Debating becoming a Traditional Roman Catholic

I'm seriously considering leaving Anglicanism to become a Traditional Roman Catholic.

To begin, I know there is no pure church, and that no human institution is perfect. I view orthodox Anglicanism as a legitimate form of Christianity. I've been attending an REC parish for the past few months. My issue is with the ACNA, and the REC's alignment with them. There are a number of parishes in the ACNA that ordain women (an apostate practice in my view) I also have a very serious problem with the tolerance of charismatic worship in ACNA. There seem to be a million different groups within it (Anglo-Catholics, Low-Church Evangelicals, Charismatics, High-Church Anglicans, Reformed Anglicans, etc.) The ACNA is just too big a tent. I've been reading the Fathers independently (especially Augustine, Chrysostom, and Justin Martyr) and it's clear to me that the majority of Protestants are not in line with the teachings of the Early Church. All of the Fathers seemed to have a very high view of the church (apostolic succession seemed very important to them) and of the sacraments. Justin Martyr and Augustine explicitly said that the bread and wine in the Eucharist is no longer bread and wine, but truly the Body and Blood of Christ.

I'm very attracted to Traditional ( Latin Mass) Roman Catholicism

I don't like a lot of modern Roman Catholic practice, and I especially dislike the Jesuits. However, I don't see that many differences between a High-Anglican theology and a conservative Thomist theology. The Dominican/Thomist school in the Catholic Church seems very orthodox to me.

I don't have any fantasies about Rome. I've been attending Catholic schools for years. ( and now attend a conservative Catholic college) Rome is in extremely bad shape, and isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination(current Pope is probably a heretic But the Trads in Rome seem to be of one mind, and are taking a stand against the liberals. If I become Catholic, I'd be a strict Traditionalist Thomist/Dominican theologically, and only attend the Tridentine Mass. Anglicanism has broken up into several groups, and even the conservatives seem to fight among themselves. This is a good example of what I mean

http://www.virtueonline.org/archbis...bishop-iker-over-womens-ordination-task-force



When I see something like this, I can't help but ask: why on earth does the REC align with these people?
Perhaps I ought to follow Mrs. Duncan's advice and head off to Rome.

Anglicanism has no unity at this point. Canterbury is dead, and Anglicanism has become a bunch of spliner groups.



My question is what makes the Anglican tradition superior to the Thomistic Tradition? Is there a grave error you see in the Thomistic tradition, or an advantage that Anglicanism has over Traditional Thomism?

Many of the issues that bother Anglicans about Roman theology don't really bother me. I don't have an issue with the Marian dogmas( I don't see them as terribly important) and the Catholic Church now allows its members to hold nuanced positions in Purgatory( I believe that Purgatory is a moment of purgation in which one encounters Christ, and is purified when they see the graveness of their sins and suffer great pain due to this. Pope Benedict held this view) The Papacy doesn't realy bother me either. One only has to listen to what the Pope says if he speaks Ex Cathedra, and that almost never happens. My view on the Eucharist is that after the words of consecration, the bread and wine truly become the Body & Blood of Christ, and are no longer bread and wine. Rome and Orthodoxy are united on this point. Transubstantiation goes a bit far in trying to explain the mystery, but my differences with the Catholic view are not serious.

All thoughts are appreciated

 

Friend, with all due respect, I think that move would be a terrible idea...Trad Caths are in an untenable position, dead men walking imho. If this liberal pope doesn't declare them heretics or schismatics the next one will.

Besides, what do you gain by trading one church with problems for another church that you already acknowledge has problems? And what do you benefit from rejecting modern heresies only to accept medieval ones

 

What "medieval heresies" are you referring to?

 

It seems to me that despite appearing to make high-minded big-principle decisions, you're just affected by the brainwashing and your catholic friends...You're just lonely.. If you went to a more Anglican college like Patrick Henry or Wheaton you would've sung a different tune


Example of what I mean by brainwashing: "The Pope is probably a heretic..." becomes a Papist

If you think that the Pope is a heretic, you cannot follow him! Wake up

 

You need to look at a document called Unum Sanctum. That should help you to understand what the RC is really all about.

 

A few things
1. Making assumptions about me or how I think is unfair, seeing as you don't know me. I haven't been brainwashed by anyone. I'm extremely offended by that assertion.
2. Over the past few months, I've been reading the Fathers and St. Thomas independently, and it's caused me to think about things. Most kids at my college don't know a whole lot of theology, and I can handle them pretty easily in discussions.( although I don't get into very many arguments with them at all) As I said, Protestantism ( for the most part) has nothing in common with the Early Church( low view of the Sacraments and private interpretation of Scripture are huge issues)
3. As I said, I don't realy see a huge difference between High-Anglican theology and Dominican/Thomist theology. I'm an Augustinian on most things, and the Thomistic tradition is very Augustinian
4. The Pope doesn't realy matter to me. Traditional Catholics just ignore Francis at this point.
5. I visited Patrick Henry twice. It's a political boot camp, and doesn't have what I was looking for ( a serious Classics program) It's also full of Fundies( Patrick Henry's founder actually said St. Augustine is in Hell. How much worse can you get) Wheaton is Liberal( 43% of their students supported Hillary Clinton. What does that tell you)

 

@Khater I am not short of sympathy for what you are laying out. The risk of course is always that the grass may seem greener. Any religious tradition carries with it many elements, some of which are simply cultural. Anglicanism's great strength (diversity) is also its great challenge, and as you correctly observe (imho) in the current situation there seems more diversity in unity than there is unity in diversity. @Lowly Layman correctly point out that Rome is in a similar struggle, and the sede vacantist sounding in the Roman Church at the moment is simply a reminder that they struggle with the issues we struggle with as well.

I have come to the conclusion that if I ever found a perfect church, I would do better to walk away as I would only destroy the perfection by joining. Make sure you know where you stand, and be prepared to test the water without commitment for a while to make sure. My time in Lutheranism convinced me that I was an Anglican, and despite my profound love and respect for the Eastern Orthodox Churches I am at heart an Anglican.

Do you think you have more to offer in a Catholic tradition than in an Anglican tradition? And I ask that because it is not simply about what we receive but perhaps more importantly about what we offer.

I wish you well on the journey, whichever way you turn, and know that you have been loved and valued in this little part of the Anglican world.

 

No offense was intended but having seen your previous posts set some context in my mind for this discussion... you were strongly committed in your principles heretofore, and if one measly semester overturned your commitments that leads me to conclude your principles were not deeply rooted... and if you apostasize into the Church of Rome, it won't be any more deeply rooted

And yet I know what trad Catholics in college are like.. they're all into big dress up, suit and tie, and mocking anyone who isn't a trad, but simultaneously they aren't well-read in Catholicism and don't even take their own pope seriously

It is a club, not a religion, and because you're drawn to that, it really seems as if you just want to belong to the club, without addressing any serious issues that go along with it

And whom of the Anglican divines have you read?

There is a huge difference between St Augustine and the medieval theologians like Thomas.. Augustine was very strong on doctrines of grace, sovereignty of God, omnipotence of Providence, and Jesus, Jesus Jesus. The medievals on the other hand were big on changing God's mind, earning one's salvation, the "chain of being" where God was just a bigger version of men (a major heresy), purgatory was BIG for them while unknown to St Augustine, and all they thought about was Mary, Mary, Mary...

I'm trying to explain to you that ignoring the Pope is just about the most liberal and heretical thing for a Catholic to do... the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, the ambassador of heaven, union with whom decides our eternal salvation, who is Above any canon law, the supreme legislator and the oracle of heaven

If you ACCEPT that (and you must if you're a Catholic), then ignoring such a demigod would be the biggest mistake

You need to read some writings from Sedevacantists, the only consistent trad Catholics in the world. They take their faith seriously, and they ACCEPT all the things I just mentioned about the Papacy, for which reason they believe the RCC church is currently without a pope

Here is a very good podcast between a "trad Catholic" (like the ones in your college), and a REAL trad Catholic:
https://novusordowatch.org/2017/10/novus-ordo-vs-sedevacantist-discussion/

I don't really care what Patrick Henry's founder said, he could be 100% wrong but he's also 100% dead so who cares? Wheaton is liberal?.. if 43% went for Hillary that means it is more conservative than America, on average! I think you miscalculated your math on that one..

Anyway, what about Hillsdale?

 

.

 

Again, a few things.
1. What do you mean when you say "apostatize into the Church of Rome" Do you not consider Catholics Christian?
2. With all due respect, you're clueless on the Thomist tradition. Other medieval thrologians may have held to what you speak of, but Thomas had a high view of sovereignty/Grace and a very strong view on Predestination. He followed Augustine on this. The Dominican order has followed Thomas. How much of St. Thomas have you actually read? What you're saying about him is just wrong. Chapter 23 of the Summa is a good place to start.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm

I'd also recommend Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange's work "Predestination" He lays out the Thomist position very well. The views you're talking about are held by Jesuits, not Thomists. Here's a lecture on Thomistic Predestination by Fr. Thomas Joseph White( Dominican priest and professor at the Dominican House of Studies)
https://soundcloud.com/thomisticinstitute/fr-thomas-joseph-white-op-predestination
3. I've read Richard Hooker and actually just began reading some stuff by Edward Pusey. I have great respect for the High-Anglican tradition. I read some J. C Ryle, but disagreed with him on some thing.
4. Catholic teaching is that one only has to listen to the Pope when he speaks Ex Cathedra. There's nothing "liberal" about ignoring statements that Francis makes.

 

Khater, read and pray and pray and pray and then pray some more. The Lord of history will guide your path

 

Of course I do, but the Nestorian were Christians too!

There are issues in adhering to old-style Romanism that are a danger to one's soul.. New Romanism post-Vatican 2 has fixed those issues but added a ton of problems with liberalism... either way there is no safe way to be a traditional old-fashioned Christian

You're free to treat Aquinas as a unicorn, but I'm pointing to the whole medieval tradition as a whole, which was very unhealthy

It's no accident that Aquinas has been utterly rejected in modern circles in the Church of Rome

Garrigou-Lagrange has been removed from all curricula in Catholic seminaries around the world... do you know Catholicism better than the Catholics do?

Then you would know what they've thought of the dangers that attend acceptance of Romanism, the thing you are considering. Anyway you sound like you've only read bits and pieces of 2-3 authors which hardly qualifies as a serious engagement with the depth of the Anglican tradition... have you read Henry More, Thomas Bilson, John Jewel, Daniel Waterland, Henry Stebbing?

No that's positively opposed to actual catholic teaching. Are you listening to your preppy friends who feed all this apologetic? The actual Catholic teaching is that you must offer "obsequium religiosum", "religious submission", to everything the Pope says, even non ex cathedra stuff, it's right there in Lumen Gentium
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsequium_religiosum

Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will [obsequium religiosum] must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking
-Lumen Gentium 25a

I really recommend that podcast for you... It has a traditional Catholic refute "traditional Catholics" of the type that you're around

Here it is again: https://novusordowatch.org/2017/10/novus-ordo-vs-sedevacantist-discussion/

 

1. Pusey viewed Roman Catholics as totally legitimate Christians, and even wished for reunion with Rome
2. Thomism and Lagrange have not been rejected by the Dominicans. Fr. Thomas Joseph White( the guy who gives this lecture I link to) is a young Dominican priest who holds pretty strongly to the Thomistic view.
3. Religious submission means that one must recognize the Pope's office, and view him as the head of the Church on earth. It does NOT mean that one has to listen to every word he says( or even most of what he says) Here's what the catechism says

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

What Francis says on an airplane, to a reporter, or even in his encyclicals can be dismissed, because he's not speaking Ex Cathedra.

 

Uhh, while Pusey obviously saw Roman Catholics as Christians (and why shouldn't anyone?), he also saw them as filled with a host of superstitions which departed from the authentic Catholic faith... that's why he did NOT follow John Henry Newman into apostasy

You can find one guy who teaches one thing... you are free to find unicorns in anything you wish

The fact of the matter is that once Thomas was taught in Roman universities, and now he is no longer taught

Garrigou-Lagrange once had his books be the text books serve as the manuals for students, and now Catholic seminarians don't even know his name, let alone study his works

The fact of the matter is that John Paul II said in his encyclicals that the Roman church does not endorse any particular philosophy

Actually the quote you gave has NO guidance about what to do about the Pope's non-ex-cathedra words... But Lumen Gentium 25a does (as I quote above):

This religious submission of mind and will [obsequium religiosum] must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking

I really recommend that podcast for you... It has a traditional Catholic refute "traditional Catholics" of the type that you're around

Here it is again: https://novusordowatch.org/2017/10/novus-ordo-vs-sedevacantist-discussion/

 

1. I listened to the podcast, and I was pretty amused. I myself could've done a better job against the Sedevacantist than this poor guy hosting the show. I've been educated with a conservative Thomistic foundation, and know a number of very faithful Dominican priests. When I ask them about the Pope, they tell me that while one must respect his authority and office, one need not pay attention to stuff he says that's not infallible. Hes only infallible when he speaks Ex Cathedra. That's what the conservative Dominican priests tell me. They don't interpret the document the same way you do., You think you know Catholic teaching better than the Dominicans?
2. Garrigou-Lagrange is still taught at the Dominican House of Studies. As I said, if I became Catholic, I'd be a Traditional Dominican. Dominican theology is orthodox.
3. Read Puseys sermon on Justification. He viewed Catholics as good Christians( although in error on some things) You seem to view Catholics as apostates.

 

What college are you in, @Khater?

 

Christendom College

 

Oh, yeah that explains everything. It is one of those microscopic ultra-trad Catholic colleges in the United States. There have been a few of them, but most have recently been going bankrupt; Christendom is one of the last few left. They incubate a certain strain of trad Catholics, part of which involves immediately converting any non-Catholic student, and even any non-trad Catholic student, to their form of Catholicism. Needless to say none of the Catholic bishops (even the conservatives) like this college, and its graduates are pretty much immediately ostracized in mainstream Catholic circles. This should tell you where this college is located in the overall American Catholic landscape. Good luck surviving 4 years of this, my friend.

 

It's not nearly as Trad as you think. Most of the kids are typical conservative Novus Ordo Catholics. Some have never even heard of the Tridentine Mass. When we learned about the Thomistic view of Predestination, many of the kids were horrified. I know more Theology than most of them, and I'm actually quite a bit more traditional in my views than the vast majority of freshman. Some have had theological discussions with me, but most have stopped trying to argue with me because I refute their Molinism with the orthodox position held by St. Augustine and St. Thomas. I have 3 very Traditional friends, but they're fairly knowledgeable and kind. I haven't gotten any hostility from anyone.

 

So let me get the straight, you just follow what these people 'tell you'... If they 'tell you' that is enough? I can point you to actual Roman Catholic documents, but you will rather follow these 'young priests' of yours, as if they were your Popes

I can make arguments, but you have already made up your mind, isn't that true?

You can claim to consider 'converting' out of Anglicanism but you haven't really read any Anglican classics, isn't that right?

So what is the point of this thread? Go follow your 'young trad Dominican priests' and follow slavishly everything they whisper... many smarter young men have been seduced by this lure, but know you this, that to be a Catholic without the Pope is considered the heresy of Gallicanism in Catholic circles...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallicanism

I think you are more than happy to be considered a heretic Catholic, as long as you can have some 'young orthodox priests' to lead you, and a suit and tie that you can put on every day...

Appearance over substance any day, am I right?