Ship of Fools: Difference between CofE & RC for your average bloke in the pew

Thread: Difference between CofE & RC for your average bloke in the pew 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=029216

Posted by Amir Emrra (# 18100) on :

Hello, I’m not a regular contributor to anything, I know, but I’d appreciate your indulgence of this fragile, fringe member. I am earnestly considering moving from Anglo- to Roman Catholicism. Being between churches, indeed, maybe even post-church, I have no-one to really challenge and inform my thinking, so would you please do the honours?

Warning: I do not want this to be a CofE-bashing thread. Yes, there is clearly implied criticism of the CofE in the questions I pose below but it is borne of my personal, reasonably wide, experience. If your experience differs - good for you; just please don't try to convince me that "it's all in me 'ead". Yes, I am still very angry and very, very hurt but that’s personal stuff which I am working through and am not going to offload here, so please don’t tempt me! Suffice to say that my recent experience of the CofE diocesan/parish system has been an exceptionally nasty one, and there is absolutely no prospect of me ever again darkening the threshold of a CofE parish church or cathedral. That shi*‘s been flushed. Time to move on.

But move on to what? While I have been, until now, comfortably Anglo-Catholic, what I had thought would be a simple tweak to that adjective's pre-modifier is suddenly giving me the willies. Is this a final vestige of prejudice from my long-gone charo-evo days? Surely not! Or an understandable fear of getting shafted again? Maybe. I don’t know.

So over to you. Here are the questions vexing me - chose one from:

- Is bullying as endemic? (bullying by both priests and parishioners)
- Is parish politics as crippling to Mission?
- Is there reasonable discernment and veto over lay-appointments?
- Am I correct in my perception that Roman parish priests have meaningful authority in the parish? Or at least prepared to exercise it?
- Are priests generally more trustworthy?
- Are priests generally less obtuse?
- What are the prospects of getting ensnared in Lotus-Eater parishes?
- Will I be able to serve in some meaningful way outside of ordained ministry? (pastoral rather than admin)
- Is there prejudice against the middle-aged when applying to serve?
- What else might you say that I need to know?

Thanks, Amir

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amir Emrra:
- Is bullying as endemic? (bullying by both priests and parishioners)

I don't really know what "bullying" means here? I've not felt bullied in any of the multiple RC parishes I've been part of, by priests or anybody else. My standard RC experience is more "supermarket": being one "customer" among many others, being mostly ignored in the expectation that one will get on with one's business, and being politely dealt with if one pipes up over some problem.

quote:
Originally posted by Amir Emrra:
- Is parish politics as crippling to Mission?

I've not been to a RC place with strong "mission", if you mean by that the bringing in and converting of outsiders. I don't think that has much to do with "parish politics" though. The RCs I know just aren't particularly pushy about their faith... It would take stellar parish politics to get them going, really.

quote:
Originally posted by Amir Emrra:
- Is there reasonable discernment and veto over lay-appointments?

Probably not. Mostly I would expect that if you raise your hand you will get the "job". In fact, if you appear keen - i.e., show up early to mass and do not rush out ASAP after - "jobs" will probably end up finding you at an alarming rate...

quote:
Originally posted by Amir Emrra:
- Am I correct in my perception that Roman parish priests have meaningful authority in the parish? Or at least prepared to exercise it?

Sure. The priest is the "boss". Just how much time and willpower he might find to micromanage things is a different question.

quote:
Originally posted by Amir Emrra:
- Are priests generally more trustworthy?

I don't know about "more", but the RC priests I have met certainly were trustworthy.

quote:
Originally posted by Amir Emrra:
- Are priests generally less obtuse?

Most RC priests are above average acute, I would say.

quote:
Originally posted by Amir Emrra:
- What are the prospects of getting ensnared in Lotus-Eater parishes?

I have no idea what that means. Sound exciting though, like some kind of kung fu movie.

quote:
Originally posted by Amir Emrra:
- Will I be able to serve in some meaningful way outside of ordained ministry? (pastoral rather than admin)

Sure.

quote:
Originally posted by Amir Emrra:
- Is there prejudice against the middle-aged when applying to serve?

Not really, no.The best age for serving is generally "currently available".

quote:
Originally posted by Amir Emrra:
- What else might you say that I need to know?

Your questions seem ... tense. Chill. If you want to find out what RCs are like, just hang out with them. But expect to be largely ignored unless you engage first.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Well, it sounds like the best idea is to start attending RC churches in your area and talk to their blokes in the pews to get a sense of what you might expect.

Keep in mind that you may run into jerks in any church situation. I doubt that your experiences in the CoE were "all in your head", but crossing the Tiber might not be the cure-all for escaping obnoxious Christians. They're everywhere [Paranoid]

along with lots of kind, delightful people.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I'm envious of the LACK of Evangelicalism and worse in the RCC I must admit. I know from experience I'd fit in just fine.

I felt another lack on Friday, significant numbers of our guests at the soup kitchen are RC and need an immediate pastoral, confessional response. I tell them to go to confession, but they are alienated and in extremis.

Hmmm. I'm going to HAVE to go and talk to a priest aren't I!

And an Imam ...

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

You've obviously had a bad experience, but it would be unfair to tar the entire CofE with the same brush. While there may be parishes that behave in the way you've described, there are others that don't. The same thing would also apply not just to the Roman Catholic Church, but to every other Christian denomination.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

To be honest,I'm not even sure if it's a good idea to switch denominations when you're in this state of mind. It doesn't always end well. There's something to be said for waiting until you've calmed down a bit.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

One aspect of RC practice which you (probably are and) ought to be aware of when testing the water is the different discipline the Roman Catholic Church exercises over admission to communion. Online I can only find the Guidelines issued by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, but I think the UK is the same.

In exploring the wider question raised in your OP, you may find the Ignatian wisdom about consolation and desolation helpful.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Amir Emrra
I was rather shocked to read your initial post, but I'll give you my two-pennorth in response to your questions.

- Is bullying as endemic? (bullying by both priests and parishioners) Can be, depends on the parish – just like in the CofE or any other large organisation.

- Is parish politics as crippling to Mission? Is it, really? Your description may also apply to an RC place because it is likely to be subjective.

- Is there reasonable discernment and veto over lay-appointments? Definitely veto, not sure about reasonable discernment – and how is anyone supposed to measure that anyway? Again, purely subjective.

- Am I correct in my perception that Roman parish priests have meaningful authority in the parish? They have total authority right up until they annoy the bishop who can move them at, literally, a moment’s notice.
Or at least prepared to exercise it?Depends on the man, doesn’t it?

- Are priests generally more trustworthy?Than what or whom? They’re human so likely to have the same frailties as the rest of us.

- Are priests generally less obtuse? Not in my experience – and I worked with them on a day-to-day basis for years.

- What are the prospects of getting ensnared in Lotus-Eater parishes? What the hell is a ‘lotus-eater parish’?

- Will I be able to serve in some meaningful way outside of ordained ministry? (pastoral rather than admin)Unlikely until you’ve been around for some time; certainly not straight away as a ‘convert’.

- Is there prejudice against the middle-aged when applying to serve?Serve in what capacity? Again, it depends on the priest and parish – just like in the CofE.

- What else might you say that I need to know?That you shouldn’t be approaching the question of ‘becoming a Roman Catholic’ on the basis of a checklist of barely disguised annoyances with your present status in a CofE parish.

I’m sorry if that sounds harsh but surely the only reason for anyone to be considering becoming a Roman Catholic is if they are convinced about the various doctrines they will have to sign up to, are prepared to accept the primacy of the pope – and effectively agree that their Christian experience up to now has been false. You’re going to be saying that you accept that, apart from Baptism (and even that won’t be accepted in some RC circles) every single experience of holy communion has been meaningless; fine if that is really what you think but is it?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
You’re going to be saying that you accept that, apart from Baptism (and even that won’t be accepted in some RC circles) every single experience of holy communion has been meaningless; fine if that is really what you think but is it?

Let's be clear: this is bullshit. Becoming RC does not entail making that kind of statement. What it would entail is agreeing that only RC priests (and most non-RC Eastern Orthodox priests, and perhaps some odd cases...) are guaranteed to be able to turn bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ by sacramental consecration. It does not follow at all that a mass operating without such guarantee is religiously "meaningless" in a personal sense, indeed, it does not follow at all that it is empty of actual Divine grace.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

FWIW, I think the crap stuff happens anywhere and everywhere. I can understand your reticence and wish to avoid being 'shafted' again ...

I think that's a common reaction and one that isn't exclusively felt by people who've had charismatic evangelical backgrounds in the dim and distant as you say you've done ...

I think it does make it harder for people to settle down though. I've sometimes been seen as someone who wouldn't comfortably fit in anywhere - but I think my tolerance level is far higher than it might appear in conversation or online.

I s'pose my take would be that you wouldn't find the same problems within the RC or with the Orthodox or Copts or whatever else - but a whole different set of problems. Swings and roundabouts.

I agree with the posters who say that if you are going to cross the Tiber, do so because you see something over there that you like and admire and want to explore - not because you want to get away from whatever it is that bugs you on this side of the bank.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Obviously you are feeling very badly hurt after an experience in your church. Can I take what others have said a step further and say that this is exactly not the time to be thinking of changing. You need to be in a much better frame of mind than you are at the moment.

When that time comes, look at the list you have set out and consider if from time to time instances of bullying may occur in any institution; in a similar frame of mind work through your list. You need to look carefully at some of your questions and try to reframe them in a less subjective manner.

Having done that, ask what yourself it is that has kept you from making the change in the past. There are probably some RC doctrines to which up to now you have been unable adhere. Ask yourself if you now are sincerely able to subscribe to them. Remember that the Catholic Church is less accepting or tolerating of dissent than any Anglican church I know of, where rejoicing in the differences which bind us together is a way of life for many.

Finally, remember that it's pretty unlikely that someone newly received into any church will be "invited to serve" until they have shown a real commitment, something which may take some years particularly if the serving rosters are full.

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :

In other words, are you running away from, or towards?

As a cradle Catholic who did a kind of denominational drift into the CoE I would agree with the people who have responded so far. It all depends on who is running the show and the kind of people they, and the parishioners, are.

The last time I was involved in "mission" it was as a pupil in a nun-run prep school in the '50s, and we were collecting for funds to baptise "black babies."

Times change.

Also, what is a lotus-eating parish, and can I join?

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

If we trust in God, surely we go to whichever church we are led to by the Holy Spirit, knowing that the people there will not be perfect - but then, neither are we!

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

All that said, I do think your average RC suck is probably different from your average Anglican suck - in particular also from your average Anglo-Catholic suck. I'm not sure that hunting for the suck one is bothered by least is the best reason for choosing a Church. But it certainly is not the worst reason either...

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

I'm guessing lotus eaters are the like the ones in the Tennyson poem who are ignoring the world around them in a state of drugged bliss.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

CofE suck = RC suck + tea and cake

Hmm, I'd go for that.

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

Two years ago I had a very horrible experience in my former church; very, very bad. It should have been a matter of a quick apology and then everyone could have moved on, but of course the CofE does not work that way.

Now I am far wiser, and very disillusioned indeed. What has prevented me leaving completely is my present Vicar. I met him within days of the nastiness, and he helped me practically and emotionally. He has been very patient and very kind. He too has tried to prompt the church to act; he too gets ignored.

Fast forward through countless emails and letters and I am still waiting for the Church to have the grace to admit that something went badly wrong and to apologise because it would help me to know that they understand what has happened. I have concluded that it is incapable of doing so; somehow the words stick in their throats and they cannot do it.

I thought of Rome. I thought of Orthodoxy. But there is a problem with both of these; I am an Anglican; rather higher than my present church and so a bit of a fish out of water, but nonetheless an Anglican. I do not know how to be Catholic.

I think what I am trying to say is, why should you change who you are? If you and I can see that something is wrong then we really ought to try to put it right, if we can. Or at least to try.

In the meantime I think if I were you and honestly could not face a CofE church (and I can completely understand that) I think I would take refuge with the Methodists for a while, just to give myself time to think.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Shoulda posted this here.

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

I am in a similar position to the OP, except my disillusionment with the CofE is not personal, but rather just disappointment. This organisation is dying because it doesn’t live. Most parishes I’ve visited consist of a collection of elderly people who are desperate that nothing must change before their funeral – after which they won’t care. (Exceptions abound of course, but that’s my overall impression of this church). My recent move to a new-town, which was formed almost half a century ago, and finding the CofE still treats the place like the collection of villages it was in the 1950s has not helped. Suffice it to say that the dear old CofE neither recognises the need to change nor understands the process involved in changing.

Add to this the fact that the church is headed by our monarch head of state. That can’t be right! It goes against everything a church should be. Never mind the bishops in the House of Lords – what about the lords in the house of Bishops for Christ’s sake?

So I can’t stay with this. (I’ve vaguely considered spending a year with a local “successful” CofE parish, but that mean bowing the God of PSA, and putting the mass on a back burner. I find those things very hard to stomach – I even found myself recoiling at the fact they don’t use the lectionary in a CofE parish.)

My worry is that I’ll find in the RC church even more of the same objections. Replace the Queen with the Pope and everything else stays the same. At least it’s an international church, but perhaps the veneer of English respectability will be just as thick. I’m thinking of Father Brown here – is his parish typical?

The other option is the Orthodox or course, but for me that means a car journey every Sunday. I found them just a bit too, err, different in their style of worship, though perhaps I’d get the hang of it after a while.
(I thought about the Methodists too, but the words “baby” and “bath water” just seem too apt. All the worst bits of the CofE with none of the redeeming features.)

I’m still not sure where to go with this. BCP worship in a country church on Sunday was as uplifting as it was painful. I desperately need the religion, but can’t face the church. I think a lot of repentance and prayer are needed (by me, I mean) before I decide which mast to nail my colours to.

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

Sorry Amir. You said not make this a CofE bashing thread. I seem to have fallen into that trap. I do apologise. I hope the tread can get back on course.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

Humble Servant - admittedly I giggled at your comment on Methodism, but it might be a little harsh!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

It's funny, but I react when non-Anglicans or former Anglicans tend to have a go at the CofE but I don't get in the least bit bothered when people who are currently Anglican have a go at it.

I don't know why that should be ...

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
My worry is that I’ll find in the RC church even more of the same objections. Replace the Queen with the Pope and everything else stays the same. At least it’s an international church, but perhaps the veneer of English respectability will be just as thick. I’m thinking of Father Brown here – is his parish typical?

Dunno. In my parish in Reading, I would say about 30-40% of the faces at mass are African, South American or Asian, and 70-80% of the altar servers (kids) are. I suspect a number of the remaining "white" faces are of Polish persuasion, by virtue of me not understanding their Slavic sounding chatter. I'm originally German myself, of course, and in mixed marriage to an Asian. So I expect any English veneer still remaining in parishes like mine is going to go the way of the Dodo rather rapidly... Probably the English English are still in a majority. Just.

I don't remember what Father Brown's parish was like in the stories. But I expect that it was a caricature even in Chesterton's days, and Chesterton has been dead for almost eighty years now.

Anyway, I don't get all the "ifs" and "buts". Just go and check the local RCs out, if you are interested. Visiting RC masses is really very painless, since nobody pays any attention to you unless you work hard at getting some. Maybe there are some ultra-small RC parishes out there where you would get approached the first time. But I have never been, and I have been to small RC places all over the world. People just assume (correctly for the most part) that you are a RC from somewhere else, who is currently on the road. And frankly, small parishes are disappearing rapidly at least in the West as they get chucked together into ever bigger units to become "viable".

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
CofE suck = RC suck + tea and cake

Hmm, I'd go for that.

RC suck = CofE suck - (tea and cake) + (Polish/Italian/Mexican food) + beer

Hmm, I'd go for that.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

It depends on which end of the CofE you're talking about ... at the more 'Carthlick' end it's lace and gin not tea and cake ...

As for beer ... well, not Mexican beer, thank you very much - it doesn't taste of anything and is just there to quench the chillis ...

Posted by Amir Emrra (# 18100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
You've obviously had a bad experience, but it would be unfair to tar the entire CofE with the same brush.

As I said, if you are happy then good for you. I don't mean to tar liberally, but in my non-scientific survey, 10/14 priests & diocesan officals were on the incompetent spectrum. I'd confidently extrapolate that line quite far given the experiences of other acquaintances of mine.

Notable, all A-C priests were true ikons for me. Pity I don't live anywhere near an A-C parish.

Posted by Amir Emrra (# 18100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Amir Emrra:
- What else might you say that I need to know?
Your questions seem ... tense. Chill. If you want to find out what RCs are like, just hang out with them. But expect to be largely ignored unless you engage first. [/QB]

Well discerned, sir. That's the thing, I find myself with some irrational prejudice. That's what I'm trying to deal with.

Posted by Amir Emrra (# 18100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
To be honest,I'm not even sure if it's a good idea to switch denominations when you're in this state of mind. It doesn't always end well. There's something to be said for waiting until you've calmed down a bit.

I know, I know. Others have advised me thus privately. Thing is it's been a long, slow car-crash - slow-mo, life-before-your-eyes stuff. I saw it coming but hoped all along that I was wrong. So, I've had quite a lot of time to process it. The problem is that several key players have refused all conciliation or arbitration; forgiveness for them will come very slowly, if at all. I cannot afford to live out my faith alone for such a long time.

Posted by Amir Emrra (# 18100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:

In exploring the wider question raised in your OP, you may find the Ignatian wisdom about consolation and desolation helpful. [/QB]

Good link. Thanks.

Posted by Amir Emrra (# 18100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Amir Emrra
I was rather shocked to read your initial post, but I'll give you my two-pennorth in response to your questions.

- What else might you say that I need to know?That you shouldn’t be approaching the question of ‘becoming a Roman Catholic’ on the basis of a checklist of barely disguised annoyances with your present status in a CofE parish.

I’m sorry if that sounds harsh but surely the only reason for anyone to be considering becoming a Roman Catholic is if they are convinced about the various doctrines they will have to sign up to, are prepared to accept the primacy of the pope – and effectively agree that their Christian experience up to now has been false. You’re going to be saying that you accept that, apart from Baptism (and even that won’t be accepted in some RC circles) every single experience of holy communion has been meaningless; fine if that is really what you think but is it?

No problem L'Organist. I'm perfectly open to a grounding slap across the face, en agape!

Should have explained - these are far from my only criteria. My theology is largely congruent with Rome anyway. I see my move as looking to different leadership more than anything. I will not be renouncing any aspect of my spiritual journey. These questions are more to do with praxis, and a strong dose of self-preservation.

Posted by Amir Emrra (# 18100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I agree with the posters who say that if you are going to cross the Tiber, do so because you see something over there that you like and admire and want to explore - not because you want to get away from whatever it is that bugs you on this side of the bank. [/QB]

Agreed. I do so admire, at least at a high level from outside. My history makes me wary of the detail though, that's what I cannot easily see. Admittedly, with a functional A-C parish nearby I would not be considering it at all. But I don't have that luxury, and I am not welcome in/am frustrated with local parishes. Actually, I really resent being put in this situation in the first place, having to shake the dust off my feet at an unwelcoming home. You and others are correct - it's a crappy motive for considering changing church but, in the face of continual abuse, it is not essentially wrong.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Sounds like you might feel at home in th ordinariate of our lady of walsingham.

Posted by Amir Emrra (# 18100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:

The last time I was involved in "mission" it was as a pupil in a nun-run prep school in the '50s, and we were collecting for funds to baptise "black babies."

I just mean mission in the general sense - evangelism, spiritual formation, catechesis, pastoral care, social justice etc.

I would describe a church of faith without works as a lotus-eating parish.

and can I join? [/QUOTE]
If you pour good tea, bake good cake, and only be seen on a Sunday, then I'm sure there'd be a place for you [Smile]

Posted by Amir Emrra (# 18100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Sounds like you might feel at home in th ordinariate of our lady of walsingham.

Possibly, but there's nothing within 30 miles.

Posted by Amir Emrra (# 18100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
All that said, I do think your average RC suck is probably different from your average Anglican suck - in particular also from your average Anglo-Catholic suck. I'm not sure that hunting for the suck one is bothered by least is the best reason for choosing a Church. But it certainly is not the worst reason either...

I refer the honourable Shipmate to my earlier reply on being forced into this corner. I am actually looking for somewhere that is safe and where I can thrive. I'm not just looking pessimistically for the minimum-suck environment.

Posted by Amir Emrra (# 18100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:

I think what I am trying to say is, why should you change who you are? If you and I can see that something is wrong then we really ought to try to put it right, if we can. Or at least to try.

In the meantime I think if I were you and honestly could not face a CofE church (and I can completely understand that) I think I would take refuge with the Methodists for a while, just to give myself time to think. [/QB]

As with your situation, I know that it will never be put right. God knows I've tried. Thankfully, I have found a safe (most of the time), non-parish refuge.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It depends on which end of the CofE you're talking about ... at the more 'Carthlick' end it's lace and gin not tea and cake ...

As for beer ... well, not Mexican beer, thank you very much - it doesn't taste of anything and is just there to quench the chillis ...

Deeply Catholic Bavarians know a thing or two about beer, as do Belgian Trappists...

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amir Emrra:

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
You've obviously had a bad experience, but it would be unfair to tar the entire CofE with the same brush.
As I said, if you are happy then good for you. I don't mean to tar liberally, but in my non-scientific survey, 10/14 priests & diocesan officals were on the incompetent spectrum. I'd confidently extrapolate that line quite far given the experiences of other acquaintances of mine.

Notable, all A-C priests were true ikons for me. Pity I don't live anywhere near an A-C parish.

Where generally are you located?

I do sympathise with your quandry, and have nothing useful to add but I hope you find a place of spiritual rest soon [Votive]

May I gently suggest that visiting a religious order (Anglican or Catholic, though I have no personal experience of the Catholic ones but I'm sure Shippies do) for a time of retreat and spiritual refreshment may help? The Anglican ones at least are pretty well spread-out across the country with the exception of perhaps the north-west.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

A church that will be safe where you can thrive, for an AC on the outs with the local non-AC CofE, for whom AC priests are icons but the non-AC CofE priests are largely incompetent...

I think finding what you want in the RC church will depend partly on the particular RC church you find yourself at. A lot of it may depend on exactly why you have found AC good, non-AC bad within the CofE. Roman Catholics share some things with Anglo-Catholics, but differ on other things, hence the Ordinariate.

Is there a reason why you wouldn't just go along to an RC church near you and find out what it's like?

Posted by crunt (# 1321) on :

To the OP
I think that the difference between CofE and RC for your average bloke in the pew is that when the average pew-dweller in a CofE church has a disagreeable or unpleasant experience at church, he is likely to vote with his feet and park himself on another pew in another of the town's CofE churches. The average pew-dweller in an RC church who suffers a similarly disagreeable situation is less likely to trundle off to another RC church in the town, and more likely to just stay put and maybe 'offer it up' as he fulfills his religious obligation.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

Come to an Irish RC parish, no one will take any notice of you and you'll never hear any decent music again.

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amir Emrra:
As with your situation, I know that it will never be put right. God knows I've tried. Thankfully, I have found a safe (most of the time), non-parish refuge.

Yes, mine is safe most of the time too. Not all of the time, sadly.

I am very sorry for what happened to you; I don't know if it was anything like my situation at all, but I know the potential for harm is immense. And that the church seems oblivious to this.

[ 30. June 2015, 08:32: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:
It all depends on who is running the show and the kind of people they, and the parishioners, are.

I'd re-iterate the above, the OP seems to be trying to seek an institutional solution to a human problem.

Crossing over for anything other than conviction seems a little pointless to me - neither side guarentees you'll never encounter a dysfunctional parish again.

[ 30. June 2015, 08:51: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, the Belgian Trappists and the Catholic Bavarians do know a thing or two about beer ...

And of course -

'Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine,
There's music and laughter and good red wine.
Wherever I travel I find it so,
Benedicamus Domino'.

(quoted from memory so excuse any faux-pas)

Posted by Vidi Aquam (# 18433) on :

I don't think most ACs would be comfortable in a typical Novus Ordo RCC. They tend to be VERY low church. Your best bet would be to find a non CofE AC parish if there's one near you. Or a RCC that has the Traditional Latin Mass. Or an Old Catholic Church. There are 100s of groups that have the traditional Mass in Latin or English, many not affiliated with any mainline denomination. There may be one near you. Try google.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

There is absolutely no point in crossing over to the RC church unless you find that you can accept that the RC church is what it claims to be.

Look at and read the catechism and above all do not listen to what non-RCs say about what the RC church says about non-RCs- most of what is said from the outside is simply not true.

Don't expect to find perfection within the RC church - you will only get that in Heaven.

However,as many people have said no one ,in general, will bother you within any given church.
In fact you may feel ignored.In general again RCs go to church to speak to God and to listen to His Word as well as to receive His sacraments. Anything else is incidental,though that is not to say it is not important.

Amongst themselves RCs in UK (being for a long time a somewhat persecuted minority) have close (and sometimes closed) ties of kinship. Although people in RC churches may appear to ignore one another ,they often know almost everything about everyone else with any link to Catholicism.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It depends on which end of the CofE you're talking about ... at the more 'Carthlick' end it's lace and gin not tea and cake ...

As for beer ... well, not Mexican beer, thank you very much - it doesn't taste of anything and is just there to quench the chillis ...
Deeply Catholic Bavarians know a thing or two about beer, as do Belgian Trappists...

OTOH
this beer has, curiously enough, a Methodist inspiration- a reminder that there was a time when temperance meant just that, rather than total abstention.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

From the mid 19 century, temperance did mean complete abstinence from alcohol (teetotalism).

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, I've supped the Reverend James a number of times - I'm not that taken with it, to be honest - compared with other beers from the Brains stable.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

But not earlier in the century, when the Revd Mr Buckley was brewing beer and exercising his ministry in Carmarthenshire. AIUI beer was promoted as a better alternative to spirits.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Just looking back at Vidi Aquam's post makes me think of what I consider to be a major difference between CofE and RC.

For Anglo-Catholics, they tend to equate Catholiciam with celebration of Mass,especially with use of incense and 'Catholic' ceremonial.
If you are CofE and these things don't mean anything you can easily go to another type of CofE church.

For RCs,they tend to equate Catholicism with membership of the Catholic community.

Most AC CofE churches tend to have slightly different forms of Mass and often argue (especially on these boards) as to what is the 'right' way to do things.

Although there are indeed many different rites within the Catholic church most of the faithful only know the one form - the modern Roman rite.

50 years ago there was comparatively little music
in general in the RC church in the UK.

When I think of my own childhood parish with 5000 parishioners, 5 Masses on a Sunday and 5 priests.
Only one Mass had any music - a sung Latin Mass with possibly one hymn in English at the end - taken from the list of about a dozen hymns which everyone knew.High Mass with deacon and subdeacon was celebrated three times a year -Christmas,Easter and Pentecost.

Since Vatican 2 there is comparativelv more singing with regular singing at most Masses.

As Vidi Aquam suggests if music and ceremonial is your cup of tea,then don't go looking for it in the RC church.

While you may find it sometimes,what you will more easily find is a sense of community,of everyone being in the same boat, which is of course the barque of Peter.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Most of my friends who have 'gone over to Rome' (and there are many) say that the biggest difference is social class.

The C of E is very middle class, even in some urban priority areas.

The RCC is much more socially inclusive.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
But not earlier in the century, when the Revd Mr Buckley was brewing beer and exercising his ministry in Carmarthenshire. AIUI beer was promoted as a better alternative to spirits.

Better than spirits and safer than water.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Most of my friends who have 'gone over to Rome' (and there are many) say that the biggest difference is social class.

The C of E is very middle class, even in some urban priority areas.

The RCC is much more socially inclusive.

Well, it has quite a lot of working class and poor people of Irish /Italian/ Portuguese/ Polish etc extraction. I don't know how much of a white British working class/ poor membership it has.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
Come to an Irish RC parish, no one will take any notice of you and you'll never hear any decent music again.

My limited experience of English Catholicism that there is a weird paradox (from an Anglican perspective) - everyone piles out of Mass at the end like schoolkids when the bell rings, but on the other hand, Catholic social clubs are real social clubs. That is, they have Sky Sports and a bar, instead of weak lukewarm tea and "local historian Bill Cheesewalloper will give an interesting talk on the development of traffic light sequences in Lower Ricardusborough".

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I found a link:
Differences between the Church of England and Roman Catholicism.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

Well I investigated the RCC, not because I was pissed off, but because I think there is a genuine case to answer that they may be the right plsce to be.

I find a very fair-minded reluctance to accept CofE converts except where they really did have a definite conviction, and in practice that meant accepting positions, at least as far as obedience is concerned, on those things that separate.

I have a Catholic friend who is pissed of with her priest, and the RCC in general and has stopped going. The idea that you are safe from being pissed of in the RCC is ludicrous as it the diea that you'll get away from crappy choruses (so well dealt with in the book "Why Catholics Can't Sing").

In the end, I am more anglican than catholic, and the things I dislike about the CofE (dominance of the public-school/Oxbridge elite are things I just have to suck up. At least we don't have the Mafia!

So not being able to accept Catholic moral teaching on homosexuality, for example, would be a red-line that I couldn't cross. And they would rather I didn't dissemble.

Posted by Vidi Aquam (# 18433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I found a link:
Differences between the Church of England and Roman Catholicism.

quote:
Since Roman Catholics tie membership in their church to the person and authority of the pope, they do not ordinarily allow intercommunion. They do not recognize the validity of Anglican Orders, and so re-confirm and re-ordain Anglican converts.

Then they should not recognize the validity of RC Orders since the Vatican II rite of priestly ordination was changed to be identical to that of a Protestant minister's.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
Then they should not recognize the validity of RC Orders since the Vatican II rite of priestly ordination was changed to be identical to that of a Protestant minister's.

Eh? Which Protestant minister did you have in mind? I'm pretty sure the ordination of a Presbyter of the Church of England differs from the ordination of a Minister of Word and Sacrament of the Church of Scotland differs from the ordination of...

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

It's better to say that RCs do not recognise Anglican confirmations or ordinations as the same as Catholic ones - and neither do many Anglicans.

It is surely quite clear at the majority of Anglican priests have not been ordained by a bishop in full communion with the bishop of Rome who is the guarantor of orthodoxy (in the Catholic sense)It is in that sense also that Anglican priests have no ordinary sacerdotal role within the Roman Catholic church.

Are the poor Irish at least not for the most part
recognised as British ? How many generations does one have to live in England before being recognised as British ?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Well, we came over from Ireland some time in, I suppose, the aftermath of the famine, and I've no question but that I'm British. But you know what i mean. In the RCC, in most of England, there is a class/ culture/ethnicity dynamic which produces a different mix from the dynamic in the CofE. You know, pretty much, that people with certain types of surname (such as mine, as it happens) are more likely to be RC. Nothing wrong with that, either.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
... and neither do many Anglicans. ...

Sorry. In my experience, that is nonsense.

I can see that a traditional RC may fondly think otherwise. Nevertheless, most CofE people, and for that matter most secular people, think an RC priest and a CofE one are different versions of the same thing.

This is irrespective of theology. High church CofE people think a CofE priest is the same as an RC priest. MoR, low church CofE and secular people think an RC priest is the same as a CofE one.

Posted by Vidi Aquam (# 18433) on :

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
Then they should not recognize the validity of RC Orders since the Vatican II rite of priestly ordination was changed to be identical to that of a Protestant minister's.
Eh? Which Protestant minister did you have in mind? I'm pretty sure the ordination of a Presbyter of the Church of England differs from the ordination of a Minister of Word and Sacrament of the Church of Scotland differs from the ordination of...

A Novus Ordo Presbyter of The Roman Protestant Church.

ON THE NEW ORDINATION RITE

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Enoch I am more than happy to say that a CofE priest is a CofE priest and that an RC priest is an RC priest.

I am happy to say that an RC ordination is an RC ordination and an Anglican ordination is an Anglican ordination.

I do not think that there is any fondly imagining in this.

Questions of 'validity of rite' are not something which I concern myself with.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
A Novus Ordo Presbyter of The Roman Protestant Church.

ON THE NEW ORDINATION RITE

No, that's what you were wanting to compare with "a protestant minister". There's no point trying to compare with the same thing. Can you try for some sort of coherent explanation of what you're on about? I read your link and as far as I can tell it's just a usual whinge from those who hate the 2nd Vatican Council. I've got news for you: the ordination rite used in the 1966 isn't the same one used in the early church. Shockingly the early church also missed out some of the elements your correspondent deems essential.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
There is absolutely no point in crossing over to the RC church unless you find that you can accept that the RC church is what it claims to be.

Is that so? Given that by now probably a majority of RCs in the West do not accept this either, is there absolutely no point for them to remain in the RCC as well?

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Amongst themselves RCs in UK (being for a long time a somewhat persecuted minority) have close (and sometimes closed) ties of kinship. Although people in RC churches may appear to ignore one another ,they often know almost everything about everyone else with any link to Catholicism.

This may have been true about RCs in the UK decades ago. I doubt that it is true now. For one, while I am willing to believe that Brits are now happy to screw each other across all boundaries of race, culture, class and heritage, it's somewhat hard to believe that the colourful mix of people I meet in UK parishes have all resulted from that process already, and hence are all tied together by kinship. And as far as the next generations of UK Catholics goes, based on the First Communion classes of my son I would say that UK Catholicism will be about as British as UK restaurants are...

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
As Vidi Aquam suggests if music and ceremonial is your cup of tea,then don't go looking for it in the RC church.

Or rather, as suggested above, go looking among the "Latin mass" RCs or the Anglican ordinariate, both of which have a significant presence in the UK.

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
It's better to say that RCs do not recognise Anglican confirmations or ordinations as the same as Catholic ones - and neither do many Anglicans.

That would be true but misleading, given the fundamental nature of the "not the same"-ness... The RCC does not recognise the Anglican orders as "sacramental", in contrast to say the Eastern Orthodox orders. That RCs will honour an Anglican bishop as "bishop" is a matter of appropriate politeness and respectfulness, just like they would honour a Lutheran bishop. This does not indicate that they accept these people as actual successors of the apostles.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Thing is, though Enoch, there are very low-church Anglicans around who don't like being referred to as priests - our local parish priest ... errrr ... I mean vicar (he's happy with that as a title) is one of them.

He hates being referred to as a priest.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Thing is, though Enoch, there are very low-church Anglicans around who don't like being referred to as priests - our local parish priest ... errrr ... I mean vicar (he's happy with that as a title) is one of them.

He hates being referred to as a priest.

How did he cope with being ordained?

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

Would the NC count as "lotus-eaters"?

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

IngoB I am sure we can agree that there is no point in any adult coming into the RC church if they don't believe in what it teaches.

That does not mean that those who are there because their parents (as you did)placed them there at an early age,should leave if they have difficulties.

You have a great knowledge of chapter and verse of Catholicism. You must agree with me that baptism makes us a member of the Church and we can keep that membership until the day the Good Lord calls us and beyond.

Likewise you know that ALL the baptised are members of the One,Holy,Catholic and Apostolic Church and in a sense all the baptised are successors of the Apostles.

It is in the specifics of the service of the people of God that the Catholic church linked with the successor of Peter recognises only those have been commissioned to serve by a bishop linked in communion with the successor of Peter.

Okay, that means that the RC church is unable to recognise and declare that those ordained beyond its community are exactly the same as those ordained within its community,but it does not mean that the RC church is only being polite in recognising the important,even sacramental role that those ordained outwith the rc community have within the wider Christian community of the One,Holy,Catholic and Apostolic Church.

UK restaurants may be a cultural mix but they are also British . So also are Catholics who have a British passport.

Now I suppose that my knowledge of UK Catholicism is based on Scotland (still an integral part of the UK.) In my own parish of 1200 parishioners as well as Scots,there are English,Irish,French,German,Austrian,Polish,of course,Slovakian,Hungarian,Spanish,Italian,Portuguese,South Americans Colombians and Argentinians,Brazilian,Indians,Filipinos and Sri Lankans as well as Chinese and others.

Nevertheless the core of the parish are established citizens of Edinburgh who know who is who and what is what.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

OK, last bit aimed at me, I guess. Let me rephrase what I said, so as to express myself more clearly. I suspect that the majority of working class/ poor RCs, in England (I do not speak of Scotland), are from families that have some conscious connection at some point in history with a country or region in which Roman Catholicism is the predominant form of Christianity. That does not mean that they are not British: Britishness is almost by definition an additional identity, which is very helpful. But I suspect that there are not that many working class/ poor RCs in England who do not come from such families (and of thoise that do I'd imagine a good few might have a conversion due to mixed marriage somewhere in the past).
Is that particular enough for you, Forthview?

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Of course I accept what you say.
Do you think that Anglicans also might just have some sort of conscious connection with a country where Roman Catholicism was the norm ?

Just go back a few hundred years to find that conscious connection.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Enoch I am more than happy to say that a CofE priest is a CofE priest and that an RC priest is an RC priest.

BUT the C of E ordinal talks of being 'a priest ion the Church of God.'

We believe that our orders are a continuation of the orders of the RCC.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Leo I am more than happy for you to say that.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Thing is, though Enoch, there are very low-church Anglicans around who don't like being referred to as priests - our local parish priest ... errrr ... I mean vicar (he's happy with that as a title) is one of them.

He hates being referred to as a priest.
How did he cope with being ordained?

I remember a Wycliffe ordinand in the 90s who was embarrassed about the whole concept of ordination, saying that it was "really dodgy" but that unfortunately they had to go through it so as not to rock the boat.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Why would you want to be a minister in the CofE if you don't believe in ordination? I bet the RCC doesn't have to put up with that sort of weirdness in its ordinands!

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I remember a Wycliffe ordinand in the 90s who was embarrassed about the whole concept of ordination, saying that it was "really dodgy" but that unfortunately they had to go through it so as not to rock the boat.

That just about drives me mad. Fine, don't agree - leave the funded education, resign your job-for-life and go out and find a religion that fits your creed.

But to say that you don't actually agree with a fundamental part of your church - and then just keep quiet because you'd rather keep your parish and your pension, thanks very much... well, you're clearly not suited for your profession, you lying shit.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Of course I accept what you say.
Do you think that Anglicans also might just have some sort of conscious connection with a country where Roman Catholicism was the norm ?
...

Not in the sense that Roman Catholicism is part of that conscious connection, no. I think you know perfectly well what I mean.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I suspect it is possible to believe in 'ordination' in a more 'Protestant' sense without priestly connotations -- which, of course, is how it would be understood in denominations like the Baptists and URC who do ordain people -- but who tend not to see it in such sacerdotal terms.

There are a lot of 'low-church' evangelical clergy who would, I think, feel a lot more comfortable in Baptist or Vineyard settings.

I wouldn't be so cynical as to suggest that they only remain CofE for the job-for-life and the subsidised housing and pension ... they probably believe that the CofE is a good platform to fish from ...

But I agree, it is rather inconsistent.

Some of these people look at me daft, as we'd say in South Wales because as someone who has knocked around in non-conformist circles I expect an Anglican parish to act like an Anglican parish and not some kind of Vineyard wannabe or Baptist wannabe ...

Not that I have anything against Baptists or Vineyarders - they act consistently with their own churchmanships and views - and are to be applauded for that.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Why would you want to be a minister in the CofE if you don't believe in ordination? I bet the RCC doesn't have to put up with that sort of weirdness in its ordinands!

No, their weirdness is having to accept compulsory celibacy as a precondition for their calling.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Why would you want to be a minister in the CofE if you don't believe in ordination? I bet the RCC doesn't have to put up with that sort of weirdness in its ordinands!

That may be part of the reason there aren't many RC ordinands.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I get the impression from the Ship and elsewhere that the CofE likes to get its ordinands from various places, and not necessarily from within the Church. And that people who feel they have a religious vocation often turn to the CofE, even if they have no particular connection with or understanding of that denomination. So it's hardly surprising if the CofE ends up with some clergy who have little interest in its norms. There may be pros and cons to this.

Whether clergy in the CofE have greater difficulty in dealing effectively with conflict and stress than RC clergy would be an interesting question to explore. The RCC suffers from a shortage of priests, huge parishes, and the need to send priests to serve in foreign countries, away from their families and culturally appropriate support networks. This could work against their effectiveness in situations of conflict. I don't know.

[ 01. July 2015, 19:35: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'm not sure that the CofE 'likes' or prefers to get its ordinands from other places - it's simply that it likes to get ordinands ... wherever they happen to come from.

By 'Church' in this context do you mean outside the Church of England or outside the Church in general - if we take 'Church' to refer to the sum total of all Christian churches and denominations?

Or do you mean that it likes to get its ordinands from non-churchy professions? ie. people from industry, from the health professions, teaching, business, commerce, whatever else ... ?

I've come across a few vicars who used to be Methodist or Baptist ministers - but not an enormous number. Those who go into Anglican ministry from one or other of the non-conformist or Free Churches tend to go in at the 'higher end' in my experience - ie. they tend to go in at the hotter end of the candle.

This makes sense, when you think about it, because otherwise why would they make the transition? Why not simply stay where they were? To all practical intents and purposes these days there's not a great deal of difference at the 'lower' end of the spectrum - whatever people say about the theology and the modus operandi.

I can't cite chapter and verse but there does seem to be a trend towards older people seeking ordination - ie. those with longer life-experience in other jobs or professions.

What I don't see, though, is any indication that people are coming along without any prior church connections of some kind - either within the CofE or elsewhere -- which is what you seem to be implying if I understand you correctly.

I do think that people who are previously unchurched or nominally churched and who begin to wonder whether they should explore spirituality in a Christian context -- and who might well end up getting ordained at some point -- will still incline by default towards the CofE. That's only because it's the most visible and seen as a 'known quantity'.

That said, I have known people with a non-churchy background who have rolled up at an RC Church or among the Quakers, for instance.

Interestingly, perhaps, my experience of the Baptists has been that although they do pick up converts from unchurched backgrounds, by and large, most people who become Baptists do so from nominal Christian backgrounds or are RCs or Anglicans who feel that they weren't in a position to 'own' their faith for themselves through paedobaptism and who - through evangelical conversion, often at university - move to a credo baptist position.

I don't know about the Methodists. From what I can see around here, most Methodists seem to be so because of longstanding family connections.

On the whole, the same is true with the RCs, of course, there are a lot of 'cultural' Catholics around - just as there are lots of 'cultural' Anglicans - and some of them do engage more consciously with faith / church etc as they grow older.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not sure that the CofE 'likes' or prefers to get its ordinands from other places - it's simply that it likes to get ordinands ... wherever they happen to come from.

By 'Church' in this context do you mean outside the Church of England or outside the Church in general - if we take 'Church' to refer to the sum total of all Christian churches and denominations?

The comment I once read on the Ship was that the CofE likes its ordinands not to be too 'churchy', which meant, I think, that it was a good thing if they were not already deeply embedded in any church, CofE or otherwise. This fascinated me, because the non-CofE churches I know of expect considerable church involvement before encouraging entrance into the ministry.

I don't know what difference it makes to the 'average bloke in the pew'.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Hmmm ...

I'm not quite so sure it follows in the way that statement might imply ...

You seem to be suggesting that people come along one day without much by way of church background and commitment and say, 'I'd like to be a vicar, please ...'

And the ordination selection committees go, 'Great, start on Sunday ...'

[Biased]

I don't know a great deal about how it works but the ordination selection process is quite rigorous from what I can gather.

I think the Shipmate's comment is simply that the CofE likes to see some 'life-experience' above and beyond involvement with churchy things ...

Which is fair enough.

But I don't see any substantial difference between that and what may or may not happen elsewhere.

Our local vicar is a 'son of the manse' as it were and was pretty steeped in churchy things before he received his 'call' to ministry -- the standard good little evangelical type things - heavy Christian Union involvement at university, time on short term missions, work with groups like Tear Fund and so on ...

His CV probably reads like a stereotypical evangelical one for evos of his age and background.

Unless someone's going to prove me wrong with lots of counter-examples, I'm not convinced that the road to stipendiary ministry or clerical orders is all that markedly different within the CofE to what it might be elsewhere.

Methodism might be different because of its endless round of committee meetings and circuitry hazards ...

[Big Grin]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
That may be part of the reason there aren't many RC ordinands.

Not being allowed to get married is a bit of a downer too.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Well, Methodist clergy have to be local preachers before they can become ordained ministers, and you can't get more embedded in the life of a circuit than being a local preacher.

As for life experience, the majority of people entering the clergy now do so having had other jobs, so I can't imagine that the selectors need to make a big deal about it these days.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
IngoB I am sure we can agree that there is no point in any adult coming into the RC church if they don't believe in what it teaches.

It depends a lot on what precisely you mean by that. I doubt most converts know what the RCC teaches. I doubt most RC converts could even state half a dozen dogmas (never mind doctrines) of the RCC off the top of their heads. I bet many converts to the RCC have not read a single official document of the RCC in its entirety. I bet many of them have never read through the bible, nor through the Catechism. I bet many of them have only a rudimentary awareness of the her liturgy and history, of her saints and canon law, of her organisational structure and the levels of authority of her publications. I've been a RC for over a decade now, and I thought I was fairly prepared when I entered the Church. There has not been a single month since then when I have not learned something RC I did not know previously, and I am very aware that I am nowhere close to knowing by heart what the RCC teaches.

Frankly, I think for converts the question of believing in what the RCC teaches is less a statement of present fact, but more a pledge of future obedience.

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
That does not mean that those who are there because their parents (as you did) placed them there at an early age, should leave if they have difficulties.

Really. And why exactly not? What is your precise reasoning and actual recommendation there?

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
You have a great knowledge of chapter and verse of Catholicism. You must agree with me that baptism makes us a member of the Church and we can keep that membership until the day the Good Lord calls us and beyond.

It's more that we cannot possibly get rid of that membership even if we desperately wanted to. But yes, fine.

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Likewise you know that ALL the baptised are members of the One,Holy,Catholic and Apostolic Church and in a sense all the baptised are successors of the Apostles.

I know the former, in some sense. I do not know the latter, in any particularly relevant sense.

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Okay, that means that the RC church is unable to recognise and declare that those ordained beyond its community are exactly the same as those ordained within its community,but it does not mean that the RC church is only being polite in recognising the important,even sacramental role that those ordained outwith the rc community have within the wider Christian community of the One,Holy,Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Anglican deacons, priests, bishops and archbishops in general have no actual sacramental office. They are for example as incapable of consecrating bread and wine into the body and blood of our Lord as I am. Their actual status in RC terms is that of a layperson. One can, of course, recognise their elevated leadership status in their own ecclesial communities, which may or may not include an - unfortunately mistaken - belief that they do have sacramental powers beyond those of laypeople. So perhaps it is better to compare them to RC religious, rather than to just simple RC laypeople. Still, quite apart from canon law that would speak against any such move, you cannot receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from any Anglican, including their current Archbishop Welby. This is unlike for the sort-of-schismatic SSPX, for example, or indeed for the full-on-schismatic Eastern Orthodox. While you generally shouldn't receive sacraments there, you could, because they do have valid ones. The Anglicans, not.

These are the realities. This is what the Holy See has declared. Dressing it up in wonderful niceties that make everybody feel better about themselves is perhaps a valid part of Ecumenism. It is also perhaps something you either feel obliged to do, or it is part of your nature, or perhaps the promptings of charity. As for me, I'm all for politeness and respect, but if we are talking about how things are then for me it starts with cards on the table and ambiguities out of the window.

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Nevertheless the core of the parish are established citizens of Edinburgh who know who is who and what is what.

I have no particular reasons to doubt what you are saying. It is not my experience, but then I also may have a skewed view by always having moved into RC communities as an outsider.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... Our local vicar is a 'son of the manse' as it were and was pretty steeped in churchy things before he received his 'call' to ministry -- the standard good little evangelical type things - heavy Christian Union involvement at university, time on short term missions, work with groups like Tear Fund and so on ...

His CV probably reads like a stereotypical evangelical one for evos of his age and background.

Unless someone's going to prove me wrong with lots of counter-examples, I'm not convinced that the road to stipendiary ministry or clerical orders is all that markedly different within the CofE to what it might be elsewhere.

Methodism might be different because of its endless round of committee meetings and circuitry hazards ...

I assume not many RC priests are 'sons of the presbytery'. [Devil]

The CofE isn't short of meetings either. Is there a denomination - sorry I mean ecclesial community! - that doesn't have so many? Perhaps if there is, it keeps quiet about it. People would be rushing to join.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I assume not many RC priests are 'sons of the presbytery'.

The CofE isn't short of meetings either. Is there a denomination - sorry I mean ecclesial community! - that doesn't have so many? Perhaps if there is, it keeps quiet about it. People would be rushing to join.

I understand the Quakers have meetings, but don't talk so much in them. Is that better?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Anglican deacons, priests, bishops and archbishops in general have no actual sacramental office. They are for example as incapable of consecrating bread and wine into the body and blood of our Lord as I am. Their actual status in RC terms is that of a layperson. One can, of course, recognise their elevated leadership status in their own ecclesial communities, which may or may not include an - unfortunately mistaken - belief that they do have sacramental powers beyond those of laypeople. So perhaps it is better to compare them to RC religious, rather than to just simple RC laypeople. Still, quite apart from canon law that would speak against any such move, you cannot receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from any Anglican, including their current Archbishop Welby. [/QB]

Please bear in mind that there are those who take the same kind of view of the Roman Catholic Church - ie their orders are invalid because no such thing exists.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I can't cite chapter and verse but there does seem to be a trend towards older people seeking ordination - ie. those with longer life-experience in other jobs or professions.

What I don't see, though, is any indication that people are coming along without any prior church connections of some kind - either within the CofE or elsewhere -- which is what you seem to be implying if I understand you correctly.

Interestingly, perhaps, my experience of the Baptists has been that although they do pick up converts from unchurched backgrounds, by and large, most people who become Baptists do so from nominal Christian backgrounds or are RCs or Anglicans who feel that they weren't in a position to 'own' their faith for themselves through paedobaptism and who - through evangelical conversion, often at university - move to a credo baptist position.

A few years ago the average age for college students at Baptist Colleges was around 39. I don't know about the others.

Most ordinands have a longish connection with church. BUGB generally won't consider anyone unless they have been in baptist church membership for at least 2 years.

My experience of baptists (since 1984) is that most BUGB churches are now a 50:50 mixture of people new to faith and those transferring in from other churches. We have very few Anglicans, one ex RC but mostly ex evangelical, brethren and pentecostals.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]We believe that our orders are a continuation of the orders of the RCC.

What's the source of that belief?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Please bear in mind that there are those who take the same kind of view of the Roman Catholic Church - ie their orders are invalid because no such thing exists.

While I may seem harsh, I do have complete respect for others who make similar statements from their perspective. I may consider them to be wrong, but obviously I will suffer exactly the same frankness from them that they suffer from me. In fact, I generally am delighted when I hear a clear (not vile) statement on where RC belief is heretic, schismatic, in apostasy or whatnot. Because that saves me the effort to determine what exactly the difference between my position and theirs is, and how this difference is being evaluated (or at least how all this plays from their perspective). One man's orthodoxy needs must be the other's heresy, and one man's obedience the other's schism. I prefer clean lines where I can get them, whether I draw them myself, or others do.

Posted by Vidi Aquam (# 18433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Anglican deacons, priests, bishops and archbishops in general have no actual sacramental office. They are for example as incapable of consecrating bread and wine into the body and blood of our Lord as I am. Their actual status in RC terms is that of a layperson. One can, of course, recognise their elevated leadership status in their own ecclesial communities, which may or may not include an - unfortunately mistaken - belief that they do have sacramental powers beyond those of laypeople. So perhaps it is better to compare them to RC religious, rather than to just simple RC laypeople. Still, quite apart from canon law that would speak against any such move, you cannot receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from any Anglican, including their current Archbishop Welby. This is unlike for the sort-of-schismatic SSPX, for example, or indeed for the full-on-schismatic Eastern Orthodox. While you generally shouldn't receive sacraments there, you could, because they do have valid ones. The Anglicans, not.

I know that some Anglican clergy received valid Holy Orders from Old Catholic sources (which the Vatican [old & new] recognizes as valid). I'm not sure how many have taken advantage of this gift, and a quick google didn't shed much light.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The Baptist church I was a member of for 6 years had a fair number of former RCs in for some reason - and a smaller number of former Anglicans. Most were former independent evangelicals.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I assume not many RC priests are 'sons of the presbytery'.

The CofE isn't short of meetings either. Is there a denomination - sorry I mean ecclesial community! - that doesn't have so many? Perhaps if there is, it keeps quiet about it. People would be rushing to join.
I understand the Quakers have meetings, but don't talk so much in them. Is that better?

IME they do tend to talk quite a lot outside them, though.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

The rate of young ordinands in the CoE is rising, but it would be interesting to know from what backgrounds and churchpersonship. Almost all the young/younger clergy/people looking at ordination I know are evangelical, and mostly women from some kind of church background (a mix of evangelical, RC, MOTR Anglican, and historic Nonconformist churches). The main exception is young Anglo-Catholic men (not sure of their religious upbringing).

I feel like most Anglo-Catholic ordinands came to that stream of the CoE later on, or are cradle Anglo-Catholics.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]We believe that our orders are a continuation of the orders of the RCC.
What's the source of that belief?

The continuation of the practice of consecrating Bishops with broadly the same rites and intention since the reformation. The claim that Anglican orders are invalid in comparison to RC ones is based on a known lie - the Nag's Head fable - among other dubious assertions.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

IngoB we share the same faith.Explicit awareness of all the teachings of the church is not necessary to make an act of faith or trust.

Equally important is both hope and charity.

You look at the world beyond the visible confines of the church in a different way from me.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Anglican deacons, priests, bishops and archbishops in general have no actual sacramental office. They are for example as incapable of consecrating bread and wine into the body and blood of our Lord as I am. Their actual status in RC terms is that of a layperson. One can, of course, recognise their elevated leadership status in their own ecclesial communities, which may or may not include an - unfortunately mistaken - belief that they do have sacramental powers beyond those of laypeople. So perhaps it is better to compare them to RC religious, rather than to just simple RC laypeople. Still, quite apart from canon law that would speak against any such move, you cannot receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from any Anglican, including their current Archbishop Welby. This is unlike for the sort-of-schismatic SSPX, for example, or indeed for the full-on-schismatic Eastern Orthodox. While you generally shouldn't receive sacraments there, you could, because they do have valid ones. The Anglicans, not.
I know that some Anglican clergy received valid Holy Orders from Old Catholic sources (which the Vatican [old & new] recognizes as valid). I'm not sure how many have taken advantage of this gift, and a quick google didn't shed much light.

Not 100% valid because the RCC 'conditionally ordains' such as 'go over'.

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I assume not many RC priests are 'sons of the presbytery'.

The CofE isn't short of meetings either. Is there a denomination - sorry I mean ecclesial community! - that doesn't have so many? Perhaps if there is, it keeps quiet about it. People would be rushing to join.
I understand the Quakers have meetings, but don't talk so much in them. Is that better?

Talking isn't the only thing Quakers don't do in their meetings. An Anglo Catholic might find them a bit disappointing if he were looking for liturgy and music!

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Anglican deacons, priests, bishops and archbishops in general have no actual sacramental office. They are for example as incapable of consecrating bread and wine into the body and blood of our Lord as I am. Their actual status in RC terms is that of a layperson. One can, of course, recognise their elevated leadership status in their own ecclesial communities, which may or may not include an - unfortunately mistaken - belief that they do have sacramental powers beyond those of laypeople. So perhaps it is better to compare them to RC religious, rather than to just simple RC laypeople. Still, quite apart from canon law that would speak against any such move, you cannot receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from any Anglican, including their current Archbishop Welby. This is unlike for the sort-of-schismatic SSPX, for example, or indeed for the full-on-schismatic Eastern Orthodox. While you generally shouldn't receive sacraments there, you could, because they do have valid ones. The Anglicans, not.
I know that some Anglican clergy received valid Holy Orders from Old Catholic sources (which the Vatican [old & new] recognizes as valid). I'm not sure how many have taken advantage of this gift, and a quick google didn't shed much light.
Not 100% valid because the RCC 'conditionally ordains' such as 'go over'.

Or perhaps, to be pedantic, not certainly valid.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]We believe that our orders are a continuation of the orders of the RCC.
What's the source of that belief?
The continuation of the practice of consecrating Bishops with broadly the same rites and intention since the reformation. The claim that Anglican orders are invalid in comparison to RC ones is based on a known lie - the Nag's Head fable - among other dubious assertions.

Hardly anything at all is true in that assertion.

You need to do some research into the composition of the Ordinal of 1552, and the influence of Martin Bucer on Cranmer. The Intention of the Anglican Ordinal was precisely the opposite of the Intention of Catholic Ordination. The ordinations were intent on ordaining preachers. Go and look at the Rites.

The Rites were so comprehensively rewritten as to barely resemble, let alone be "broadly the same" as Catholic Rites precisely to underscore this difference in Intention. As I have said here before, I would have no hesitation in using the 1552 and 1662 Rite of Consecration of a bishop to commission a new school headteacher. There is nothing at all explicit in that rite concerning what a bishop (in the Catholic sense) does.

Anglican Ordinals since then have moved on and the situation is now slightly different - but that cannot be said of the first 400 years of Anglicanism.

The "Nag's Head" fable was a piece of mischievous propaganda, but has precisely nothing to do with the Catholic Church's view of Anglican Order's. It's use to taunt Anglicans is as flimsy as Anglican attempts to validate their Orders by saying it is not true.

There are, however, defects in the consecration of Matthew Parker in Lambeth Palace Chapel, and it is these which are an issue. What are these defects? Well, the form and intention - precisely the things which you so boldly assert to be "broadly the same" as that of the Catholic Church. The only thing that was the same was the names used for the three Orders, and the laying on of hands.

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As for beer ... well, not Mexican beer, thank you very much - it doesn't taste of anything and is just there to quench the chillis ...

I wasn't thinking of specifically Mexican beer but to really enjoy it you need to be on a beach in the hot sun with a little bit of lime...

(Actually, I don't always drink beer, but when I do, I̶ ̶p̶r̶e̶f̶e̶r̶ ̶D̶o̶s̶ ̶E̶q̶u̶i̶s̶ I usually get a Bass ale or something craftier if it's available.)

quote:
Originally posted by crunt:
To the OP
I think that the difference between CofE and RC for your average bloke in the pew is that when the average pew-dweller in a CofE church has a disagreeable or unpleasant experience at church, he is likely to vote with his feet and park himself on another pew in another of the town's CofE churches. The average pew-dweller in an RC church who suffers a similarly disagreeable situation is less likely to trundle off to another RC church in the town, and more likely to just stay put and maybe 'offer it up' as he fulfills his religious obligation.

It's a little bit more complicated than that. Most medium to large parishes, and even some small ones, will have several or more masses over the weekend so if someone has an issue with a priest, a deacon, a choir or a fellow parishioner he can often avoid them by just going to mass at a different time. If the parish is large enough it's not that difficult to avoid the disagreeable person(s), even at the same mass, unless the disagreeable person is very involved at the parish and one is or wants to be very involved at the parish. Even the parish priest isn't always that difficult to avoid a lot of the times unless his mere presence drives one up the wall. Finally, there are times when people will dust the sandals from their feet and move to another parish. This gets talked about from time to time online and can happen when one is stuck in a problematic or somewhat loosey-goosey parish.

[ 03. July 2015, 07:27: Message edited by: Pancho ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
Talking isn't the only thing Quakers don't do in their meetings.

It's sometimes been unclear in some meetings whether they "do" God.

[code]

[ 03. July 2015, 08:32: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Given that (in general) most protestant churches recognise each other as Real Christians, presumably the above means that the RCC does not. All those years of taking Holy Communion are as nothing because it wasn't consecrated by a properly ordained person, etc.

Which does lead on to wonder what they're actually doing engaging with others in ecumenical activities and what they actually privately think of other Christians (in the world, and perhaps here on this bulletin board).

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

You're presuming to tell RCs what they actually believe, mr cheesy.

Unless they're lying to me, I've never met an Roman Catholic who has regarded me as anything other than a 'proper' Christian - albeit not in communion with Rome.

The same applies to the Orthodox I know - they certainly regard me as a 'brother in Christ' yet one, from their perspective, who is somehow currently outside the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I have encountered a rather extreme and singularly unpleasant Orthodox individual online - a convert from extreme Calvinism - who doubted that I could possibly be considered a believer in the true sense of the word ... but he was seen as extreme by the majority of his co-religionists on that particular forum.

So, no, unless they're dissembling and making a pretty good fist at insincerity, none of the Catholics - or Orthodox - I've encountered consider the rest of us as un-Christian or heathen ...

Far from it.

The reason they can hold these things in tension - ie that there can be Christians who are not part of the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - is because their ecclesiology differs from ours.

The reason we sometimes misunderstand what they are actually saying, I submit, is because we sometimes misunderstand their ecclesiology.

Now, that's not an attempt on my part to duck any issues or square any circles or to pretend that everything is hunky-dory and because we are all Christians we can just get on ...

No - but it is to acknowledge that it is better to listen to what people actually say about what they believe than jump to conclusions and start putting words into their mouths.

That works both ways round.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I am not assuming anything, I am saying this appears to be a logical conclusion from what has been said.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

It is the logical conclusion if we make certain assumptions and if we hold to a broadly Protestant ecclesiology.

So it is the logical implication if we are wearing Protestant spectacles.

All I'm saying is that the RCs and Orthodox have different lenses in their frames and so see the world with a slightly different focus.

That's why we often end up 'talking past each other'.

Productive dialogue - on both sides - can only begin when we recognise that and ensure that we are on the same page with terminology and understanding before we start. Otherwise we both miss the points that the other is trying to make.

It can take a good while to get to that point.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

mr cheesy, one undeniable virtue of the RCC is that she writes down in considerable detail what she holds to be true. As far as the relation of the RCC to other Christian groups goes, besides the official document you can simply browse through the

quote:
Catechism of the Catholic Church
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."

Is that clear enough for you?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
mr cheesy, one undeniable virtue of the RCC is that she writes down in considerable detail what she holds to be true. As far as the relation of the RCC to other Christian groups goes, besides the official document you can simply browse through the

quote:
Catechism of the Catholic Church
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."
Is that clear enough for you?

It's clearly a statement that doesn't say "look how bad you non Catholics are" but rather "just look at what God has entrusted only to us". If it were a question of the recipe for making blue candles it would be one thing - claiming the unique gift of non negotiable tenets of the Christian faith is another.

819 implies or suggest that the Catholic Church is only church to which the fullness of grace and truth has been entrusted.

Lots of people (including many who claim to be Catholics and who worship in that church) would disagree with the partiality of this position. It's a position of total arrogance despite an attempt to appease it elsewhere. At least Ingo the RCC makes its understanding of its own beliefs clear - and I admire you all the more for that. It doesn't stop me - and millions of others thinking that you're wrong.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Is that clear enough for you?

Crystal. So I take it that you believe those outside of the RCC are not Real Christians?

For the record, I am very close to believing the reverse.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It is the logical conclusion if we make certain assumptions and if we hold to a broadly Protestant ecclesiology.

So it is the logical implication if we are wearing Protestant spectacles.

All I'm saying is that the RCs and Orthodox have different lenses in their frames and so see the world with a slightly different focus.

That's why we often end up 'talking past each other'.

Productive dialogue - on both sides - can only begin when we recognise that and ensure that we are on the same page with terminology and understanding before we start. Otherwise we both miss the points that the other is trying to make.

It can take a good while to get to that point.

Aaaah good old Gamaliel - on the fence as usual!

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Crystal. So I take it that you believe those outside of the RCC are not Real Christians?

What exactly do you mean by "Real" there?

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
For the record, I am very close to believing the reverse.

You say that as if I should be worried by that?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Is that clear enough for you?
Crystal. So I take it that you believe those outside of the RCC are not Real Christians?

What a strange thing to say. That is precisely the opposite of what para 818 says.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
819 implies or suggest that the Catholic Church is only church to which the fullness of grace and truth has been entrusted.

Lots of people (including many who claim to be Catholics and who worship in that church) would disagree with the partiality of this position. It's a position of total arrogance despite an attempt to appease it elsewhere. At least Ingo the RCC makes its understanding of its own beliefs clear - and I admire you all the more for that. It doesn't stop me - and millions of others thinking that you're wrong.

And you're free to think they're wrong. I think they're wrong, but I don't think it's necessarily due to arrogance. I would make the same claim concerning Orthodoxy. It's the result of a coherent ecclesiology. I think this is where Protestant ecclesiology is way off the mark as to be positively incoherent.

[ 03. July 2015, 10:58: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
What exactly do you mean by "Real" there?

Not sure. How do you see Christians outside of the RCC?

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
For the record, I am very close to believing the reverse.
You say that as if I should be worried by that?

I doubt anything could worry you, but I guess sometimes it is helpful to see how others perceive us. Also possible that it is useful to perceive that others have an equal and opposite claim to divine exclusiveness.

[ 03. July 2015, 11:32: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's a position of total arrogance despite an attempt to appease it elsewhere. At least Ingo the RCC makes its understanding of its own beliefs clear - and I admire you all the more for that. It doesn't stop me - and millions of others thinking that you're wrong.

I've said this before, but I don't see why the Catholic claim to have received some measure of divine grace and revelation that is absent, or at least not guaranteed, in the rest of the Christian faith, is somehow qualitatively more arrogant than the general Christian claim to have received grace and revelation that isn't present in, say, Hinduism or Buddhism. Protestant smugness about our humbleness here seems to me analogous to an investment banker boasting of his pay restraint because he didn't claim back a fiver for his taxi fare.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
What a strange thing to say. That is precisely the opposite of what para 818 says.

Maybe there are different ways of reading this, but it seems to me it is saying that salvation is only found outside of the RCC in as far as these groups get their fullness and power from the RCC.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes - which is also what the Orthodox believe about the Orthodox 'take' on Christianity.

The clue is in the title.

That doesn't mean that Christians who are not Orthodox with a Big O are not 'real' Christians.

Anymore than the RCs are saying that Christians who are not Roman Catholic with a Big R and a Big C are not 'real' Christians.

To say, as both Churches do, that the rest of us only derive whatever validity or efficacy we profess or possess from them isn't to say that we aren't real Christians at all.

It may sound like fence-sitting but I've long since come to the conclusion that the only aspects of Christianity that I'm really interested in are those aspects - the dogmatic core if you like - that we all of us share in common with the RCs and the Orthodox - the kind of overlapping bit you get on the Venn Diagram.

I no longer feel insulted or 'got at' by the RCC and Orthodox claims to exclusivity - although I am bemused by them - they can't BOTH be right ...

Because, historically speaking, anything that we as Protestants believe that is common to Christianity as a whole we have derived from the pair of them ... we didn't exist until the 1500s - although there were some precursors or foreshadowings if you like among the Hussites and Lollards and Waldensians ...

Hence my 'paleo-orthodox' position.

And yes, I do sit on the fence - and I have the calluses on my backside to prove it ...

The key to this whole thing is ecclesiology, of course.

In Protestant ecclesiology belonging to the church (or Church) tends to be closely associated with soteriology - I believe, therefore I am 'saved', therefore I am a member of the church (or Church).

In RC and Orthodox ecclesiology, this doesn't necessarily follow in the same way. You can be a member of the Church and still not necessarily 'saved'.

Equally, you can be saved and not be a member of the Church in a formal sense -- both the RCs and the Orthodox tend to be more 'hopeful' and optimistic about the salvation of those beyond the Christian pale than many - if not most - Protestant evangelicals are.

Posted by Vidi Aquam (# 18433) on :

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (Outside The Church there is no salvation).

But what is The Church? ALL Christians? Only Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox? Just pre-Vatican II RCs that have the traditional priesthood, sacraments and Tridentine Latin Mass? It depends on where you draw the dividing line.

Or forgot all that and go with Universal Salvation?

Or... should we really be worrying about what happens when we're DEAD, or should we just focus on being ALIVE?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'd also add - arrogantly or humbly, take it how you will - that the arrogance thing cuts both ways too.

I've been in dialogue with RCs and Orthodox for some 20 years or so now and it took me a good while to appreciate that what I took to be arrogance on their part, could also appear to them as arrogance on mine.

Which comes back to my point about the lenses and spectacles we're wearing. It all depends on our prescription.

Both the RCs and the Orthodox claim to have 20/20 vision - so far as is possible this side of Eternity - so whilst that might appear arrogant to the rest of us - from their perspective any challenge or contradiction we might throw their way is also going to appear arrogant.

As Protestants, with the best will in the world, we often don't realise how we sound to those on the more Catholic side of things ...

I'm caricaturing (slightly) but here's how I'd imagine it can sound:

'There are no such things as sacraments because I say so ...'

'I have unilaterally decided to set aside 1500 years of received wisdom and tradition because I know best ...'

'I have the Holy Spirit and can understand the scriptures better than you can ...'

'You pray to Mary and the Saints, therefore you have a substandard view of Christ ...'

'You aren't properly born-again or saved because you haven't prayed the Sinner's Prayer ...'

And so on .. and so on ... and on and on and on ...

Ok, mercifully, very few of us here on these Boards would go round haranguing Catholics and Orthodox with that sort of schtick - but a lot of Protestants do.

I remember hearing a fascinating talk on aspects of RC spirituality at a lunchtime meeting at a university where I used to work. There was time for questions afterwards and an African student immediately put up his hand, 'Where was the Catholic Church mentioned in the Bible? Where do we find Catholics in the scriptures? There is no such thing as Catholics only Christians ... are Catholics real Christians? yadda yadda yadda ...'

The point was, he'd missed the point. He clearly hadn't listened to a word that the RC speaker had said.

Behind me, one of the Catholic students muttered, 'What do you mean, 'Where are the Catholics in the Bible?' We wrote the Bible ...'

Ok - one might cavil at that from an historic perspective - but who DID write the Bible? The Protestants didn't. We didn't exist at that time. And 'Catholic' of course, is being used in the sense of 'universal' ... the Church wrote the Bible ... as it were ... the Bible is the book of the Church - the people of faith.

Anyhow - all this is to underline my point - that we have to define our terms and understand our ground for debate. Otherwise we end up talking past each other - as per the objections raised by the student in the question time session I mentioned. How arrogant do you think his questions sounded to a Catholic audience?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Oh, I think it is arrogance on everyone's part. And a good deal of talking past each other.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Not sure. How do you see Christians outside of the RCC?

As followers of my Lord Jesus Christ, who are either in explicit denial of some of His teachings, or are explicitly disobedient to the shepherds He has sent for their care, or - typically - both in some combination.

However, few of those other Christians are fully culpable for this diminished relationship they have with God. Indeed, many of them are honestly convinced that it is I and my fellow RCs who are so diminished. It is hence not simply ill will, or worse, mortal sin, which creates this long-lasting discord. The situation is instead rather similar to how we all still suffer the effects of Adam's "original sin", through having lost his heirloom, even though we are not personally guilty of Adam's sin. We have lost Christian unity, but our personal guilt for this is typically limited.

Furthermore, just like many of the athletes in the Paralympics would comprehensively trounce me in all sorts of athletic endeavours, in spite of me being "non-handicapped" and them being "handicapped", there is no reason to expect that I'm personally holier and more pleasing to God than those other Christians, just because my Christianity is "non-handicapped" and theirs is "handicapped". It's not just what you have, it is much more what you do with it. And without doubt many of those other Christians have done way more with what they have than I will ever do with what I have. And in some sense, this is to my special shame. Just like a "non-handicapped" couch-potato watching the Paralympics might feel a special shame at seeing their performances, the shame of knowing that others are doing better with worse odds.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

A diminished relationship with God or a diminished relationship with the Church, IngoB?

This works both ways, of course - I can't remember which thread it was now but I recently challenged Kaplan Corday for 'feeling sorry' for those Christians whose eucharistic and worship traditions are more 'formal' than those found in his own.

As if that implied that their experience of worship or encounter with the Almighty was somehow truncated in comparison with his.

The reverse could equally be said, of course - you would undoubtedly see his form of informal eucharistic observance as somehow unfulfilled and short of the mark ...

Or my inveterate fence-sitting as another example of something that falls short of the ideal.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
A diminished relationship with God or a diminished relationship with the Church, IngoB?

With God. The Church is our communal relationship with God.

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
This works both ways, of course - I can't remember which thread it was now but I recently challenged Kaplan Corday for 'feeling sorry' for those Christians whose eucharistic and worship traditions are more 'formal' than those found in his own.

I have little time for "liturgy wars", and membership in the Church is to me not in the first place about some particular liturgical style. These discussions often have the character of snobbery, and so from all sides. Liturgy has a specific function, and fighting about liturgy is for the most part like the fight what car is the "best", when the issue is to drive five minutes to town (i.e., when most cars will do).

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Or my inveterate fence-sitting as another example of something that falls short of the ideal.

Nobody get to sit on the fence as far as God is concerned. What you call "fence sitting" is in fact its own, distinct theory about God and His interaction with the world. It may be particularly annoying that you tend to express this theory by saying to all and sundry "and you are also right." But in the end that is just smoke you are blowing into your own eyes - you have your own "dogmas", just like everybody does.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, of course I do. Some of them I share with you, IngoB.

I'd agree that the Church (however we define it) is about our communal relationship with God - was it Cyprian who said, 'One cannot have God as his Father who doesn't have the Church as his mother'?

Where the fuzziness comes in with me is that I have absolutely no idea who has the most 'right' to consider themselves the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. You say Rome, others say Orthodoxy.

Still others that it's the sum total of all believers irrespective of ecclesial labels.

I might be blowing smoke into my own eyes but there's equally the charge that there are all sorts of smoke and mirrors out there ...

Why should I accept your version of things over and against Ad Orientem's, say ... or Kaplan's?

If it were a clear-cut no-brainer that the RCC was the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church then surely the rest of us would have said, 'Ok, it's a fair cop ...' and abandoned our respective positions a long time ago?

I'll agree that we Protestants are inveterately fissaporous, overly individualistic and inclined to our own pet theories and practices ...

But it surely doesn't help when we've got Rome effectively saying, 'I am Spartacus ...' and Orthodoxy doing the same ... 'I am Spartacus ...'

I'm inclined to agree with you on the liturgy thing - but even there ... the Orthodox Liturgy is probably more standardised than the various Roman rites have become - but even there you get people argy-bargying about the 'right' way to do this that or the other and elevating local or regional custom to the level of universality.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Where the fuzziness comes in with me is that I have absolutely no idea who has the most 'right' to consider themselves the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. You say Rome, others say Orthodoxy. Still others that it's the sum total of all believers irrespective of ecclesial labels. I might be blowing smoke into my own eyes but there's equally the charge that there are all sorts of smoke and mirrors out there ... Why should I accept your version of things over and against Ad Orientem's, say ... or Kaplan's?

It's funny how you showcase what I'm telling you in the very act of arguing about it. You are not actually fuzzy about this at all. Rather, you believe that it doesn't really matter, that's your entirely well-defined and clean "dogma". We know this, because if you thought it really mattered, then either you would have decided for one alternative already, or you would have put all other things on hold until you felt able to make that decision. But there is no urgency in you here - and there is no urgency, because it doesn't really matter. To you.

This is no fence you are sitting on there. These matter are auto-dogmatic. Whatever your actual choices are concerning fundamentals establishes your religion from the ground up. Making no choice is as much a choice as making a specific choice. Rejecting the need to choose is as much a particularisation as specifically choosing something.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure - I can see what you're getting at and I'm not unaware of the irony and discomfort inherent in my own position.

'Here I wobble ... I can do no other ...'

[Razz]

I'm not sidestepping the very trenchant points you're making but I have been in church communities which believed they were 'hearing from God' and so on and which made some pretty daft decisions at times on the basis of that.

I'm not saying I'm entitled to my wariness, necessarily, but once you've been exposed to dogmaticness of that kind you're hardly likely to want to immediately rush into the arms of other settings which may also prove to out of kilter - but on a much larger scale.

Does that make sense?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure - I can see what you're getting at and I'm not unaware of the irony and discomfort inherent in my own position. 'Here I wobble ... I can do no other ...'

What wobble? You would have said the same thing a year ago, two years ago, maybe a decade ago. What discomfort? If you feel any, then you are hiding it well... It's not really irony either, since you are not saying the opposite of what is the case. Anyway, it wasn't really my intention to discuss you, I just wanted to point out that in essential matters a non-choice is as foundational as a specific choice.

[ 06. July 2015, 13:56: Message edited by: IngoB ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Probably 20 years ago too ...

But yes, you're right, a non-choice is tantamount to a choice as it were ...

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

With regard to the Anglican ordinal, the book of 1552 was used for only a very short time. The 1559 matters much more if we're looking at form. And certainly in the 1662 book we see the formula "Receive the Holy Ghost for the work of a priest/bishop in the church of God"--which doesn't seem all that different from the current RC formula to me. The prayer of ordination/consecration is more explicit as to what that work is, certainly, but it's pretty clear from the prayer book what the work of priests and bishops is thought to be. The ordinal doesn't exist in a vacuum.

And if the form is defective, there is still the matter of intent to consider. There is not much basis for the idea that the function of each order of ministers was merely preaching. It is quite clear from the rubrics of the BCP that laypeople were not intended to celebrate the Eucharist or perform any of the other functions of ordained ministry.

The Church of England (and its various progeny) has always been a place where a continuum of ecclesiologies have been held by its adherents, ranging from "Catholic-without-the-Pope" to "Baptists with bishops." I don't doubt that Lancelot Andrewes considered himself a Catholic bishop; on the other hand, J.C. Ryle most certainly did not. The Catholic Church finds this problematic, and I can sympathize--I do too.

As far as the Dutch touch goes, the RCC considers that to be irrelevant. Per Apostolicae Curae, it's the form and intent that are at issue; without those, the mechanical succession is meaningless.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
With regard to the Anglican ordinal, the book of 1552 was used for only a very short time. The 1559 matters much more if we're looking at form. And certainly in the 1662 book we see the formula "Receive the Holy Ghost for the work of a priest/bishop in the church of God"--which doesn't seem all that different from the current RC formula to me. The prayer of ordination/consecration is more explicit as to what that work is, certainly, but it's pretty clear from the prayer book what the work of priests and bishops is thought to be. The ordinal doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Herein lies your problem: having abandoned the Catholic sacramental aspects of Holy Orders, one cannot then a few centuries later start adding them back - especially not when that is done in a deliberately ambiguous fashion so as to allow the interpretation to be acceptable to both interpretations, Catholic and Reformed. The "Catholic" argument for the Anglican Ordinal always has to stretch the argument very tortuously, asking one to agree that one can at least impute a Catholic idea of Orders. That tends to work for the more Catholic-minded Anglican, but not for anyone else. But essentially, one cannot hand on that which one has abandoned. I'm sure God can fix anything, but we can't!

Indeed the ordinal does not exist in a vacuum, and so one needs to uncover Anglican sacramental theology as well. And here again the intentions were quite explicitly to undermine any Catholic notion of the sacraments - hence the suppression of vestments, the removal of stone altars etc. I am sympathetic towards later attempts to recover these, but therein lies the rub: an attempted recovery of things which had been explicitly suppressed. Anglo-Catholic appeals to the "Ornaments Rubric" to validate their ceremonies shows just how far they needed to go to find some sort of Anglican legitimacy for their practices.

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
And if the form is defective, there is still the matter of intent to consider. There is not much basis for the idea that the function of each order of ministers was merely preaching. It is quite clear from the rubrics of the BCP that laypeople were not intended to celebrate the Eucharist or perform any of the other functions of ordained ministry.

I think that applies to Methodists and Presbyterians as well. That does not mean they have a Catholic view of ordination.

The ordination rites refer primarily to the function of preaching and "right doctrine". It is a Ministry of the Word, with sacraments possibly tagged on, if one goes in search of them. Even the "prorectio instrumentorum" consists only in the giving of a Bible - to all three Orders - as indicative of what the intention is. The injunctions and questions to the candidates focus almost exclusively on the Ministry of the Word and behaving in accordance with Biblical standards.

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
The Church of England (and its various progeny) has always been a place where a continuum of ecclesiologies have been held by its adherents, ranging from "Catholic-without-the-Pope" to "Baptists with bishops." I don't doubt that Lancelot Andrewes considered himself a Catholic bishop; on the other hand, J.C. Ryle most certainly did not. The Catholic Church finds this problematic, and I can sympathize--I do too.

"Always"? I think not. That is quite a late development in Anglicanism, largely from the nineteenth century onwards.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
The injunctions and questions to the candidates focus almost exclusively on the Ministry of the Word and behaving in accordance with Biblical standards.[/QB]

"Almost" - that isn't exclusive. It may be an emphasis but it includes reference to the sacraments as an essential part of the ordination. All the injunctions reflect the offering (and being the example) of Christ to the people.

At least that's what I said when I Presided over and conducted an ordination a couple of weeks ago. But then again with me not being an RC you may not see the act on the day in quite the same way as I do because we see the denominational strands differently - as your fellow RCC Ingo has pointed out.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
The Church of England (and its various progeny) has always been a place where a continuum of ecclesiologies have been held by its adherents, ranging from "Catholic-without-the-Pope" to "Baptists with bishops." I don't doubt that Lancelot Andrewes considered himself a Catholic bishop; on the other hand, J.C. Ryle most certainly did not. The Catholic Church finds this problematic, and I can sympathize--I do too.
"Always"? I think not. That is quite a late development in Anglicanism, largely from the nineteenth century onwards.

No. There may not have been very many CofE Bishops who regarded themselves as Catholic bishops, and I can't say for sure that there was always at least one such on the bench, but there is a pretty constant stream that can be traced, even if it was a very thin one indeed at times. That stream certainly thickened from the C19 onwards but it was not abesent before that.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Sunday mass at the Church of the Saviour, Nerja. Lovely. Left it too late to go forward and bow my head saying 'Soy Anglicano'. Embarrassingly perfect timing. The priest turned his back.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0