I've told my story before, so I won't bore y'all with another rehashing of my religious background. Instead, this time, I want to ask for advice one more time. At this point, I am going through confirmation in the Episcopal Church, which will end in my being confirmed at the Easter Vigil this year. Whatever tradition I choose, I am quite sure that I am leaving the Episcopal Church. The main reason is the upcoming new prayer book (which lacks the traditional service that I've grown to love and will contain a new marriage rite that is "inclusive" of gay couples),but I've also noticed that we've spent more time talking about social justice and "the Christian response" to news items than we have about Christ, which seems just wrong.If I do stay an Anglican, it will be in ACNA or the Anglican Mission. But that isn't certain either. Although I generally agree, for the most part, with the Articles of Religion, there is some discord. The faith/works issue is something I struggle with, and I do believe, despite the Articles, that councils of the Church, when representing all bishops, are infallible by their nature. The trouble is more with worship and liturgical practices. I hold a doctrine of the Eucharist,that while allowed by the Articles, nonetheless clashes with the beliefs of most Anglicans. I thus wish to show reverence towards the Blessed Sacrament, which according to traditional Anglican teaching, is idolatry. I however believe that as Anglican priests are theoretically required to believe in the Real Presence, that not adoring the Sacrament is a most shameful and impious blasphemy. I also support the use of liturgical items considered taboo by Anglicans, thus I support priests wearing stoles, copes, dalmatics,etc. and the liturgical use of incense, both of which are frowned upon by conservative Anglicans. Thus, my natural reaction is to ponder going Romeward. The problem is, despite having read through countless apologetic tracts, as well as catechisms, there are some Roman Catholic doctrines which I just cannot accept, chiefly Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, and the bread-and-wine-no-longer-exist part of transubstantiation. I also have qualms about the idea of Mary as Co-Redemptorix, although I realize that it is not dogma, I just feel like it's something I could never subscribe to. There is also the issue, though this isn't peculiar to Catholicism, that Western theology is too scholastic and reliant on classical philosophy, when sometimes I feel it would be better to embrace the mystery of faith rather than nit-pick the details. This is especially true of things like predestination and transubstantiation. For these reasons, I've also considered Eastern Orthodoxy.. It has all of the Catholic doctrines I accept, plus a gorgeous liturgy. My only concerns are my perceived difficulty in finding a parish with services in English, and adapting to the Byzantine calendar and worship structure, which is much more different from what I'm used to than the Latin rite. I also have a nagging sense, though I feel kind of stupid about it, that because my whole family are Western Christians, I would be rejecting my cultural identity by becoming Orthodox. But, for now, the good things about Orthdoxy outweigh those in my mind. So there you have it. I am stuck in the middle between Anglicanism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy, feeling very unsure, and could use some advice. Thank you all in advance God Bless, DeusExMachina
You ring a lot of bells, one way or another! There is too much in the RCC for me that I would struggle with, and realistically the liturgy in the average Parish would make you want to be Anglican (at least around here). It is much easier to take someone out of the Anglican Church that it is to take the Anglican out of the person. Most of us don't make stunning member of the RCC. I, like you, feel more comfortable in the East, however the Eastern Traditions can be very culture bound. I love the Copts, but I probably could be one. It probably depends upon local geography as to the congregations you can find. In some sense I feel like I have said snap. I suspect if there is ACNA in reach of you, or one of the continuing variants, that may be a real option. Around here the odd couple that we have look a but Aunt Tatty and Old Lace. You are in my prayers, and good wishes for your confirmation.
Brother, I feel your pain. I am a disillusioned episcopalian myself. May I suggest you see if you have any of anglocatholic oriented continuing churches in your area. The Anglican Province of America, Anglican Church in America, the Anglican Catholic Church, etc. all offer the kind of view of the Eucharist, vestments, and traditional ritual you are looking for...without all the excesses and extra-biblical obligations found in the RCC and EOC. Here is a link to some blogs you might enjoy. I especially like the Continuum and Philorthodox. http://www.anglicancatholic.org/anglican-blogs?class=greenlink
If I may offer a few bits of comment to all that you said above... Let's remember that the Fathers of the Church never lifted the Host, or talked to it, and certainly never put it in a receptacle and carried it about in processions. Devotions to the Eucharist came about in the Middle Ages and are without any doubt an alteration of the apostolic teaching. So the Real Presence the Fathers believed was more like the Anglican version than anything in Rome, namely it was found to be present without a physical expression, and its function was not simply "be" incarnated in the Bread, but specifically for the purpose of feeding the Communicant at holy communion. That's WHY our lord is present there for us, and outside of holy communion there is no reason for him to be present. You will never find any apostolic records of people marching in eucharistic processions through Alexandria or Antioch or whatever. Not at all considered taboo. I mean yes incense is pretty rare, but that's again because the Fathers totally frowned on the use of incense and considered it a sign of pagan religious worship, but things like vestments there's variability on. A lot of conservative priests I've met have started putting on even chasubles and not out of any bad impulse but solely to underscore their priestly office. Heck I know of Lutheran ministers that go all out on chasubles, so vestments should not be an obstacle for you by any means.
I have been in similar circumstances. I was in Eastern Orthodoxy for several years and Oriental Orthodoxy as well. As great as Orthodoxy is I never quite fit in (ethnicity, lack of reaching out to the unsaved, extreme use of icons in worship, etc) RCC is beautiful but also, like you, too many issues I just can't accept. I like Anglicanism, being a member of the REC, but I also don't agree with all of the 39 articles. Not that you have to. Solid Trinitarian belief and traditional Christian morality are the main things in a church/denomination. AngloCatholic and Anglican Orthodox(Orthodox Anglican?)seem to have much more EO sacramental type mindsets. Western Orthodoxy seems interesting but from my understanding it seems to be EO with a different veneer. "Work out your soul salvation..." I wish you well in your search.
I agree there were no processions in the Early Church, but still, within the temple, adoration was expected. As Saint Augustine said:"... no one eats without first adoring it. We do not sin when we adore Christ in the Eucharist; we do sin when we do not adore Christ in the Eucharist."
No indeed, according to the venerable Bishop Bramhall, some of the Articles are only "pious opinions, for the preservation of peace among us... the Church requires subscription from the clergy, but not the laity." I wrestle with faith/works a lot, but I do agree the Orthodox position seems slightly pelagian. To tell the truth, I'm not comfortable with the idea of bowing to/kissing icons either.
I do not personnally participate in the Romish form of Eucharistic adoration, mostly because I believe that Our Lord instructed us as to its use when he told us to "Take, eat" not take and adore. So, in the words of Article 23 "The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped." However, I can also make room for those who want to practice EA and I think it's perhaps too strong to say "the Fathers of the Church never lifted theHost, or talked to it, and certainly never put it in a receptacle and carried it about in processions." I've read that St. Basil in the 4th century would divide the Eucharistic bread into three parts when he celebrated the Divine Liturgy. One part he consumed, the second part he gave to the monks, and the third he placed in a golden dove-shaped container suspended over the altar. As you pointed out, St. Augustine called it a sin not to adore tbe Lords Supper. And it is no small thing that Christ connected himself with the host in very unambiguous terms: "this is my body/this is my blood". And Christ is worthy of worship: "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing." One of the great blessings of our Church is the wiggle room we're afforded in the broad and generous orthodoxy that is Anglicanism. Article 6 tells us "whatsoever is not read (in the scriptures), nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." Article 20 also tells us "The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another." From these 2 articles we see that we are free to believe/not believe anything outside of scripture and worship/not worship in any way so long as it does not contradict what is clearly found in scripture. Nothing in scripture definitively states that the body and blood of Christ cannot be adored nor does anything in scripture require us to adore them. It is a matter left to the conscience of the believer. All may none must.
With deepest humility, may I humbly request that contributors refrain from using the term Romish? It may be perceived as being a pejorative term which historically has been used by people attacking Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholics never use this word and I wouldn't like a stranger looking in to form a misguided opinion of our respectful forum. With all humility, Aidan
Good call, Aidan. I also think it's usually used as a derogatory, disparaging term, and so do the Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries. Not to offend anyone, but let's err on the side of kindness.
Aidan, "Romish" as I use it, and used it in my post above, has a specific meaning and is derived from Article 22 of the Articles of Religion wherein are described a number of practices and doctrines of the Roman Church that were rejected by the Anglican reformers for being "grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God". It is not a flattering term, I agree, but it is an accurate and historic one. I am sure there are a number of uncomfortable words and statements in the Articles to Romanists, and Anabaptists, and Unitarians, and many others. However, it is not meant to be offensive, simply expressive. But to request that members not use language from our Church's foundational documents when appropriate just because there is a possibility that a non-Anglican perusing our traditional Anglican forum might read them and get hurt feelings is a very unfair imposition, a form of political correctness and censorship that runs counter the whole purpose of this forum. How can I know in advance what doctrines and declarations of my faith might rub someone the wrong way? If someone takes issue with something I have said on here he can engage me but please do not be so presumptuous as to think your decision to take offense at something I've written necessitates I stop speaking freely and frankly. With all humility, it does not.
Friend I think a lot has changed... I see many roman catholics take on the term like "Papist" which used to be derogatory...
It seems as if The Episcopal Church is looking to revise the entire 1979 BCP. I've seen rumors of gender inclusive language as it pertains to God. I wonder if you'll have more breakaway congregations. Of course, the 1928 BCP is different from its predecessors but still refers, thank goodness, to God in the proper masculine form vis a vis Holy Writ.
The name on the church sign is not something Christ will judge you for. I've ran the gamut of different churches and I've come to realize that GOD has a big fan base which, being human, just can't agree on how to root for Him. I've been with Roman Catholics when they've complained about Protestants and vice versa. No one group owns total possession of God. Blessings!