Debating becoming a Traditional Roman Catholic

There is Sacred Scripture to contradict the Catholic argument that Jesus is ever be sacrificing “sacrificed again and again”:

“Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Otherwise, Christ would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But now He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself. Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.“ (Hebrews 9:26-28, Holy Bible).

 

The enemy would like you to believe this and to give up your faith. Don't think that you are the first one to have this lie whispered to him, or that you will be the last. But the fact that you are concerned about it and have repented of those past thoughts & deeds tells me you are in God's grace.

When the adversary brings this thought to your mind, tell him to "get thee behind me!" and start saying out loud these scriptures:
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
1Jn 4:3-4 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. I am of God and I overcome all evil spirits, because greater is He that is in me than you who got kicked out of heaven and have to live in this world!

The Bible tells us that:
Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
Gal 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
The curses of the law can be found in Deuteronomy 27. The "blessings of Abraham" which have come on us Gentiles through Christ can be found in Deut. 28! I encourage you to begin this day to read these blessings in Deut. 28 each and every day, making them personal to you (read it aloud but substitute "I" every time it says "you"), until the knowledge becomes second nature. These blessings are yours, they've "come on" you (a Gentile) through Christ!

Why do this? Because the Bible tells us to think on things that are good, pure, lovely, and true (Philippians 4:8). The Word of God is all of that. Many Psalms encourage us to meditate on God's Word. In fact, Psalm 1 starts out with this:
Psa 1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
Psa 1:2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
Psa 1:3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
It's time to stop letting the devil distract you with thoughts of doubt and defeat. You need to renew your mind by washing it with the Word of God, and you need to take up the sword of the Spirit (the Word) and start quoting the Word and telling the devil to depart for good!

 

Well said. I second that.

I would add:

“Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?
36 As it is written: “For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”
37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.
38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers,
39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 8:35-39)

 

Very much late to the party, but I've got to say that this thread could be an internal monologue of mine. I oft find myself wondering why I am not a Roman Catholic. My conclusion is usually not theological, but that the church in which I came to faith in has been genuinely brilliant, and I just don't think I could give that up. In some abstract, ideological way I think the honest thing for me to do would be to cross the Tiber, but with regards to the actual day-to-day practicing of the faith, I have found something very good in Anglicanism. That being said, I'm somewhat scared I won't find this the case once I move away from this parish.

 

Is that still the case under Francis? To my mind he has dispelled any illusions (for those of us who are younger and don’t have a memory of 60-70 years) that there was anything unique in Rome in terms of being more inured from error than anyone else.

 

I would say that if I ever did make the move to Rome, I would do so retaining a very much Anglican mindset (regardless of whether that would be viewed as totally heretical, which of course it would be). By that I mean specifically that I would retain a view of the church wherein it can err. To appeal to practical reasoning again, as opposed to the ideological, I would be in a church which I feel best upholds Christian orthodoxy in its practices and is upheld amongst the majority of members in normal practice. I would care less for the complex reasoning that goes behind the papacy, for example, than I would for how the day to day faith is practiced. Of course when this 'complex reasoning' starts to interfere negatively with the daily practice of the faith then things change (if this is actually happening atm is another question). This is, as I say, a very much Anglican view of things.

 

Would you feel comfortable with receiving RC Eucharist under the requirement of belief that the bread and wine have become the literal, physical flesh and blood (and soul and divinity) of Jesus?

Would you feel comfortable with attending and giving your support to a church that says virtually all of its adherents must suffer for untold years after death in Purgatory? Are you comfortable with the concept of a God who insists upon making you suffer for your sins even though Jesus Christ already paid in full the penalty for your sins?

Can you be comfortable in a church which teaches that you can never have any sense of confident assurance that you will receive eternal life?

 

I should say that I am not of the mindset that a belief in purgatory of transubstantiation is neccesarily heretical, nor is it heretical not to believe that these things arent "true".

But am I comfortable being in communion with a church that ordains women to the episcopate, that effectively endorses homosexuality, that has so little orthodoxy it would be unrecognisable to anyone who lives only a century ago? The Roman church seems to be misguided, but in an honest way (if you understand what I mean), whereas the Anglican communion has not simply been mistaken on a matter of understanding scripture, tradition, &c, but has, and it may acknowldege this itself, willingly caved in to the fashionable views of the day. It hasnt even tried to remain orthodox.

 

What I find disturbing and upsetting is people talking about the 'growth' of traditional Anglicanism in the USA. Where is this happening? We only have two extremely small traditional Anglican churches within the entire state of Nevada, only one being listed on the local diocese directory. Orthodox Anglicanism is disappearing from the USA. People are getting very ecstatic over a church that is outnumbered by its schismatic, heretical offshoot the Episcopal Church. I know we're supposed to have faith that the gates of hell will not prevail over it if you believe the Anglican church is the 'true church', so to speak, but it doesn't look good. And, I actually do hear more conversion stories online of Anglicans becoming RC than the other way around, despite what is claimed by testimonies of forum members. Finding orthodox Anglican resources online is also very difficult, as again the Episcopal church eclipses nearly everything to do with orthodox Anglicanism in internet resources.

I love Anglicans, traditional ones at least, and mean them no disrespect, but I am really irritated by this whole phenomenon.

 

It's the other way around. There was only the Episcopal Church 15 years ago. Now there's a whole new vibrant rapidly-growing orthodox Anglicanism. It may not reach you where you are just yet (Nevada is a big place), but that's a matter of time. Or you could help start a local chapel.

I would imagine there was a "not" missing there somewhere?

 

My greatest consolation is that this liberal church will not survive. In the course of history, many heresies have come and gone, but orthodoxy has remained. This may be the greatest of heresies we've had in a while, but The Lord will get us through it.

 

Sure. My plan is to join the Anglican church first, then decide whether or not to join the EO or RC if I change my views on it. Even if I decide to swim the tiber later, I don't see it as an abominable thing since the other churches must acknowledge that Anglicanism is surely a 'via media' of sorts even if it is not theologically correct for whatever reason. They have to acknowledge the same thing about evangelical Protestants, too, which is why I've seen EOs and RCs praising Billy Graham or C.S. Lewis. In other words, it at least sets them on the path towards Jesus Christ by association and if the others were true, it is still closer to them than other churches. Anglicanism helped me understand the RC and EO better, too. I thought about doing as you said, helping the local churches to grow. Someone once said that we can't always expect our church to do everything for us, but rather what can we do for the church itself to make it better.

True. At least it's growing in Asia and Africa which are Anglican hotspots nowadays.

 

My (ACNA) rector has stated on more than one occasion that 80% of Anglicanism is still theologically conservative. Unfortunately most of us don't see that conservative element because it's mostly in faraway places like Africa, not England or the USA. We see the more theologically liberal elements, the parishes led by priests educated in seminaries which have been infiltrated by liberal teachers.

There are some who claim that the 'left turn' in the seminaries has been due to infiltration by Jesuits intent upon destroying the 'competition' from within, but all we have are a few anecdotes; hard evidence is either lacking or suppressed.

 

By the way, an alarmingly large percentage (some estimates exceed 20%) of RC clergymen are gay. Which is worse: ordaining women, or ordaining practicing homosexuals?

 

A lot of the women clergy in TEC are lesbians.

 

Two for one!

 

I most sincerely hope that you are right!

 

'Would you feel comfortable with receiving RC Eucharist under the requirement of belief that the bread and wine have become the literal, physical flesh and blood (and soul and divinity) of Jesus?'


What is the position in the CofE? Is one permitted to believe that the bread and wine becomes the literal flesh and blood of Jesus Christ?

 

That would basically mean it is another incarnation. Just as it happened 2019 years ago, it happens any time the priest says the words, right? This would it utterly quotidian, and even mundane. Just happens all the time, so what's the big deal. That's why the Church Fathers didn't teach transubstantiation.

I'd want to push back that you don't need to accept this doctrine (alien to the early church), in order to understand Real Presence of God both in the Church, and in the Sacrament. There is no absolute, historic, traditional need to draw an equivalence between the Body and the Sacrament, other than it seems to fly in the face of today's materialism in a shocking manner. I understand the impulse to want to stick it to the materialists. But while the doctrine of transubstantiation does that, it also creates more problems than it solves. And like I said neither the Church Fathers nor the Anglican Divines considered it a core element of spirituality in the way that the Romans do. In fact it can even lead to spiritual abuses. Just like private confession, while it can have spiritual benefits, so it can have grave spiritual abuses. That's the issue with many Roman doctrines, they try to be holier than thou, and end up often becoming more wicked.

I would argue that you don't need transubstantiation in order to believe in the real presence, in harmony with the church fathers and the Anglican Divines. Keep the good stuff, while avoiding the abuses.

 

I'm not familiar with the specifics and don't know whether roman catholicism would describe it as another incarnation. You make a compelling point about transubstantiation rendering His sacrifice quotidian. I read today, either on this forum or another one, that the church fathers did believe in it. I give you the benefit of the doubt and now believe they were mistaken.

I have started reading Beveridge's catechism and trust it would be useful, because I am flailing now and looking to set some roots or at least find firm ground on which to stand, theoligcally speaking, hence my sojourn - from which I have not fully returned - into Roman Catholicism. It seemed to offer answers and clarity.