Anyone on here Catholic?

I'm juridically Catholic, but increasingly finding my outlook to be more like that of a very traditional Anglican. For instance, the concept of papal infallibility has always made me uncomfortable, but the many strange statements made by Pope Francis in the last year or so have made me seriously doubt this doctrine. The Bible talks a lot about confession, as does the Book of Common Prayer (1662, which I view as in itself almost infallible). But where does the need to confess to a priest come from? There has been a lot of conflict at my parish recently which has started me off thinking about what I really do believe.

 

Fascinating. I'm seeing this trend more and more, as it's becoming impossible to be a traditional Catholic given the last fifty years contradicting the church of Trent, and now especially Pope Francis contradicting the church of the last fifty years. Heh.

Yeah!

 

How do you feel about sedevacantism?...the stance probably causes a lot of heartburn for papists but it is by far the most consistent and logical response for a traditional Roman Catholic when confronted with the strange doctrines growing out of the modernism enshrined by vatican ii...imho.

 

Well I would consider a group like the SSPX if they were active in my area. But the truth is that I am just doubting core Catholic dogmas as not standing up to the scrutiny of logic. What I may end up doing if finding a traditional CofE parish. I mean okay there are things the CofE teaches these days that I don't agree with (like ordaining women), but as least it isn't taught as infallible dogma.

 

On WO, the tide is already turning and no new Provinces will be coming onboard on the bandwagon anymore. The days when the episcopal church used money to taint other Provinces are over. Meanwhile TEC will continue shrinking and one day disappear. We are looking at a time in 30 years when all the heterodox jurisdictions have withered away or been evangelized by the orthodox jurisdictions which grow by leaps and bounds. When the WO thing is overturned, it won't be a blot on our infallibility as it would for Rome. We will have been honest and consistent with our ecclesiology.

But for Rome, once liberalism becomes institutionalized, after enough time it becomes a part of the Ordinary Magisterium. Forever. So we, as beleagured as we are, actually have a greater longevity. It is literally impossible to 'falsify' Anglicanism, only to harm it temporarily. But for Rome, a single declaration like the Assumption of Mary or Papal infallibility and suddenly it's game over.

 

I was very encouraged to see TEC suspended from the Anglican Communion and I do hope they either amend their ways or wither and die. The Church of England has never been as bad as TEC in terms of accepting heterodox teachings, though I guess one plus of being Catholic is knowing I'd never walk into an RC church and find a woman "priest" behind the altar (though deacons maybe if Pope Francis has his way). Over all though, I think Cranmer had it right. "There was never any thing by the wit of man so well devised, or so sure established, which in continuance of time hath not been corrupted". The RC has created dogmas and doctrines that have no basis in scripture, justifying them by the label of "tradition" and hiding behind a cloak of infallibility to justify any concept, and idea.

 

Two points, firstly SSPX are not sedevecantes and secondly Francis hasn't invoked Papal infallibility in anything he has said. As you know , in order to make something a dogma, the pope states that he's invoking papal infallibility

 

SSPX are sedevacantist in practice if not in theory, since they openly defy Rome whilst maintaining that they exercise a ministry in the Roman Church.

As for infallibility, yes I know the theory. Its easy to make excuses by narrowing the parameters though. Narrow the parameters for infallibility enough and it will never be a problem. The reality is that if the Holy Spirit was protecting the Pope from error by some special grace, that protection would occur all the time, mid-flight interviews and all., lest people be misled.

 

Forgive me, im an outsider on such things but just because Francis hasnt invoked papal infallibility doesnt make many of his statements (or actions) less heretical, right? Anyone, pope or not, who uses his teaching office to spread errors regarding faith and morals is a heretic, right? And a heretic ceases to be catholic automatically, right? And only catholics in good standing can validly be pope...or so I'm told.

 

Having said that. I would think any of the continuing Anglican bodies would make a comfortable home for you. Please do visit one. The eucharist is generally open to all baptized christians and you would be very welcome.

 

You're argument for the sedevacantist position is logical. It does though raise the important question that if the Chair of St Peter is vacant, who is in charge of the church? (There are some who would say the curia, but leaving that aside).

I have been going to Evensong at a certain parish at the Anglo-Catholic end of the Church of England for a few months now, and I decided to go to their main Sunday service this morning. It was a very nice service, all the bells and smells, plenty of good traditional hymns, and most importantly people were friendly and welcoming. I think I may end up going there regularly.

 

Some would say the Chair of Peter is filled by the Archbishop of the Syriac Orthodox Church. Tradition states that he founded the Syrian church about 2 yrs before he went to Rome.

 

Thank you so much Sir for unveiling this history to me, I wish I could have time and seat under your feet and learn more. May God bless you richly.

 

Here speaks a Catholic from out of the Black Forest.

 

I have seen the title of this thread and have now posted here, even if the thread may be "old".
I appeal to Mods and Admin not to close it.
This thread is not "dead" - it has come to life again.

 

Since the thread is seemingly being revived I'll chime in. I'm a convert to Roman Catholicism. I bounced around a lot of denominations growing up but most of my upbringing was Church of the Nazarene and TEC. Since joining the RCC I've visited a few different Anglican parishes (TEC, HCCAR, ACC) mostly due to doubts brought on by Pope Francis and the abuse scandals.

That all said I've found my home in the RCC and am actually in Candidacy with the Order of St. Benedict. There are certainly issues here but this is where Christ lead me and I'm in it for the long haul.

I do still hold a fascination with Anglicanism and I enjoy the discussions here so I hope I can stick around.

 

Good luck with the Candidacy! I am a lay confrater myself. What are your thoughts on the recent decision regarding the Latin mass?

 

Thank you! I am saddened by Traditionis custodes but I can see the reasoning behind it. Without getting into the condition of the Roman Church or the politics surrounding it, the fact is the atmosphere in Latin mass communities is breeding division and disobedience. The priests and bishops attached to the Latin mass are taking more extreme positions every day. The only real options for Pope Francis were to either give in to the traditionalist (which was never likely to happen), continue to let the dissent spread unchecked, or attempt to reign it in. I wasn't surprised he chose the latter. I don't want to appear to justify the decision as I view it as a great wrong to the laity, but I also don't view it as completely unreasonable.

My Diocese isn't seeing any real change because our only Latin masses are offered by the FSSP and Benedictines in private parishes. Traditionis custodes almost entirely applies to Diocese run parishes and Diocesan priests. It has no real effect on the Abbey which celebrates both the ordinary as well as the extraordinary form of the mass. I sympathize with those that are being directly impacted by the decision and I might hold a very different view if I was in their position.

 

That's the spirit!
We all believe in re-surrection, don't we?
So when a thread has been re-vived, isn't it cruel to kill it forever then - just because it has been re-vived!?

 

Yes, these scandals are terrible.
I can understand when members then leave the RCC.

But I say: Some should stay, so that the RCC also has some decent people left!