I would have difficulty worshiping regularly in a RC church. But this would be also true for me in a Lutheran-Missouri Synod church which also practices closed communion. I also have trouble in those churches which preach and teach penal substitution, which includes most Southern Baptist churches and many Presbyterian churches. I'm not a "second blessing" person, so that puts me out of Holiness and Pentecostal churches. I'm looking for a liturgical church to worship in over the Easter season, but it is difficult around here to find that. Seems my only options are RCC, LC-MS, and TEC. I can't in good conscience go to a TEC church in this diocese. The nearest AMiA church is 85 miles. Thanks for all of you who have responded. And thank you for allowing me to "think out loud" in this post.
ELCA? Perhaps not much better than TEC. Also Methodist, but that would probably have to be investigated more depending on the congregation. Some are more liturgical than others. Are there no EO churches nearby?
True about ELCA, plus the nearest is 100 miles. Nearest EO church is at least 110 miles. Methodist might be an option, but those I know of I wouldn't describe as liturgical. Some of the ones in towns do have Holy Week services with varying amounts of the liturgy. I am not so strict as to require a full liturgy, but I do miss the Anglican Holy Week services. In an area this rural, my options are limited.
Celtic1, looking for a liturgical church whose doctrine & principles you can agree with is quite difficult. Those Christians who would identify themselves as primarily Liturgical almost always tend to have a theology of justification by works, of elevations, of processions, and of superstition. My greatest joy would be to have symbolic liturgy without a corresponding decline in morals & faith. Roman Catholic liturgy, especially on Good Friday, involves actively bowing toward & kissing a literal life-size Cross, along with much else objectionable. You'd definitely not like that. Though you have a point, I take a more proximate view of the conscience issues. There are parts in the Roman Liturgy that may be joined into by a Protestant: those that require no assent to error. I can pray "Lord have mercy", "Christ have mercy", "Glory to God in the highest", "Holy, Holy, Holy", most of the hymns, many of the responses - and I can also pray in silence. What objection can there be in lifting up our hearts, giving thanks to the Lord our God, etc.? It's not as if papists worship a different God (ontologically). The Church itself may profess error, but in the local act of worship toward God in Christ, one may avoid those evil things which are ruinous of the faith. I may not say the Confiteor, nor can I say "Amen" to the prayers for "Francis our Pope, X our Bishop", but I can pray for the Lord's peace & grace in this place. After all, if an unbaptized catechumen can stay for the first half of the Mass with good conscience, how much more we? In the end, any protestant who worships in a papal house can only have as his aim the conversion of Papists through prayer made in their very presence - even if it is silent. Being among them in person and praying that they abjure their errors seems very good.
Celtic, you need one of these like Fr Chadwick in Normandy who converted his garage and press-ganged a small congregation. http://civitas-dei.eu/newchapel.htm Holy Week services (Missale ad usum Sarum) https://sarumuse.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/holy-week-in-normandy/
You entirely missed the point. The point is that by participating in the public act of worship of the Roman Church, you give assent to what is being preached and taught there, regardless of your mental reservations. Christianity is not just about our internal dispositions but also about external acts. We are forbidden to have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness. If you walk into a mosque on Friday noon and participate in the Jumu'ah prayers you will be giving assent to the Muslim religion and causing scandal, regardless of how many mental reservations you'll have to make regarding the objectionable parts of that service or whether or not the Muslims worship the same ontological entity as we do. You cannot give witness to Christ by joining what is a sacral renewal of the sacrifice of the cross, a liturgy said in communion with a bishop who claims to himself alone the title of vicar of Christ and presumes to be the head of the Church militant. Forget about your mental gymnastics. Let your yes be yes and your no be no.
Intellectual assent is often all that we mean when speaking of "faith", but the Lord created a real, physical world. He also took human flesh upon Himself and performed His great acts of salvation in our armour. We cannot do that which is wrong, even if it only has a tiny chance of giving scandal to others. The Roman Catholic Liturgy has so many traditions added on. Legends say that St. Peter wrote the First Eucharistic Prayer in whole or in part. Romans in the medieval era sang a "Motet", wherein the worshipers moved to the Lady Chapel to sing an anthem to Mary at the end of their evening service. This practice is continued by the singing of Ave Maria in their current morning/noon/evening prayers. Many Roman Catholic churches copy this into the end of the Mass, and sing a "Marian antiphon" after Mass is over. Ave Maria is the usual one, but "Salve Regina" and "Ave regina coelorum" are sung in different seasons. At the Franciscan parish which I previously attended, the Ave Maria was sung in Latin to Gregorian-chant tropes as everyone literally turned to a statue of Mary. They were clearly addressing her person through and in the statue. I always sensed more reverence, piety, and internal silence from the congregation & clergy at this moment than during the actual Mass. By the way, Celtic1, you may not have known it but the "official prayer" of the Roman Catholic Church is not the Mass. Papist priests have no obligation to celebrate the Mass every day. The primary liturgy of their church is the Divine Office, or the Liturgy of the Hours. To learn what they really believe (beneath the apparent God-centered Mass prayers), one must look at the LOTH.
Your post has made me rethink some things. Based on the criteria you give, if I follow these -- and they do make sense -- I know of only two churches I can worship at, and both are 85 miles away. One is AMiA, and the other is Baptist. And that in effect means that I won't be worshiping anywhere regularly with a group of Christians, as that is just too far to drive. My only other possible choices are an independent "full gospel" church, and a Church of the Nazarene, but I am not a "second blessing" type of person. These churches, though, are both within 10 miles. Too bad that none of the TEC churches in my state have broken away from TEC and joined AMiA or ACNA, despite having a bishop who has departed the faith.
I think a flexible moderate position should be taken with this. But really its down to your individual conscience. For me I am happy to attend a church where I might disagree on secondary issues but that has an orthodox doctrine on God (ie the trinity, Christ fully human and divine) and the gospel is preached. These two things are essential for a church to exist. Many churches cooperate together on many issues despite their disagreements because they have a common vision of spreading the gspel and what that gospel is. The latin church have many godly people who do know the gospel and I would gladly work with them as individuals. Catholics and protestants can work together. The problem is institutionally Rome disagrees with us on what the gospel is, and from a protestant perspective teaches many spiritually dangerous beliefs officially.
Thanks. Not to be irreverent, but I wish He would do so; I've been waiting for decades. Maybe I am too "picky". I have trouble with the idea of going to a church that will not allow me to take communion, though.
One reason I like forums such as this is because one can get different viewpoints on things. I appreciate your perspective. Let me ask you then: Could you worship regularly in a RC church, based on the criteria you gave?
I know, and that is one point of disagreement I would have with them. I agree with Eastern views of the atonement. One thing I like about Anglicanism is that it allows for many views on this and other doctrines. I was on a fundamentalist Baptist forum where many of them called me a heretic for holding to Christus Victor.
I think there are quite possibly rc congregations who do preach the gospel, and ignore some of the official church dogmas. However the rc church is so strongly hierarchal that no latin priest would be allowed to openly attack the official church teachings, every church that is part of a denomination is associated with that denomination's official teachings so for this reason I wouldn't worship regularly at any RC church. What stance would you take?
Thanks! Well, I don't know; I'm conflicted about it. That's why I wanted to get perspectives from you good folks here. You've given me much to think about. I've known some good Roman Catholics and counted one as a close friend. But that has nothing to do with worshiping regularly in a RC church, I realize.
We can be good friends with Jews and Muslims too but we shouldn't worship God in their synagogues and mosques. The principle is always the same. All Reformers rejected the Roman mass as idolatry.
You just reminded me of this: http://www.swrb.ab.ca/newslett/actualNLs/vindicat.htm I had to. Spiritual Real Presence in the heart of the communicant receiving Christ through Faith is such a holy, godly doctrine. Let us keep to it, and not show respect for that which leads inevitably to elevations, sacrifices, processions, and adoration.