What do you think? I believe the RCC is on the fringes of orthodoxy. They have many non-biblical and anti-biblical views and innovations, not to mention the church structure. Perhaps the only thing that keeps them within orthodoxy is adherence to the creeds.
True, but when something is not in accord with the scriptures, when it borders on superstition, or is actually anti-scriptural, or harmful, I would say it is a "questionable" church. The Old Catholic archbishop who ordained me says the RCC is a criminal organization. I wouldn't go that far, but he was Roman Catholic and spent years in a RCC seminary, so he has firsthand experience.
Actually that says more about the person making the comments then about the RCC. I didn't reply before because I thought it was fishing exercise and this has proved my thoughts to be correct.
I found in my travels that many former Catholics are very anti Catholic. It seems I am an anomaly in the I do not have the anti Catholic sentiment after being Catholic for a very long time. There are things wrong with all Churches should we choose to point them out
I do have issues with some of the practices in the RCC, but I consider them to be part of the ancient apostolic church. I know some fine RC's who are model Christians. So yes, I would say (for what my opinion is worth) they are a true church, certainly not heretical.
They don't demonstrate the marks of a true Church as found in Art. 19, it doesn't preach the "pure Word of God" nor does it administer the two sacraments "according to Christ's ordinance." Add that to the fact that the Reformers thought the Papacy was Antichrist and you have your answer.
A thousand times, "Yes!" Let us remember that the Church was before the Bible. It was the Church that defined what would and would not be the Bible. The Bible did not decide what would and would not be the Church. As for the OP's question, I believe the RCC is a true church, just as we are a true church. I also believe they are wrong about some things, just as we are likely wrong about some things. (Can I get an "AMEN" for tradition?)
I disagree. Where the Roman Catholic Church agrees with the Eastern Orthodox Church, I believe they have done pretty good. Yes, historically there was trouble with certain things, but as for me and my parish: the Rosary devotions, Marian devotion, prayers for the departed, etc. are part of the things right with the ancient Apostolic Churches. Heck, even a lot of Anglicans who are not High Church disagree with our practices, but they still are under our Christian heritage and Tradition. One thing that separates Anglican Christianity from Protestantism is that Scripture is not the only guide of our Faith, but also Tradition and Reason. The three-legged stool of our Faith is our foundation to Christian life and culture. Together with the Orthodox Churches, the Roman Catholic Church, the Old Catholic Church, and the Anglican Church - we all comprise of the same One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith centered on Christ Jesus. I am a former Roman Catholic, and I certainly have my reasons for leaving that fold (mandatory clerical celibacy, for example, and loopholed with ex-Anglican converts and Eastern Catholics). However, the RCC has taught me a lot about Sacramental theology, the Divine Liturgy, and much that unifies all the other ancient Christian Churches. Since I believe in Apostolic Succession and the Episcopate, the RCC is one of the other ecclesial expressions of our Religion.
The archbishop that I spoke of has good firsthand reasons for his feelings, having known firsthand of molestations and cover-ups at the seminary he was a part of for years. This is one reason he left the RCC, and it wasn't easy since he grew up Roman Catholic.
I know some fine RC's also, and I have several good friends who are RC. But that has nothing to do with my opinion of the RCC.
The "churches" were before the Bible, but the RCC was not. And if you start making tradition equal to or above scripture, you have departed from Anglicanism, as the Articles affirm the primary authority of scripture.
All who follow the orthodox faith of the apostles and the teachings of Jesus found in scripture comprise the Apostolic Church. I actually agree with much of what you say, but see my responses in red within your quoted post above. Thanks for a good post.
The EOC has added many things too that the ROC rejects, and rejects the validity of most of Christendom's apostolicity. Heck, the EOC rejects anything to do with St. Augustine. But the point of my message was that what unifies us is much more important in appreciating our Churches' cultures, and tolerating our differences in opinion. Anglo-Catholicism has taught me that both Scripture AND Tradition are on an equal footing, and the Reason to discern their value and importance connects them together. My parish rector (our vicar) wouldn't emphasise the Grace of the Seven Sacraments, such as that of Reconciliation, or that of the Holy Eucharist, without all three. God bless, hun!
The Church began with an oral history (i.e. tradition). That cannot be denied. That oral history was vital to the early life of the Church since many were illiterate, and the written record was still being written in the early years of the Church. The Church that began with oral history decided which of its writings would constitute its Bible and which would not. That cannot be denied. The Bible was not handed to Christians on stone tablets on Mount Sinai. I do not mean to minimize the importance of scriptures, yet I'll stand by my original point. It was the Church that decided the Bible, not the Bible that decided the Church.