Ship of Fools: What hasn't a new denomination for socially liberal Catholics been successful?

Thread: What hasn't a new denomination for socially liberal Catholics been successful? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025414

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

In the US, 1 in 10 people are former Roman Catholics. I think 1/3 of those baptized as Catholic no longer identify as Roman Catholic as adults in the US. Even if the majority of former Rpman Catholics left the Church for other reasons, there is probably a sizeable number who left or drifted away because if dissent on issues such as birth control, remarriage after divorce, homosexuality, etc. Why has there not been a successful attempt to minister to these disaffected Catholics in a new denomination that differs from the RCC only on its approach towards human sexuality and in its systems if governance (allowing for greater accountability of bishops and clergy to the people they minister to)?

I think that there are reasons why such a denomination has not been successful. I even think that it is unlikely that such a denomination will appear and be successful anytime in the foreseeable future. Here are some of my guesses as to why.

What kinds of Catholics have left the Church or are likely to?

-Some have been traumatized by poor treatment at the hands of clergy, religious sisters and brothers, or their fellow Catholic laypeople (including their families) to the point that the associate the RCC, its teachings (even those that have nothin to do with sex), and it's worship style with that pain.

-Many in the US have grown up in a secularists culture where the only public displays if Christianity are either non-denominational or Protestant. If they start to disagree with any aspect of Catholic teaching but still want to remain Christian they might be drawn to Protestant crticisms of Catholic teachings (or to certain non-Catholic churches' emphasis on a positive transformation in believers' lives). This can result in their joining churches that are just as conservative on social issues (such as the Latinos who have joined Pentecostal churches).

-Many disaffected Catholics may have been leading largely secular lives while they remained (barely) in the Church and were only waiting for one controversy to turn them away from religion altogether.

-Some may have found a home already in the the Episcopal Church or in other increasingly liberal liturgical denominations.

Or is the explanation not only about what former Catholics are like but about what Catholics in general are like?

-Catholics might be more tribal and less concerned with doctrine than other denominations. The differences in practices between Catholics and Protestants have narrowed significantly since Vatican II and the loss in popularity in traditional Catholic devotions to Mary and the Saints. If they leave the Church they might just look or a place that feels comfortable rather than a place that believes the same things that the RCC teaches about everything other than sexuality and Church governance.

-The tribal nature of Catholics might also make any denomination separated from the social and familial networks of the RCC less appealing to them. This means they may be more likely to stop being religious altogether if they leave the Church rather than join another denomination.

Or is there something about all people who change Religous affiliation that helps explain it?

-Any denomination that wants to attract converts and grow in visibility and relevance will want to distinguish itself from existing denominations including in doctrine. Otherwise the will not have much of a selling point. People are tired of hearing about sex in church even from a liberal point of view so any church with a liberal approach to sexuality as its main distinguishing factor will have trouble marketing itself.

-People are increasingly post-denominational (or even post religious) so it is easier for people to attend Catholic Church for whatever spiritual benefit they attain from it without particularly worrying about Catholoc teachings they do not like (such teachings are rarely preached at Mass). The whole idea of changing one denomination with many rules and structures for another may be particularly in appealing to younger Catholics.

What do all of you think? Could such a denomination ever succeed?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
What do all of you think? Could such a denomination ever succeed?

I believe it's called "the Episcopal Church".

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Anglicanism does a pretty brisk business with former Roman Catholics, but generally the committed liberal Catholics I know remain in the Church. I imagine this is because dogmatic teachings have less impact on day to day life for most people than one would think.

I bet the proportion of people who leave the RCC over women's ordination or birth control is actually pretty small- smaller even than the number of people who say that's why they left.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I would guess, unless you're a priest or religious, or in a situation which might debar you from the sacraments like being divorced or in a gay relationship, the official teaching or the hierarchy of the Catholic Church doesn't impinge on you all that much. It must be quite easy in most places to find a church where the priest isn't obsessed by the 'dead horse' issues and the preaching and the liturgy feed rather than irritate.

I don't think it's particularly a matter of being 'tribal', so much that Catholics see 'belonging', and the unity of the body, as very important. Seeking a fellowship of like-minded believers is much more of a protestant phenomenon. And in many countries of course, 'church' equals the RCC and there are few alternatives.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

The Episcopal Church currently has a membership of about 2 million members, compared with about 3.4 million in the mid 1960s. Meanwhile there are currently about 30 million former Roman Catholics in the US. It does not appear that the vast majority of Catholics that have left the RCC in the past few decades have joined the Episcopal Church.

That said, I know many former Roman Catholics who are happy in the Episcopal Church and find Episcopal liturgies to be much more solemn and thoughtful. Not many Roman Catholics care about liturgy, unfortunately. I have considered joining the Episcopal Church ever since I first considered becoming a practicing Christian but it would be very hard for me to join a church that makes its priests affirm at their ordination that scripture contains all things necessary to salvation. But most Roman Catholics do not know or care about that (or would think "isn't that what Catholics believe too?"), so my opinion on that does not matter for the purposes of this thread.

The Church of England probably appeals to a broader range of ex-Catholics in England because it has parishes everywhere, it has all the really old pretty church buildings, and its parishes come in a wider range of theological outlooks, worship styles, and stances on social issues than the Episcopal Church.

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :

Because liberal religion simply doesn't work.

"Oh, don't worry - you don't have to come to church! Just stay at home on Sunday, God won't mind! Oh, don't worry about that sin you did - God doesn't mind! Do whatever you like - God will not mind!" So, er... what's the point of continuing to worship God then?

The Roman Catholic Church succeeds because it has clearly defined doctrines and boundaries. Yes, many of its parish priests are vapid preachers who believe nothing they actually say, and spend their time outside Mass cavorting with all sorts of interesting people, but the Roman Church's teaching offices are clear on moral matters. I think that is a wonderful thing.

Liberal Christianity is a failure mostly because it is inauthentic. The Gospel is not what they think it is. Jesus is not a soft touch.

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Because liberal religion simply doesn't work.

"Oh, don't worry - you don't have to come to church! Just stay at home on Sunday, God won't mind! Oh, don't worry about that sin you did - God doesn't mind! Do whatever you like - God will not mind!" So, er... what's the point of continuing to worship God then?

Well, I've never been in a church where anyone said anything that sounded remotely like that, but if we all lived in Straw-man Fairy-Tale Candyland, that would make a lot of sense.

The answer is definitely a combination of this:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
What do all of you think? Could such a denomination ever succeed?
I believe it's called "the Episcopal Church".

and this:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
generally the committed liberal Catholics I know remain in the Church. I imagine this is because dogmatic teachings have less impact on day to day life for most people than one would think.

The people I know who were baptized RC fall into four camps (note that these are all people in their twenties, I can't speak for other generations):
1. Conservative, and remain in the Catholic Church; they agree with its positions on the standard set of DHs.
2. Liberal, and remain in the Catholic Church; they find parishes with liberal priests who ignore most DHs, or they remain in conservative parishes but do not go to confession, or avoid community life, or avoid controversy, or avoid the political elements.
3. Liberal, and join the Episcopal Church.
4. Apathetic to religion in general; they have not joined any church, and are not actively looking.

In my experience of young (college-aged and a few years past) people, at least four-fifths fall into category #4, with roughly equal numbers in #1, #2, and #3.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Christians who are liberal with regard to Dead Horses actually care a lot about sin, Indifferently - the focus is just usually on corporate sin, such as the sin of letting the hungry go without food, or the oppressed go without justice. What someone does in the bedroom seems rather less of a priority to us.

As for why people should go to church, people should go because and if they want to. That's why I go.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

stonespring

I think you have answered your own questions, haven't you? There are people who drift away, and don't want another denomination. There are people who stay, since they are not hassled to conform, as far as I can see. There are those who move to Anglicanism. Errm, that's about it, isn't it?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

In part, what makes Catholicism Catholicism is its antiquity. Apostolic succession and all that. As such a "new" denomination cannot, because it is new, be a substitute for the Roman Catholic church.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In part, what makes Catholicism Catholicism is its antiquity. Apostolic succession and all that. As such a "new" denomination cannot, because it is new, be a substitute for the Roman Catholic church.

Thank you. Those were the words I would have said if I had formulated them before you did.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

Agreed very much with Zach82; this has been my experience as well. As exercised as those outside the church get about DH and other dogmatic teachings, the average layperson is probably able to ignore them pretty easily in the day-to-day life of a parish. You can find a liberal parish, if you like (the number is falling, but there are still many about).

In the same vein as what Croesos said, the teaching that the Church of Rome really is the one true church does have some currency even with more liberal believers. One person put it to me thusly: for all she disagrees with the church on virtually every DH and some theological bits as well, it is a case of "Lord, to whom would we go?" (cf. John 6:68). Just because the church is wrong doesn't mean it isn't the church.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I've actually talked a couple Roman Catholics out of coming over to the One True Church by telling them the should only convert if they believed that the Episcopal Church was heir to the Church founded by Jesus Christ. Ho hum.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

Think Tammy Wynette: D-I-V-O-R-C-E

This is how our Episcopal parish has gotten its Roman Catholic converts, plus a few over dead horses.

Otherwise, Zach82 & Angloid have got it right.

Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I've actually talked a couple Roman Catholics out of coming over to the One True Church by telling them the should only convert if they believed that the Episcopal Church was heir to the Church founded by Jesus Christ. Ho hum.

Which caused Newman to take refuge in the Church of Rome

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I've actually talked a couple Roman Catholics out of coming over to the One True Church by telling them the should only convert if they believed that the Episcopal Church was heir to the Church founded by Jesus Christ. Ho hum.
Which caused Newman to take refuge in the Church of Rome

Discerning the body has never been easy.

Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on :

Count me as one of those dis-affected RCs who found a home in the Episcopal Church, although I now belong to a Lutheran congregation. I've met plenty of alienated Catholics in both denominations.

That having been said, the majority of pissed-off Catholics I've encountered still identify themselves as RC. Some actively participate in the Church, while others don't, but still call themselves Catholics. Such folks usually ignore the teachings about birth control, divorce, etc. This has earned them the unflattering nickname of "Cafeteria Catholics" in some circles; they pick and choose what they believe and accept.

I myself tried being a "Cafeteria Catholic" for a long time, but found it impossible to tune out the constant barrage of "pro-life" and other social teachings which I kept hearing at Mass. As the church took more hard-line stands on these issues, eventually realized I couldn't continue attending its services.

Every now and then I try getting back into my RC heritage, which is of course part of my family history going waaaaaay back. Recently I picked up a copy of our local diocese's newspaper, and read about how they were promoting "self-help" groups for men who acknowledged homosexual tendencies, but knew it was wrong to act upon them. I'm straight, but can't take such stuff seriously. Sorry.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

I agree with Bostonman's characterization if young Catholics, at least in the US northeast.

As for the issue of a "new" denomination being antithetical to Catholicism, I was thinking about the hypothetical schism of entire dioceses with their bishops or even entire eiscopal conferences (think Germany, the Netherlands, Austria), but this would in reality be more likely some older auxiliary or retired bishops (like the ordinariates in the other direction, snicker snicker, and about as popular one might ve tempted to add). As for whether such a schismatic group would maintain valid Apistolic Succession, that would be beyond the scope of this thread. The ideal (not as in most desirable, but as in best example) situation) would be a whole country's bishops, priests, laypeople and church property all leaving at once, a la Henry VIII. If this happened in a small very liberal country that country could then send missions to the rest of the world (a lot of good that did for the Old Catholics, you might say).

And as for the Episcopal Church, in many parts of the US most Episcopal parishes are MOTR (middle of the road) and that often means no statues in church, no explicit praying for specific deceased people or offering Mass for them, no urging to pray to Mary or the saints, no tabernacle in the church, no exposition if the Blessed Sacrament, etc. Some of these might be found in a MOTR church but rarely all. Catholics who pay attention to what they believe and how they worship would experience a bit of a culture shock switching to an Episcopal church (like actually being at a reverent liturgy for the first time). A lot would like it at first, but might have trouble adapting to the different culture, but not for the doctrinal and liturgical reasons I mentioned (since many Catholics wouldn't notice those).

I actually am curious whether such a church might work. It could advertise itself as being what the RCC should be and needs to be until the Vatican comes round to what Christ probably really means about sex and gender. It would be a necessary and hopefully temporary exile, etc. I think some liberal Catholics could not stand being in such a church because they would no longer be disobedient to the himan church authorites. I think picking and choosing what orders to follow is central to many Catholics' experience of their religion in practice. Not having clear edicts to disobey, a la Anglicanism, would be disconcerting for many Catholics!

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
As for the issue of a "new" denomination being antithetical to Catholicism, I was thinking about the hypothetical schism of entire dioceses with their bishops or even entire eiscopal conferences . . . The ideal (not as in most desirable, but as in best example) situation would be a whole country's bishops, priests, laypeople and church property all leaving at once, a la Henry VIII.

Ummm, you do realize that the Anglican Church isn't hypothetical, right? The problem with positing real world examples as hypotheticals is that they're not really hypothetical.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

quote:
I actually am curious whether such a church might work. It could advertise itself as being what the RCC should be and needs to be until the Vatican comes round to what Christ probably really means about sex and gender.

A lot of the independent/liberal Catholic churches referenced in this thread advertise themselves in that way. Obviously something isn't working for these folks. For whatever reason, there just doesn't seem to be a very large market for liberal Catholic schismatic churches.

I don't disagree that it seems intuitively possible, but the fact is that a large number of liberal-leaning believers stay in RCC parishes for a variety of reasons. People that leave the church either go liberal Protestant, conservative Protestant (this is a pretty big chunk, actually) or they find they have no particular need for church at all, and so attend no church.

[ 15. May 2013, 04:36: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:

I actually am curious whether such a church might work. It could advertise itself as being what the RCC should be and needs to be until the Vatican comes round to what Christ probably really means about sex and gender. It would be a necessary and hopefully temporary exile, etc. I think some liberal Catholics could not stand being in such a church because they would no longer be disobedient to the himan church authorites. I think picking and choosing what orders to follow is central to many Catholics' experience of their religion in practice. Not having clear edicts to disobey, a la Anglicanism, would be disconcerting for many Catholics!

Stonespring, here you imply that some liberal Catholics stay because they enjoy the feeling of disobeying the clear edicts of the Church. For me it was exactly the opposite. Having been brought up to feel that one must take the edicts very seriously, and that Cafeteria Catholicism is a cop-out and a cheat--if you want to belong to the club, you must abide by the rules--I left, since I couldn't abide by the rules, and couldn't accept the feeling of being in continual "disobedience," when the Anglican church was right there with its much less dogmatic approach....

Catholics however might look at this trajectory and say, well what good did it do you? Look what's happened to your faith, a wishy-washy, wavering thing, hardly even sure of the most basic Christian doctrine...leaving the One True Church was the beginning of the slippery slope. As Chesterton (?) said, if you start believing everything, you end up believing nothing....

I can see why they might say this, but I don't agree, and I certainly do not blame the Anglican church for my current wobbliness.

Anyway, that's why I left....

Would I join the "new denomination" posited in the OP if it differed from the RCC only in its approach to sexuality and in its systems of governance? Well. I don't know. What would it offer that Anglicanism doesn't?

And if those two things were the only differences from the RCC, then it would presumably still require:
belief in transubstantiation as the only way to understand the Real Presence;
weekly Mass attendance on pain of serious (do they still say "mortal"?) sin;
acceptance of all the Marian doctrine--not just her virginity at the conception of Jesus, which is a commonly held Christian belief, but also the RC doctrine of her own Immaculate Conception;

and so on.

And wouldn't it still require its members to believe that it alone is the one true church? No, wait, it couldn't require that, because if it only differed from the RCC in its sexual approach and system of governance, then it would have to retain the belief that the RCC is the one true church; and therefore it itself, this new denomination, would have to consider itself invalid from the get-go!

(Actually I think someone above has expressed the same thought in a different way).

So the hypothesis of this new denomination doesn't really work, as far as I can see, though it's an attractive thought.

But the discussion of why people leave the RCC, or why they stay while not believing all its doctrines, is very interesting. To me, anyway.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Think Tammy Wynette: D-I-V-O-R-C-E
This is how our Episcopal parish has gotten its Roman Catholic converts, plus a few over dead horses.

Indeed. One has to realise that obedience to most Catholic doctrines, including most "Dead Horse" ones, is simply not visible to others. How should I know whether some other Catholic follows the Church's teaching on contraception, for example? That polls and the actual number of children present suggest the opposite does not mean that I can say this about any specific Catholic. Most Catholics I know operate on an "don't ask, don't tell" policy. And in fact even if someone tells this is considered primarily to be their individual problem that they need to sort out themselves. Basically, it is confession not inquisition that is supposed to deal with sin, including disobedience to the Church. And I agree with this principle.

Divorce, or rather divorce followed by remarriage, makes such disobedience visible, since marriage is on the Church's books. There's no good way of avoiding the issue, and leaving it up to the individual to sort out. Or at least so if the couple tries to get their new relationship acknowledged by the Church, whether directly or indirectly with regards to children from it.

So I would say that "Cafeteria Catholicism" is not a systemic failure of the Church, but a hopefully transient one of the individual. It is in my opinion correct for the Church to leave space for individuals to deviate as long as she continues to preach "the straight and the narrow" herself. The hope is that they will draw close again eventually. Confession is the proper sacrament for sin, not inquisition. Hence it is OK that the Church is "dragging along" a great number of "lukewarm" Catholics. That too is her job. The problem is that on some issues this will not really work, basically whenever there is direct conflict with the teachings on sacraments or apostolic succession. And there I think the Church can do not other than setting things in stone, even if this is far from ideal for the individuals. That is a line the Church cannot cross without losing what she is.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In part, what makes Catholicism Catholicism is its antiquity. Apostolic succession and all that. As such a "new" denomination cannot, because it is new, be a substitute for the Roman Catholic church.
Thank you. Those were the words I would have said if I had formulated them before you did.

I'd have put it more simply. Catholics aren't schismatic. And, for that matter, often regard the Roman Catholic Church as their family - you don't just change families because your uncle is a racist jackass.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Yes, I think that sums it up. 'Family' feeling + Anglicanism (& maybe Lutheranism & Old Catholicism?) as an option for those who do wish to change, really answers the question in the OP.

[ 15. May 2013, 11:04: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cara

Would I join the "new denomination" posited in the OP if it differed from the RCC only in its approach to sexuality and in its systems of governance? Well. I don't know. What would it offer that Anglicanism doesn't?

And if those two things were the only differences from the RCC, then it would presumably still require:
belief in transubstantiation as the only way to understand the Real Presence;
weekly Mass attendance on pain of serious (do they still say "mortal"?) sin;
acceptance of all the Marian doctrine--not just her virginity at the conception of Jesus, which is a commonly held Christian belief, but also the RC doctrine of her own Immaculate Conception;

and so on.

And wouldn't it still require its members to believe that it alone is the one true church? No, wait, it couldn't require that, because if it only differed from the RCC in its sexual approach and system of governance, then it would have to retain the belief that the RCC is the one true church; and therefore it itself, this new denomination, would have to consider itself invalid from the get-go!
.

Ok, such a denomination would have to believe that its own apostolic succession and sacraments are valid. It would probably believe that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church subsists in the RCC but that valid sacraments exist wherever apostolic succession has been maintained. They would justify their schism by saying it was the only way they could be true to the authentic teachings of the Church (which they would claim the current leadership of the RCC had strayed from) without being hypocrites.

As for the Anglican Church, most Catholics who go over there are quite happy and find it quite similar to what they are used to. I however think that transubstantiation (or whatever it is exactly that the RCC teaches about the real presence), the Marian doctrines, prayer to the Saints, prayer for the dead, saying Mass with the intentions of certain people or causes in mind, etc., are central to the faith and not optional. Most ex Catholic Anglicans just find an Anglican parish that believes what they do and worships the way they like ad are done with it. But unless their own beliefs and worship style are middle of the road Anglican they will not be sure that they will have somewhere familiar to worship wherever they travel or if there are changes in the clergy or vestry at their parish. I also think there are some things that Anglican clergy are required to affirm, like that scripture contains all things necessary to salvation, or in Engliand, the 39 Articles, that even if many clergy do not actually agree with still would require the disobedience that Catholics hoped to avoid in whatever new church they join. There is also the issue of Anglican orders which even the participation of Old Catholic Bishops in Episcopal Consecrations has not quite put to rest for me, although many others accept them as valid.

I think I am very unusual in what I expect from this hypothetical church. If you look at the comments on the National Catholic Reporter website, it seems that support for such a schism is out there and that such people want it to be a denomination on its own (with the eventual intent of reunion with Rome once the controversies over sex and gender are settled) and that there is something about Roman Catholic culture and identity that would be diluted in the Anglican Communion, Lutheran Churches, etc.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Surely a new schism would be far worse than merely moving to another denomination? Why put more tears in the seamless garment than there already are?

Edit: I would further add the leaving the RCC to get it to change is silly. As we're seeing in the Episcopal Church, it's basically just giving the people you disagree with their way.

[ 15. May 2013, 14:44: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

But the Episcopal church has somewhat democratic methods of government - even on resolving controversies regarding doctrine and morality. The only influence Catholic laypeople (or priests) for the matter have is by talking to bishops or withholding financial contributions. I doubt that either has any real effect on influencing bishops' decisions. They take their role as guardians of faith and morals to mean that when they believe a matter has been settled for all eternity then nothing can move them. I am not sure that staying on the RCC does anything to change it. Granted, leaving it does not do anything more to change it than staying does.

Can a person be an authentic Roman Catholic when they know that most of their participation in the church (reception if communion an other sacraments, leadership in lay ministries, ministering in lay roles during the Eucharist, is predicated on someone either being ignorant to or turning a blind eye to their dissent and disobedience? Most Catholics do not seemtk be bothered by it but for me it feels like living in a constant state of fear and self-doubt, even in my liberal parish in a liberal city.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I sympathize with you, stonespring, because I so often hear the pain of Catholics in your position here at seminary. As the outspoken Episcopalian at a Catholic school, I've had to field questions from Roman Catholics on the cusp of leaving. I try to handle these situations in the least mercenary way possible, making it clear that I would only advise a person to come to the Episcopal Church if they believe the claims the Episcopal Church makes for itself (that it is indeed founded by Christ and that the Catholic Church continues to subsist fully in it), and if continuing to participate in the Roman Catholic Church is against their conscience.

All of which I say to give subtext to what I say now- why don't you just come over to Anglicanism again? Not even schism can get you the Church precisely as you want it, and it isn't clear to me what your basis for rejecting the validity of Anglicanism is judging from the claims you want to make for this hypothetical Church of yours. At least in converting to a new denomination, you are joining, rather than splitting, a community.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

What Croesos said.

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
All of which I say to give subtext to what I say now- why don't you just come over to Anglicanism again? Not even schism can get you the Church precisely as you want it, and it isn't clear to me what your basis for rejecting the validity of Anglicanism is judging from the claims you want to make for this hypothetical Church of yours. At least in converting to a new denomination, you are joining, rather than splitting, a community.

There are least seem to be some liturgical differences stonespring is concerned about, although it's not clear to me that Anglo-Catholic parishes don't do all that's been mentioned.

What about Old Catholics?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I understand that Anglicanism isn't everything stonespring hopes for, but as Protestants have discovered, one can never schism enough to get everything one hopes for in a Church.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Thanks for the advice. The Old Catholics outside of Continental Europe are not very organized - I discussed this in another thread and I know a bit more about Indepedent Catholicism than the average person. I have other heretical beliefs that might make me too extreme for even the Episcopal Church (and I would not feel comfortable as a UU or in the MCC), but I would rather not go into them here.

It might be interesting to discuss why the Episcopal Church has not absorbed and held onto more ex Roman Catholics. We have discussed a lot about what Catholics in general and those who tend to leave the Church are like, but what qualities might the Episcopal Church have or not have that have caused disaffected Catholics who are considering leavi g the Church to decide not to become Episcopalians?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Thanks for the advice. The Old Catholics outside of Continental Europe are not very organized - I discussed this in another thread and I know a bit more about Indepedent Catholicism than the average person. I have other heretical beliefs that might make me too extreme for even the Episcopal Church (and I would not feel comfortable as a UU or in the MCC), but I would rather not go into them here.

It might be interesting to discuss why the Episcopal Church has not absorbed and held onto more ex Roman Catholics. We have discussed a lot about what Catholics in general and those who tend to leave the Church are like, but what qualities might the Episcopal Church have or not have that have caused disaffected Catholics who are considering leavi g the Church to decide not to become Episcopalians?

I think we've addressed the main one already: We ain't the Roman Catholic Church.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

But what about those Catholics who are willing to go to a different denomination and do not want to go to a conservative one? Why might they choose to go elsewhere rather than the Episcopal Church and why, if they start attending the Episcopla Church, might they not stay?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
But what about those Catholics who are willing to go to a different denomination and do not want to go to a conservative one? Why might they choose to go elsewhere rather than the Episcopal Church and why, if they start attending the Episcopla Church, might they not stay?

We do get Catholics who are willing to go to different denominations- probably because we have a (vile) reputation for being Catholic-lite. Why they might choose another denomination over the Episcopal Church probably depends on why they left the RCC.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Aside from not accepting Papal universal ordinary jurisdiction, denying Papal infallibility, and asserting that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church subsists in it just as much as in the RCC or anywhere else, what beliefs does an Anglo-Catholic interpretation of Anglicanism have that differentiates it from Roman Catholicism?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Aside from not accepting Papal universal ordinary jurisdiction, denying Papal infallibility, and asserting that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church subsists in it just as much as in the RCC or anywhere else, what beliefs does an Anglo-Catholic interpretation of Anglicanism have that differentiates it from Roman Catholicism?

That rejecting transubstantiation, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the cult of the saints, purgation, etc, however true they might be, does not make one anathema from God's Church. Plenty of them think being a female is no impediment to being a priest, and all that.

[ 15. May 2013, 18:46: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Ok then, so what then is this idea of the Episcopal Church being "Catholic lite" that you find vile? I didn't quite understand that bit.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Ok then, so what then is this idea of the Episcopal Church being "Catholic lite" that you find vile? I didn't quite understand that bit.

Because we have liturgical masses, bishops, and all that, people (including many Episcopalians) get the idea that we are merely a less demanding, less guilt ridden version of the Roman Catholic Church. Everything you love about Roman Catholicism with none of the hard parts- "twice the fuss with half the guilt" as they say.

I find this vile because, though we make room for a diversity of opinion, we are still called to preach the Gospel of Christ, calling the whole world to repentance and new life, with all the passion, discipline, and intellectual rigor that entails. We are not merely a vaguer, more lazy, less guilt laden version of Roman Catholicism- at least we aren't supposed to be.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Thanks for the advice. The Old Catholics outside of Continental Europe are not very organized - I discussed this in another thread and I know a bit more about Indepedent Catholicism than the average person. I have other heretical beliefs that might make me too extreme for even the Episcopal Church (and I would not feel comfortable as a UU or in the MCC), but I would rather not go into them here.

I imagine that Old Catholics of the Utrecht Union (I think we have one or two on the Ship) would not wish to be confused with Independent Catholics (many of whom do I know describe themselves as Old Catholics, but are not in communion with Utrecht or indeed, as you will know better than I, necessarily with anyone else on earth). I don't think the Utrecht churches have any presence in North America since the Polish National Catholic Church left the Union over, AIUI, Dead Horse issues. The Philippine Independent Church, perhaps? I know little about their beliefs, there may not be any near you, and they may be very culturally specific, but I believe that they have a couple of dioceses in North America.

I don't wish to come across as unsympathetic, but ISTM that you may be being a little unrealistic in hoping to find somewhere which fits exactly your own combination of beliefs and practices. You may just have to find somewhere which, on balance, provides the best 'good enough' fit, and just live with the fact that it isn't going to be ideal for you. I imagine that quite a lot of us do that.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

The truth is I am not looking for a church that matchesmy beliefs. That would require knowing what I believe! I am not even sure I want to do anything else other than remain in the RCC. I may wind up going to more than one church every Sunday so as to keep my foot in the door of the RCC and not completely give up on her. I am more interested in talking about hypotheticals and more typical people's experience, because I am kind of a self-absorbed freak and talking about me specifically doesn't help much. (Then why do I talk south about myself?)

The truth is, if anyone outside of Continental Europe calls themselves Old Catholic, they are not recognized by Utrecht and would be pretty accurately described as Independent Catholic. Utrecht did used to be in union with the PNCC but the PNCC never called itself Old Catholic.

I find it odd that the Episcopal Church is not millions of members bigger due to the massive number of ex Catholics in the US. It certainly has the real estate to accommodate many of them and at least in my part of the country there is no shortage of Episcopal priests. I agree that it probably has more to do with the former Catholics themselves than with the Episcopal church. In a way I am sad that a church known for its liturgy and attention to detail would have new members lining out the door since it is so in line with my personality. However, I doubt I would be happy there or in any religious group since I am a miserable person I general (I just need to figure out how to be miserable in the best way possible). Why aren't there more Liturgical Pharisees in the world? The world needs more of us! Maybe if there were more of us, it would anger Christ enough that he would come back sooner.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Most people who leave TEC and the RCC, and every denomination in the West, are not leaving for another denomination- they are sleeping in on Sundays. That's why we don't have millions of ex-Roman Catholics in our ranks.

In the mean time, liberals blame the conservatives, the conservatives blame the liberals, and both are absolutely certain that everything would be OK if they had everything their way.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Most people who leave TEC and the RCC, and every denomination in the West, are not leaving for another denomination- they are sleeping in on Sundays. That's why we don't have millions of ex-Roman Catholics in our ranks.

In the mean time, liberals blame the conservatives, the conservatives blame the liberals, and both are absolutely certain that everything would be OK if they had everything their way.

Church-centred/ conscious folk (such as most shipmates and many clergy) forget the degree to which people are attached to a particular place, building and community. Moving to another one is a determined act of will.

As well, for many ethnic or cultural communities, there is one default church, and others are rarely in the running for consideration. Let us take a case study: of the likely hundred thousand plus francophone ex-RCs in the greater Ottawa area, they have formed one small but flourishing UCC parish, a microscopic Anglican congregation which has been shuffled from building to building over the years, three small Baptist churches, 2 JW outlets, and a Mormon group. If there are a thousand there, I will eat my Tilley hat. Of my ex-Orthodox friends, even more so-- I know of one Ethiopian Pentecostal group and that is it for the ethnic groups connected to the eastern churches. I certainly know many more ex-Anglicans over with the RCs and the Orthodox than the other way.

Most of my ex-RC friends sleep in or have adopted the exercise of plein-air (outdoors) religion, where they get their spiritual refreshment by stomping on trails and such like.

In places with much ethnic consciousness, their home parish=religion. For a Croatian Canadian, they worship at S Leopld Mandic in Mechanicsville, or nowhere (unless dragged off to another place by a spouse). While many would be in sympathy with the social views and politics of other churches (such as the UCC or ACoC), there is a feeling that other communities are not really churches for them, but for other groups.

A further factor is that many ex-RCs really have no idea what happens in other churches so they never think of moving to one when disenchanted with their own-- if I had a glass of single malt for every time I heard an RC comment after an Anglican funeral or nuptial mass that "it's exactly like our own," I would have barrels of Lagavulin 16-year old stacked in my parlour. Most television religion (which is where most folks get their information) is big-church evan stuff, with US preachers with southern accents.

As well, when people leave a congregation for conscientious and personal reasons, the response of leadership is usually a sigh of relief. I sometimes wonder how most seminarians and Total Ministry seminar attendees always seem to miss out on the parable of the lost sheep (the RCs here are perhaps a rare exception, as they have a ministry to former Catholics).

But, as Zach82 notes, most decision-makers feel that, if only their own faction would triumph, all would be well.

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I don't think the Utrecht churches have any presence in North America since the Polish National Catholic Church left the Union over, AIUI, Dead Horse issues. The Philippine Independent Church, perhaps?

You're right, actually... In the United States, the only church in communion with the Utrecht set is the Episcopal Church, via the Porvoo Communion-Anglican Communion ties.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

The website of the Old Catholic Church, which numbers several United States dioceses in its North American Province, states: "The ecclesiology of TOCCUSA is modeled after the Utrecht Union of Old Catholic Churches." They also link to the website of the Conference of Old Catholic Bishops, which states: "We acknowledge and accept the Union of Utrecht's Four Ecclesiological Points" and "We accept the Declaration of Utrecht (1889)."

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Right - and many Old Catholic Groups say the same. Does Utrecht recognize them? I doubt it. Basically there was one guy who was consecrated by Utrecht as a mission to the UK way back when but the lines of apostolic succession coming from him got so scattered an confused that Utrecht does not recognize any of his successor groups in the UK, US, or anywhere else for that matter. (The continental European Old Catholic Churches the are in communion with Utrecht have a different history.) Utrecht is in communion with the C of E, and the Episcopal Church has had talks with bishops representing 4 (I think) Old Catholic groups in the US (I doubt Utrecht recognized those groups either) -I do not think any full communion agreement was reached though with between TEC and those groups. I think the attempt was his as much to have all the US Old Catholic groups enter into communion with each other as it was to enter into communion with TEC. The fact that there still are a plethora of Old Catholic Churches in the US confirms for me that at least in the English Speaking world Old Catholic Churches are a type of Independent Catholic Church. Utrecht and the Continental European Old Catholic Churches are different.

This is not a discussion about what church I should join by the way! Let's just say for the time being I am staying in the RCC.

Are there any former Catholics here who have joined another denomination? A few have written already. What made you willing to accept the theological distinctives of your new denomination in the areas where they differed from Roman Catholicism? What made you feel welcome in you new church other than its stance on dead horse issues and general welcoming/tolerant nature? (I know there might be some ex Catholics here in a conservative church - your input is welcome too)

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

It's one thing having reservations about certain teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, along with having a positive experience of other Christian denominations. It is another thing entirely to physically uproot yourself as a cradle Catholic from the institution itself, explain yourself to your immediate and extended family and gain sufficient trust from a new and often quite guarded Church community.

It is far easier to simply abandon practice. That is what happens very extensively in Ireland now.

Posted by hanginginthere (# 17541) on :

As a cradle Catholic who has a rather ambivalent relationship with the Church, I am very interested in the various suggestions on this thread. Over the years I have often asked myself the question 'Why am I still here?' and have come up with different answers at different times, none of them entirely satisfactory. Yet here I still am, as my alias suggests.

Speaking for myself, I can only say there is a combination of identity (as someone upthread said, it would feel like rejecting my family, however much I might dislike the behaviour of some of the members), loyalty to my many friends and family who attend my local RC church, love of the fact that the RCC appeals to both head and heart, intuition and senses, and that its great age means that many spiritualities have developed over the centuries (Benedictine, Franciscan, Ignatian ... all now increasingly available to lay people). Yes, the more I think about it, the more I can see that it is this multi-layered richness that keeps me hanging in there.

Posted by hanginginthere (# 17541) on :

Apologies for double post! Don't know how that happened ...

Fixed. - Gwai

[ 17. May 2013, 11:49: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:

Can a person be an authentic Roman Catholic when they know that most of their participation in the church (reception if communion an other sacraments, leadership in lay ministries, ministering in lay roles during the Eucharist, is predicated on someone either being ignorant to or turning a blind eye to their dissent and disobedience?

Yes, they can. To extend Justinian's metaphor, I think most parents would prefer their children to join family celebrations, even if they had to bite their tongue to avoid having a row with some of their older relatives, than to exclude themselves.

The participation of all members makes the family strong and keeps it together. And families work out their differences over time.

[ 17. May 2013, 11:26: Message edited by: Erroneous Monk ]

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:

Are there any former Catholics here who have joined another denomination? A few have written already. What made you willing to accept the theological distinctives of your new denomination in the areas where they differed from Roman Catholicism? What made you feel welcome in you new church other than its stance on dead horse issues and general welcoming/tolerant nature? (I know there might be some ex Catholics here in a conservative church - your input is welcome too)

I went from Catholicism, to lapsing-while-still-searching, to a re-committment to Jesus & Christianity (separate from any church), to a brief stint with the Methodists, and then finally to the Episcopalians for 20 years or so, to the present....

The areas in which Episcopalianism/Anglicanism differs from Roman Catholicism were just the areas where I myself differed from Roman Catholicism--contraception, the Pope, Marian doctrines, and basically the whole issue of certainty--"We Are The Truth"--versus a broader understanding and acceptance.

I just felt welcome in a church where I didn't have to feel guilty all the time because of "breaking the rules."

I'm interested in hanginginthere's reasons for staying. The family, identity, loyalty thing I can understand.
For me, it didn't outweigh the dislike of feeling I couldn't/didn't want to live up to the rules or accept all the dogma. But then it's true the shift happened in the US, far from my family of origin, which made it easier.

The other things hanginginthere mentions--the way RCC appeals to both head and heart, and the rich layers of varying spiritualities such as Benedictine, Ignatian etc--I feel are still my heritage. Anything that's pre-Reformation is surely Christian rather than just Catholic, isn't it?

I love the Christian heritage, its great age, its history, the Church Fathers, the stories, art, hagiography, literature, Julian of Norwich, Teresa of Avila, etc, etc, and I don't feel that I've lost all that in choosing the Anglican branch of Christianity.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
I love the Christian heritage, its great age, its history, the Church Fathers, the stories, art, hagiography, literature, Julian of Norwich, Teresa of Avila, etc, etc, and I don't feel that I've lost all that in choosing the Anglican branch of Christianity.

No, you haven't. [Smile]

Posted by hanginginthere (# 17541) on :

No, I don't think I would lose them either, but since it is the RCC that has given them to me (and I mean me personally - I know other churches can hand them on too) I value the feeling of being rooted in that tradition (with a small 't'!).
A small nit-pick: Ignatian spirituality is definitely post-reformation! And since the monastic traditions were explicitly rejected at the Reformation, presumably they were seen as being Catholic rather than Christian, though, as I said, now being rediscovered by other traditions.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

The writings of both St. Ignatius Loyola (Ie, Ignatian Spirituality) and St. Theresa of Avila were both written after the beginning of the Reformation and the split of the C of E from Rome. They still belong to the Church as a whole, not just Roman Catholics.

Are there any concerts to the RCC who later left? That is more similar to my position. The fact that I chose to be in the RCC knowing its teachings as an adult complicates things. I do think I was pretty confused about morality, identity, and trueness to my conscience at the time, although I was wayyyy out of the closet and ridiculously liberal about just about everything. I think I went through a time of trying as had as I could to see things from an orthodox RCC point of view - debating quite a bit with my liberal cradle Catholic and non-Catholic friends about it-but in the end it just didn't work. Plus my family although mostly raised Catholic hasp stay either left the Church or hardly practices or identifies with Catholicism at all. My husband is openly hostile to the RCC because of its position on homosexuality. So although I have some Catholic friends, am pretty involved in my parish and its ministries (where everyone knows I am gay), and get along well with our liberal pastor my "family" in terms of who I spend most of my free time with is not exactly Roman Catholic and never really has been. My issues with the RCC are pretty much ideological and do not have to do with any rejection I have experienced directly (although I know many people in more conservative parishes who have) or any social or familial network that I am afraid of losing. I guess I am concerned that leavin the Church is like leaving a dysfunctional marriage and I am not trying hard enough to make it work when I promised to stay in the RCC for life. But marriage is not founded on ideology. If you do not believe the core doctrines (and despite what liberals say sex and gender have been up there with the Incarnation and Resurrection as core to Catholic doctrine. Bein Catholic means being chaste or at least trying to and going to confession when you fail. Membership in Alcoholics Anonymous is open to all people who are trying to stop drinking , etc.), repeat, if you do not believe the core doctrines, you were not raised in the Church, and your family is almost entirely outside the Church, why stay?

Are there any ex-converts to the RCC here? What have your experiences been like?

All that said, I am planning on staying in the RCC for the time being. I do not know why. (I also have shared my doubts with multiple priests including my confessor, so don't worry about that.)

Posted by lilyswinburne (# 12934) on :

I grew up in the Bible belt of Southern Alabama, where almost everyone is either a Baptist or a Methodist. When I was 17 I converted to Catholicism as a rebellious act against all the hell and damnation I was hearing from the Baptist church my parents made me attend! What I found in Catholicism was a soothing ritual that made no mention of hell or sin (or morals! as far as I can remember) but provided an actual experience of God's presence.

When I went to college I came out as a gay person and left the Catholic church, so obviously my conversion was not very deep, but I still remember those happy afternoons of meeting the priest in preparation for my conversion, and finding out that there was something called "theology" and that many people through the centuries had thought seriously about God, instead of just ranting and raving ignorantly about hell and sin.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

Thanks very much, Laurelin.

Whoops, hanginginthere and stonespring, my chronology was off there re Ignatius of L and Teresa of A, which if I'd thought about it for a minute I'd have realised.

Also, hanginginthere, it's true, the dissolution of the monasteries was a terrible thing and yes the monastic tradition was rejected as being Catholic.

I guess I lost sight of my sense of history--but it's because I'm hoping we're moving forward into a more ecumenical age.... the dreadful enmity between denominations is over, and now I hope that there can be more and more eroding of the firm edges between them...

Posted by hanginginthere (# 17541) on :

Cara [Smile]

I so agree with that thought, and one of the signs that this is indeed happening is that monastic traditions are being rediscovered and enthusiastically promoted by non-RCs (interestingly, the most popular, certainly in this neck of the woods, being Ignatian). Similarly many RCs are learning to appreciate the distinctive spiritualities of many Protestant denominations and also Eastern Orthodox.

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

This was brilliant.

the new normal does Catholicism

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hanginginthere:
monastic traditions are being rediscovered and enthusiastically promoted by non-RCs (interestingly, the most popular, certainly in this neck of the woods, being Ignatian).

[Nit-picking pedant can't help himself] The Ignatian tradition of the Society of Jesus is much appreciated/sought after these days by Christians of many traditions, but it is not monastic! [/nit-picking pedant shuts up]

But [a] I'm not sure that just because a development happens in the RCC after the Reformation split, it should therefore be rejected by other Christians. After all, Catholics sing Methodist and Anglican hymns. and [b], to an Anglican at least, the Church before the Reformation and the Church after it is the same Church. Monasticism is part of our tradition. The fact that it was rejected for 300 years (initially at least largely for political and financial reasons) is unfortunate and something many of us regret. But from an Anglican POV Benedictines, Franciscans etc are no more exclusively Roman Catholic than they are exclusively Anglican. They belong to the whole Church.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
This was brilliant.

the new normal does Catholicism

Yes, liberal priests are easy to find if you live in the right country and know where to look. But as older, more liberal priests die, the more liberal laypeople have fewer children (and their children are less likely to stay in the Church, and the population center of the RCC moves to the global south (which is a very good thing), the Church will stay just as conservative as it already is in terms of actual doctrine. With last issues like the Earth revolving around the Sun, slavery, democracy, etc, the RCChurch was able to change her teaching because she did not yet have a clear doctrine of what was infallible and when. Now that it does have a clear doctrine of infallibility and has said that key teachings on sexual morality and other dead horses are infallible through the Universal and Ordinary Magsiterium (ie, the Pope does not need to declare them infallible from the Chair of St Peter because either the Church has always taught it or the Bishops all agree on it at the same time). So the Church has put itself in a place where it has a clear doctrine of infallibility and it has started saying that all sorts of things are infallible (although Papal infallibility has only
Been used twice, for the Marian doctrine definitions). The RCC simply cannot change its teaching on homosexuality, for example, without the its whole theological system collapsing and all of the justification for its authority disappearing. So I don't see any grassroots reform in the RCC like New Ways Ministry (God bless them) as having much effect. They have already been excommunicated.

Posted by hanginginthere (# 17541) on :

Angloid, you are right that Ignatian tradition is not monastic - I expressed myself carelessly there! But I wasn't claiming that these traditions, monastic or otherwise, were or should be the exclusive possession of the RC Church, merely that they originated there and arose out of a Catholic theology and sensibility. And if you read my reply to Cara you will see that far from thinking these traditions should be rejected by other denominations, I rejoice that they are proving to be a fruitful ecumenical meeting point.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hanginginthere:
Cara

I so agree with that thought, and one of the signs that this is indeed happening is that monastic traditions are being rediscovered and enthusiastically promoted by non-RCs (interestingly, the most popular, certainly in this neck of the woods, being Ignatian). Similarly many RCs are learning to appreciate the distinctive spiritualities of many Protestant denominations and also Eastern Orthodox.

Indeed, we are all discovering or rediscovering the richnesses of varying traditions within Christianity...and yet there are still many groups locked into a narrow view.

I was very struck by lilyswinburne's experience of growing up in an atmosphere of rantings about hell and sin, and discovering in Catholicism "soothing ritual" and "an actual experience of God's presence" as well as realising the long history of serious thinking about God...don't know how long ago this was, though. But very interesting to read about such a narrow religious upbringing, and also this is (for me anyway) an unusual response to the RCC, coming from a completely different direction.

OTOH my own upbringing, a long while ago now, was narrow in a different way....I knew about the soothing rituals and the study of theology, but very little (until I started exploring and studying) about the different Christian denominations....and at least one sister at my convent school thought non-Catholics wouldn't make it into heaven....

I'm so glad all this prejudice is falling...has fallen?...away now.

Posted by hanginginthere (# 17541) on :

Yes, I found that really interesting too. I am always curious about people's reasons for coming into, as well as leaving, the RCC!

Talking about leaving, several people from my parish have left recently, and it seems to me that while there have been issues of principle and doctrine chipping away at their commitment to the Church for years, what has finally precipitated their exit has been something more personal - in this case the insensitive and sometimes downright uncharitable behaviour of a new parish priest. I am not saying they left in a fit of pique, but that the pp's behaviour brought to a head for them their problems with the church and was the last straw.

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Squirrel:
Count me as one of those dis-affected RCs who found a home in the Episcopal Church, although I now belong to a Lutheran congregation. I've met plenty of alienated Catholics in both denominations.

That having been said, the majority of pissed-off Catholics I've encountered still identify themselves as RC. Some actively participate in the Church, while others don't, but still call themselves Catholics. Such folks usually ignore the teachings about birth control, divorce, etc. This has earned them the unflattering nickname of "Cafeteria Catholics" in some circles; they pick and choose what they believe and accept.

I myself tried being a "Cafeteria Catholic" for a long time, but found it impossible to tune out the constant barrage of "pro-life" and other social teachings which I kept hearing at Mass. As the church took more hard-line stands on these issues, eventually realized I couldn't continue attending its services.

Every now and then I try getting back into my RC heritage, which is of course part of my family history going waaaaaay back. Recently I picked up a copy of our local diocese's newspaper, and read about how they were promoting "self-help" groups for men who acknowledged homosexual tendencies, but knew it was wrong to act upon them. I'm straight, but can't take such stuff seriously. Sorry.

I wish I attended your old parish. The sort of evil we allow to happen whilst calling ourselves Christian sickens me.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

True - capitalism, environmental destruction, the oppression of women and minorities and being involved in government corruption are great evils which the Church has been silent on too often.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

I think I will stay in the RCC whether or not her leaders consider me to be in communion with her. That said, receiving communion even at my liberal parish where most everyone including the priest knows and approves that I am in a same-sex marriage feels dishonest. It feels illegitimate and I have spent my life yearning for belonging and legitimacy. People have tried to address this discomfort in different ways. Dignity USA which is now excommunicated and cannot meet on RCC property has its own Masses led by RC priests "on the down low"- although the Masses are publically announced, the priests presiding are not if they would get in trouble if the bishop found out. That feels illegitimate as well, and since Dignity also invited RC Womenpriests to preside at their Masses as well and often radically alters the Liturgy they seem more and more like a separate denomination, even if Dignity members often keep attending their own RC parishes.

Then there are people who are a little bit of everything. They probably think they are making full and visible ecumenical unity happen now while the leaders continue to squabble with one another. Given Catholic ecclesiology and the importance of orthodoxy and obedience for communion I find that questionable. That said, is it wrong to have two parishes, one where you fight for the RCC to change an another (say an Episcopal one) where (if you as a Roman Catholic can get yourself to believe in the validity of Anglican orders) where you don't feel like receiving the Eucharist is an illegitimate act? (And where serving at the altar, leading in lay ministries, etc., also do not feel illegitimate?) Or is that abandoning the RCC in all but name by trying to have your cake and eat it too (why is that wrong?) If you still give money, attend weekly and Holy Day Mass, and are active in ministry at an RC parish does it make you any less of a Roman Catholic that you do all do the same things at an Episcopal parish? I guess I could make my husband's Lutheran church my second parish but I just don't agree with their conception of Liturgy and can't stand that they re-consecrate consecrated hosts and use grape juice that has not fermented at all in addition to wine (ok I know most people don't care about those things). I already feel like an exile the RCC no matter how welcoming a parish may be. Does that have to mean I have to spend my whole life on Earth not being a member of a church that fully accepts me for who I am (abd whom I marry) and allows me if called by God to serve in any ministry? Ok replace all the I's there with "one" so we don't have to talk about me in particular.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

Stonespring, I know exactly what you mean about feeling "illegitimate" remaining in the Catholic church while knowing that in the eyes of the church as a whole, even if not those of your local priest and parish, you are sinning because of living in a same-sex marriage...

And I understand that desire for legitimacy and acceptance.

I couldn't deal with that feeling of illegitimacy, which is why, as I've explained, I left the RCC.

It sounds as if you want to go on trying to deal with that tension, especially as you've found an accepting RCC community on the local level, while still longing for that ideal church where you'll feel 100% accepted and OK...

I personally think you could find that ideal in the Anglican church. However I am coming round to a greater respect than heretofore for Catholics who stay patiently within the fold and try to change it from within, or wait in the hope it will change. I bought into the Catholic mind-set--well, I was inculcated into it from day 1!-- and called them, with some scorn, cafeteria Catholics, because I felt everyone who doesn't subscribe to the whole kit and caboodle should leave, as I did.

I am belatedly coming to see--especially from posts like yours--that there are other equally honest ways of dealing with this tension, and my solution may not work for other Catholics, especially those who feel it is very much their home, their "family," and the place where they belong.

I'm embarrassed it has taken so long for me to see this. But then that "all or nothing" approach is very deep-rooted in my Catholic upbringing. And I admire so much those Catholics who
can accept it all. Am probably still working through the guilt of not being able to!

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Is there a place for people who do not believe that Scripture contains all things necessary or salvation. or that it is the primary arbiter of religious truth, etc, etc among Anglican Clergy? Could they go around teaching and writing something opposing it (and more in line with the RC or orthodox view of scripture) without receiving an official reprimand?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Is there a place for people who do not believe that Scripture contains all things necessary or salvation. or that it is the primary arbiter of religious truth, etc, etc among Anglican Clergy? Could they go around teaching and writing something opposing it (and more in line with the RC or orthodox view of scripture) without receiving an official reprimand?

I can't imagine what one would teach in that vein, but certainly.

[ 23. May 2013, 19:01: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Well, you could teach The Immaculate
Conception, the Assumption, the idea that if the impediments to a reunited Church were removed, the bishop of Rome would be the leader of the global Church and not just first among equals (maybe even Papal Infallibility when speakin ex cathedra), Purgatory, Indulgences (either Pope-based or you could develop theology to have them be bishop-based without Needing Papal permission), prayer to Mary and the saints as Eucharistic adoration as all but necessary things an not just devotional options...and although you would admit that you dot need to believe all these things to be saved, every Christian should believe these things and should try to convince other Christians to believe them. And even if some passages of Scripture may indirectly suppor these things, they do not need to laid out in Scripture in order to be true.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Well, you could teach The Immaculate
Conception, the Assumption, the idea that if the impediments to a reunited Church were removed, the bishop of Rome would be the leader of the global Church and not just first among equals (maybe even Papal Infallibility when speakin ex cathedra), Purgatory, Indulgences (either Pope-based or you could develop theology to have them be bishop-based without Needing Papal permission), prayer to Mary and the saints as Eucharistic adoration as all but necessary things an not just devotional options...and although you would admit that you dot need to believe all these things to be saved, every Christian should believe these things and should try to convince other Christians to believe them. And even if some passages of Scripture may indirectly suppor these things, they do not need to laid out in Scripture in order to be true.

As long as you didn't demand anyone else believe those things, I don't suppose there would be too many problems.

There are Anglicans who believe the Marian doctrines, and the American Church officially reintroduced prayers for the dead in the '79 BCP. The stuff about the Pope might turn some heads, (or at least greatly confuse everyone), but so long as one doesn't go about preaching rebellion against the bishop and the Church or outright apostasy we tend to put up with a lot.

Though I for the life of me I can't imagine why a person that believes the Pope is the true, infallible head of the Church would be in schism with him.

[ 23. May 2013, 19:39: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
the American Church officially reintroduced prayers for the dead in the '79 BCP.

Mais non--that was in the 1928 : "And we also bless thy holy Name for all thy servants departed this life in thy faith and fear; beseeching thee to grant them continual growth in thy love and service, and to give us grace so to follow their good examples, that with them we may be partakers of thy heavenly kingdom."

Emphasis mine, of course. Many of the hard-line Reformed in the Anglican Realignment movement disparage the 1928 for this reason, and favor the 1662 instead.

[ 23. May 2013, 20:03: Message edited by: Fr Weber ]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

I already knew that some Anglican priests have been teaching things that are not just Anglo Catholic but out and out Papist for some time now, and that although even a Chasuble used to be illegal in the C of E all kinds of Popery are tolerated now.

But there is a difference between being tolerated and being allowed. Are Anglican priests who tell their congregants they really should pray to Mary, request Mass be said for their deceased loved ones, try to get indulgences for the forgiveness of their venial sins, go to confession regularly and not receive communion if try have any I confessed mortal sins, believe in the Immaculate Conception as a doctrine and not just a devotion, and pray that one day we will settle our disputes about dead horses and the like and all be united with a Pope (perhaps from an Anglican Church) to guide us all...and that they should evangelize these beliefs among fellow Anglicans as well as the world at large...are such priests permitted to do that or are they just getting away with it just like all the RC priests who ignore the rubrics of the Missal on a daily basis? Could an Anglican bishop tell them to stop teaching these things? Would the priests be able to appeal the bishops's decision? I am sure such teaching would not be allowed in the Archdiocese of Sydney. I am not use about anywhere else.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I already knew that some Anglican priests have been teaching things that are not just Anglo Catholic but out and out Papist for some time now, and that although even a Chasuble used to be illegal in the C of E all kinds of Popery are tolerated now.

But there is a difference between being tolerated and being allowed. Are Anglican priests who tell their congregants they really should pray to Mary, request Mass be said for their deceased loved ones, try to get indulgences for the forgiveness of their venial sins, go to confession regularly and not receive communion if try have any I confessed mortal sins, believe in the Immaculate Conception as a doctrine and not just a devotion, and pray that one day we will settle our disputes about dead horses and the like and all be united with a Pope (perhaps from an Anglican Church) to guide us all...and that they should evangelize these beliefs among fellow Anglicans as well as the world at large...are such priests permitted to do that or are they just getting away with it just like all the RC priests who ignore the rubrics of the Missal on a daily basis? Could an Anglican bishop tell them to stop teaching these things? Would the priests be able to appeal the bishops's decision? I am sure such teaching would not be allowed in the Archdiocese of Sydney. I am not use about anywhere else.

Yeah, one could preach those things. The line would be drawn, however, at actually requiring others to believe or obey those things. One could preach the importance of confession before making one's communion, but a priest probably wouldn't be able to actually bar people from communion for not doing so- at least not for long.

I have no idea what the canons are in other provinces, but the United States Church does have a process for individuals to sue their bishop in an ecclesial court if they feel they've been wronged. The most recent case involves the ridiculous happenings in the Diocese of South Carolina.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0