Hello, and God bless! I'm a lapsed cradle Catholic and have been wavering between resuming my religious life in the Roman church or swimming the Thames. I've attended Mass at an Anglican Church several times and felt like a more reasonable expression of Christian faith. Regardless of how the Roman Church positions itself, I found its legalism to induce a lot of guilt and anxiety (by the way, I do have a diagnosis of anxiety and OCD, which goes back to my childhood). I don't feel that guilt and anxiety in the Anglican Church. The one Roman Catholic argument that gave me pause about leaving the Church is the Roman Catholic claim that it's the "true Church" according to Matthew 16:18. With due acknowledgement that I'm not a scholar of the original language, the English translation sounds to me like Jesus could have meant that it was upon a faith like Peter's that He would build His Church. If, however, Jesus did mean Peter specifically, does that necessarily extend to his successor popes and limit it only to the Roman Church? Of course Anglicans don't think so, but that's the question that gives me pause. I'm inclined to agree with Anglicans, which is why I'm here. I'm looking forward to more discussion in the forums. Until then ...
Welcome to the forum from its resident agnostic. Mat 16:18 seems to me to say Jesus will build his church starting with Peter, note his church not the Roman Catholic church. And if the claim is Peter was the first Pope it should be noted he was married.
Jesus may have been making a small pun, since both Petrus and Cephas are words for "rock" or "stone". When Jesus tells Peter that he is the rock upon which the church will be built, there is a double-entendre happening here. But Jesus also places Peter as the foundation stone of the church catholic -- not so much in the sense of being the first of an unbroken line of Bishops (the line has actually been broken more than once), but in the sense of being a senior elder and guardian of doctrine for the nascent church. Peter was one of the first called to Jesus' service -- he combined strength of purpose, respect among his fellow Apostles, and robust doctrinal understanding. He had also undergone a terrible chastening after having denied Christ three times; he knew firsthand the agonies of sin and the glory of redemption in Christ. The Anglican church does not consider the Bishop of Rome to be primus inter pares as the Roman church does; Peter's authority comes from his Apostolic pedigree, not his episcopal position in the church.
Thank you for the welcome. AnglicanAgnostic, I'm glad you brought up the topic of married priests. I've read arguments for and against celibate priesthood and don't think it's biblical or constructive. Ananias, I agree with you about Peter and the Bishop of Rome. Then there's mandatory confession.
I, too, am a lapsed Catholic who has switched over to the Anglican Communion, and for the same reasons you are considering it. I don't feel guilt or shame or the 'heaviness' I felt when part of the Catholic Church. And yes, the hard thing to get over is the claim by Catholics that they alone have the 'one true faith'. That will nag away at you for awhile until you are finally able to let it go. I don't know how this happens, but it just did for me. And perhaps that is because that from the moment I first started attending the Anglican Mass, I have felt at peace and at home. At first I felt like it was 'Catholic Lite' because my particular parish is so very much like the Catholic Mass in so many ways that it was familiar, and yet there are differences too. But the differences all seem to be for the good (for me). As you point out, there isn't the focus on sin and confession that there is in the Catholic Church. It isn't a 'mortal sin' to miss Mass, for example. I think the Catholic Church is very difficult for people with OCD (I have a touch of it myself) because it focuses so much on sin - and that leads to scruples. I love my Anglican parish, my church, my priest, my Bishop. I just feel so blessed to have come over to this side. I am going to be received into the Anglican Communion soon, as my priest has contacted the Bishop and we are waiting for him to arrange a date to do it. Then I will finally feel free of the 'shackles' of Catholicism and all of its sin, sin, sin mentality. Because I know in their eyes I am a 'heretic' and probably doomed for hell. That is the kind of thinking that I want to get away from. That being said, one of the things I have learned is that there are many different expressions of Anglicanism so a lot depends on the Bishop of your diocese and how things are practised there. For example, I live in a diocese where the Bishop is more than happy to ordain women, and my own parish priest is a woman. But for those who are more conservative, there are dioceses where this is still frowned upon, not allowed, whatever. I am fine with this because it means that different opinions are allowed in the Anglican Communion, as there is not one Pope to hand things down and insist that everyone comply. If I lived in a different diocese, I might not have felt so 'at home', so I thank God that I live where I do. I wish you well on your journey and hope you find your home with God in whatever church you finally end up.
Welcome! On this forum you’ll find that there are two groups of Anglicans, the more liberal kind and the traditional types. That indicates the broad divide in today’s Christianity itself, so it can be helpful (and sometimes challenging) to have a platform for encounter people who sometimes have very different commitments than you. Roman Catholicism is a prime example of this divide, although usually their online communities are either one or the other, and never do the two mix or interact with each other, like we here. Enjoy your stay and let us know if we can answer any questions for you. To answer your specific question, in the Anglican tradition we don’t accept the Papacy for the same reason that St Cyprian and the Church Fathers didn’t accept the papacy. The verse you’re talking about refers to the Faith of Peter as the rock on which He builds his church. The church fathers taught that every bishop who has the faith of Peter, sits in the Seat of Peter; which is more radical than anything you heard during the Reformation.
One of the problems I have with the Petrine argument is most surely Antioch. Peter is clearly involved and much celebrated as being part of the foundation of Antioch.
Glad you are here! Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. "Peter" is a masculine noun in Greek (and in Aramaic/Syriac, too). "Rock" is a feminine noun in Greek (and in Aramaic... some people believe that the people back then mostly spoke Aramaic). Either the "rock" Jesus referred to was not Peter, or else He just referred to Peter as a woman! The RCC counts on people not knowing the nuances of the languages during Jesus' day. Such nuances can become lost rather quickly (just look at how rapidly English word meanings change and slang expressions are adopted or dropped). I believe the "rock" was the fact which Simon Peter had just uttered: the revelatory truth that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living God. This was the expression of Peter's faith in Jesus, and it is the building block by which the true church is erected, bit by bit, upon the one-and-only cornerstone of the foundation: Jesus the Christ. Peter's faith was just the first stone laid on top of that cornerston, the first of billions. Eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. Thus the RCC has built their church, not upon the true cornerstone, but upon the first little stone laid upon it (the papal concept). 1Co 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
I think a lot of Anglicans, and quite a number of Orthodox, could accept the Bishop of Rome as primus inter pares. The Roman Catholic Church definitely does not think the pope is primus inter pares. The Latin phrase, primus inter pares, means first among equals. It is a dignity of honour, not one of jurisdiction. That is why many Anglicans and Orthodox could view the Bishop of Rome as primus inter pares, similar to the way the Archbishop of Canterbury is in the Anglican Communion and the Ecumenical Patriarch for the Eastern Orthodox churches. The Roman Catholic Church, and the Eastern Catholic churches, view the pope, not as first among equals, but as the supreme authority over the entire Church on earth, over and above the authority of all other bishops.
@Traveler and @Annie Grace you'll both know the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) better than me. Do they really do that guilt trip on you these days? I know a few Catholics who say confessions aren't available that much these days (and I'm not referring to restrictions brought about because of COVID-19). One told me few parishes have confessions more often than once a week and then for about an hour at most. If the RCC still sends you on this guilt trip when are you supposed to go to confession?
We already have a primus inter pares, and that's the Archbishop of Canterbury. The difference from Rome is, that we believe even archbishops and primates can fall into heresy, and lose their office. So there is a lot of debate in Anglican circles right now whether the Archbishop of Canterbury has lost his faith, and can continue to be primus inter pares. But since he is not stepping down (having no spine or convictions, and being a creature of secular atheistic government), the traditional Anglicans are now looking for another primus inter pares that will be the new locus of unity. I'm of the opinion that the primates should consecrate a new Archbishop of Canterbury, in defiance to the atheistic British state. But that's above my paygrade, and they may want to just find another Primatial See that is the new primus inter pares. One of the candidates is probably the See of Jerusalem, since that's where the Gafcon Declaration was signed. So in 20-30 years you may see the Archbishop of Jerusalem leading the traditional worldwide Anglican movement. But yeah this sort of thinking of having chief bishops and primates that we can all rally around, is at the core of what it is to be an Anglican. We don't believe in going on your own. We are united, the body of Christ.
The question is how Orthodox is the See of Jerusalem? I would think that Nigeria might be a good option. They are a large and powerful church.
Giving too much power to any one province could be trouble, as we see with the Russian orthodox basically running their own show independently of the patriarch of Constantinople. But yeah I know what you’re saying.
@PDL - I never had any problems finding a priest who would hear confessions. They were usually offered once a week at a Novus Ordo parish and at every Mass for an EF parish. I know that there are many more liberal parishes that probably don't offer it as much, but for me, I always seemed to live in places where it was easy to find. In Melbourne, there is a church downtown that offers daily confessions all day long, and the people are lined up in the pews waiting their turns. I think it depends on the area you live. When I was a nun, we had a confessor come every two weeks. I used to rack my brain for something to confess so it ended up becoming a litany of little faults that probably weren't real 'sins' but what was the option? Should I have said, sorry, no sins this fortnight! Look, not everyone in the RC church spends time worrying about sins anymore, but the focus of the church itself is still there - it's how they keep the faithful in line and coming back for more.
That surprises me a little although perhaps it should not. I thought religious were allowed to choose their own confessor. It seems to me you had no choice in your confessor. It also sounds as if you had to go to confession even if you had nothing to confess. Did the priest never say why are you here? Did he know you had to go whether it was necessary or not?
I know the Archbishop of Canterbury is primus inter pares in the Anglican Communion. Indeed, I wrote that in my previous post. I was saying we could accept the Bishop of Rome (a.k.a. the pope) as primus inter pares for the entire Christian Church to emphasise my point about it being a position of honour and not one of jurisdiction. I am no fan of Justin Welby. However, I believe for a range of reasons that the See of Canterbury will not be replaced as the see primus inter pares, and one reason is that the Archbishop of Canterbury holds a position of honour only. He has no jurisdiction over the Anglican Communion.
Right I know you know. But many people don't realize that for us Canterbury serves the same function as what Rome used to serve in antiquity, and what Constantinople still serves for the Eastern churches. I know, but he's become dishonorable nowadays. If a See has fallen, either we need to reconstitute it with a new primate and patriarch, or we need to move to another See that becomes the new locus of unity. That's all I was saying.