How can anyone consider Roman Catholicism, post-Vatican II?

Discussion in 'Navigating Through Church Life' started by Spherelink, Jun 11, 2014.

  1. Rev2104

    Rev2104 Active Member

    Posts:
    147
    Likes Received:
    43
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I spent a lot of time trying to rationalize the pope. I never went to the sede view cause with out a pope how can there be a catholic faith. So i was stuck with the idea that there is a pope and he keeping making errors. We had bad bad men as popes in the past so this makes since.
    It just became harder and harder with Francis.
    Than i did research on the other side of the pope question. I saw i can be Catholic without a pope. So here I am. The church i go too is more catholic than most catholic church.
     
  2. BibleHoarder

    BibleHoarder Active Member

    Posts:
    261
    Likes Received:
    95
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian
    From what I understand, Roman Catholics see the church and its bishops, popes, body, etc. as a continuation of the old testament priesthood, and they say that just as God was revealed over time and laws changed in the OT, they say this can be true about the teachings added by the RCC. I heard RCC apologists claim that the reason it took so long for the RCC to dogmatically declare papal infallibility is because the Holy Spirit wanted to wait until they could show that the popes were consistent most of the time as teachers of faith and morals for the whole church, then say, "We've been right on these matters within this criteria the whole time, and now we're making people aware of it, and the teaching official." Thing is, you know the controversy with Honorius and others that gets brought up. Problem is, by Vatican I's definition, which is extremely broad about the Pope, Honorius and several others who were accused of heresy could be argued to have indeed made heresy as their critics have said. Vatican I just says the Pope declaring a doctrine as official for the whole church is enough, and never mentions that the councils are required to be in agreement. In order to defend it, you have to accept that Vatican II, which changed it to include the Pope plus the council speaking on faith and morals only. However, this contradicted Trent which was ex-cathedra by VII's standards, and denied the universalist claims made by Vatican II. Attempts to defend it include the view that Vatican II's statements on that subject were pastoral, that is, in regards to how the church should engage the world and not actually dogma, and that there are parts which are and which aren't dogmatic statements. But then that takes you back to the Vatican I statement which makes the criteria for the Pope's infallibility and authority very broad. Another defense is that Peter had the keys to bind and loosen and so did the Roman church in terms of adding and deleting requirements for holiness and salvation. But how that can be reconciled with the scriptures which speak of 'the faith delivered once and for all to the saints' is one matter that's up for debate.
     
  3. Anglican04

    Anglican04 Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    163
    Likes Received:
    112
    A few times I was interested. At one point I was practically forcing myself to be Catholic (I'm weird, what can I say). I couldn't get over the rejection of sola fide and sola scriptura. The contradictions in the church are vast and yet they claim to be one, even perfect. Even pre-vaticn II, still a ton of doctrinal diversity. Then we have indulgences, liturgical abuses, much more.

    A common objection I get is "well you anglicans have women bishops and.. and..uh support abortion!"
    I usually come back with

    1. these people aren't true anglicans. Just like how common politicians claim to be catholic (i.e. nancy pelowski or however you spell her name and quite a few more. Mike pence is an exemption because he seems virtuous)

    2. At least us Anglicans can disagree and temporarily separate from that corrupt Church (until they return to Orthodox doctrine)
     
    Stalwart likes this.
  4. Aidan

    Aidan Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    953
    Likes Received:
    566
    Country:
    N Ireland
    Religion:
    Traditional RomanCatholic
    The perceived wisdom is that" Honorius' grimoire "was most probably written in 18th century
     
  5. JoeLaughon

    JoeLaughon Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    133
    Likes Received:
    85
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Reformed High Anglican
    I was tempted a few times to go on my own Tiber swim but the claims of the Roman Church, even giving it leeway with Cardinal Newman's arguments, do not stand up to historical scrutiny. While it is comforting to belong to one single church that claims to be the One True Church (as opposed to the "33,000 denominations"), from the inside it is clear there is nothing of the sort. The RCC in America is merely 20 years behind the ECUSA. No there isn't 33,000 denominations just 33,000 interpretations of V2 or other similar statements and rulings.

    I have a lot of respect for our Roman brothers and sisters as a high churchman but it is not a way forward for any disappointed Anglicans.
     
    Shane R and Stalwart like this.
  6. BibleHoarder

    BibleHoarder Active Member

    Posts:
    261
    Likes Received:
    95
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian
    I had some RCs tell me Protestantism was a fraud because there are more Catholics doing charity to show that it 'works'. I honestly don't know how true it is. It does seem that way because there are more RCs, but in all honesty, even the 'holiest' Catholics I have met have not necessarily been holier than the holiest Protestants. Being able to achieve that kind of state without the 'valid priesthood' of the RCC and its sacraments troubles many of them in terms of the claims that salvation only exists in the RCC. That may be why so many of them are more ecumenical today because of the lead that the evangelical protestants have in missionary work. When Pope Francis says to RCs not to convert Protestants because they've succeeded at making more converts in the last 100 years than the RCC did in the last 500 is not heresy, but simply reiterating a lot of the Vatican II doctrine, and is true from the way I see it. Even if a lot of Protestants misunderstand 'salvation is not by works' to mean 'do not do any works', that fact that anyone could profess that doctrine and still attain an equal level of holiness is enough to challenge the belief that RCs are the only ones who have salvation or can be holy in the Christian sense.
     
  7. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    884
    Likes Received:
    723
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    This is literally false on its face, because while the RCs have 1.2 billion people, collecting all that money every week and distributing it via organizations, they still have only a dozen million dollars in givings every year, which amounts to like 1% of their total. Protestants have around 300 million people, and they have double that in giving every year. America, the most Protestant country in the world, is giving away a fortune every year, whereas neither Italy, nor France, nor Spain, give practically any money at all. This matches the weekly pew donation statistics I've been anecdotally seeing here in the US, where the orthodox Anglicans are expected to give 10% of their annual salary, whereas I know that during the Catholic collections people give like $1-5 or even nothing most of the time.

    So in short, while yes, there are a few extremely wealthy people in RC circles, and by the sheer scale of numbers they can add up the total money to something significant, per person their giving and charity is essentially non-existent. Without huge congregations their churches just can't sustain themselves, which explains why they're shutting down dozens and hundreds of parishes here in the US every single year. Conversely, Anglican new church plants (post-war with TEC) start with 10, 20, 50 people, and they're thriving because the people give everything they've got.
     

Share This Page