I assume that post must be on Fishies, since no other places cares enough to get into "Sedeprivationism". Thank God for the simple Gospel of Anglicanism, shorn of all that rubbish! Great thoughts, Old Christendom.
Welcome, Old Christendom! Glad the Spirit has called you to look into the Anglican faith, and I must congratulate you on the 1928 Common Prayer book.
Thank you for your warm welcome, Anglican74. I'm very much familiar with the Traditional Latin Mass (Tridentine rite) from my years as a traditional Roman Catholic, so in many respects the Anglican mass I attend now is remarkably similar to the former in its rubrics and gestures. The chaplain even says the mass ad orientem! The same happens in some High Church Lutheran churches, I reckon. I don't feel like I have "converted" to anything but just rediscovered Catholicism purified from romanisms. At least liturgically, I feel at home.
Hello! =) I know J.R.R. Tolkien was one of those who rejected the new thing added by the Second Council, wasn't he? I read somewhere that he still chanted out loud in Latin when all were saying things in English...