Hi, As "Consular", I made many posts critical of Rome and was very rash about it. For the benefit of a forum user who asked, I'd like to set out some more rational principles that led me away from Rome. Foremost, there is a "Trinity" of subjects that does it for me: 1. The Blessed Virgin Mary, 2. Papal Infallibility/Supremacy 3. Purgatory. These three are really one, for the portrayal of God that arises from them. Firstly: Purgatory, because it is the most easily explained. The Roman Catholic teaching is that souls who die in the mercy of God, yet without being "perfect" in holiness, receive purgation. They are "cleansed" to whatever degree they require it. This is because of the fact that God may forgive sin, but in His justice He must "punish" or clean away the effects of sin. I find this objectionable because of the vision of God it creates. Imagine a person who forgives you, but continues punishing you for things that are supposedly forgiven. This is senseless. It certainly isn't the God presented by Christ in the Parable of the Prodigal Son. If it is forgiven, it is forgiven. It is dealt with. Secondly: papal supremacy, and infallibility. These two are really linked, for although Supremacy was established and justified many centuries before Infallibility, I believe the former led naturally to the latter. They were based on the same principles. Papal Supremacy says that the Bishop of Rome has immediate divine authority & jurisdiction over all bishops, priests, deacons, and Christians in the entire world. Now, this is hardly evident from many centuries of Church Fathers, let alone the Holy Scriptures. I think it's a ghastly rendition of authority, power, and Christian ministry. Papal Infallibility says that the Bishop of Rome, when speaking "ex cathedra" - from his Episcopal Authority as supreme pastor of the Church - using a very specific formula and intending very specific things, may speak with the absolute unerring truth of the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and morals. I find this particularly mad, if only because in the early Church all the Apostles were infallible in their teaching. Why it should remain solely to Peter is a mystery. Again, there is not much Patristic stuff to defend this. Thirdly: the BVM. This is a more personal thing than a cerebral thing. As a RC, I've experienced every level of Marian devotion available to the Church: the Rosary, "Total Consecration", "The Secret of Mary", "33 Days to Morning Glory", icon-veneration, the Memorare, the Sub tuum praesidium, Marian-themed homilies... etc. What I find problematic with the Virgin is not necessarily veneration per se, but the mode of veneration. A "Hail Mary" is merely a prayer for intercession. Since we form One Body in Christ, I see no problem with asking a saint to pray for us. That first "mode" is fine by me. What happens when you get to different modes of veneration, however? Mary becomes less and less like a human person in the words of the devotee, and more and more like a God. As Louis de Montfort says in "Total Consecration to Mary", after having explained that Jesus is beholden to the prayers of His Mother by virtue of the Fifth Commandment: He claims that only through Mary does Jesus reign. He claims that God and Mary are equal in generating or imparting divine grace to souls. He claims that God has given her power over His only-begotten Son. Although it all sounds very God-centred or God-oriented, the practical effect is very different. Go to any average parish church at a daily Mass, and tell me how many people are reciting the rosary. Again, the rosary in itself isn't that bad, but the frequency with which she has become relied upon belies a certain dependency on a creature that I can't stomach anymore. I've heard so very many Catholics say that during the lowest times in their lives, when they couldn't pray they simply entrusted everything to Mary or prayed a rosary, and they got better. Unfortunately, they don't go on to admit that all they ever do is pray the rosary, and rely on Mary for everything. God becomes a remote, tyrannical sovereign who is too disgusted with His sinful creatures that we must rely on innocent, merciful Mary to bring us to Him. Refer to the story in the "Little Flowers" of St. Francis of Assisi, wherein the saint sees Jesus ready to hurl thunder at the Earth for its sins, but only stops because Mary pleads Him not to. So, to sum up, I believe that these three core doctrines not only are wrong, but that they psychologically turn our vision of God into a bully, a monster, and an oppressive jerk. If we have to rely on a spiritually-crushing Church bureaucracy, an omnipresent human Mother figure, and a strange purgatorial forgiveness-that-is-not-really-forgiveness, we lose all hope of salvation in our Lord Jesus Christ. As to "Why Anglican, then?", it comes down to episcopacy without tyranny, devotion without exaggeration, rationality without rationalism, the Eucharist without superstition, and most importantly, the glorious Word of God, the Bible, combined with the Church Fathers. Also I love English things. Any other Catholic-to-Anglican stories, your own or those you know?