collapse

* "Unable to verify referring url. Please go back and try again" Problem Logging In?

If you get an "Unable to verify referring url. Please go back and try again" error when you try to log in, you need to be sure you are accessing the board with a url that starts with "https://ecauldron.com".  If it starts with https://www.ecauldron.com" (or "http://www.ecauldron.com") you will get this error because "www.ecauldron.com" is not technically the same website as "ecauldron.com". Moving to the more secure "https" means it is more picky about such things.

Author Topic: I left Roman Catholicism :/  (Read 2235 times)

Castus

  • Sr. Master Member
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jul 2011
  • Location: Virginia
  • Posts: 821
  • Country: us
  • Total likes: 76
    • View Profile
  • Religion: that’s a great question
I left Roman Catholicism :/
« on: March 30, 2015, 09:11:31 pm »
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckCwBAhz4oc[/video]


Spoiler:  
The Catholic Church establishes itself as an infallible authority. This infallibility is manifested in two ways: the extraordinary Magisterium (the Magisterium being the teaching authority of the Church) and the ordinary Magisterium. The infallibility of the extraordinary Magisterium is usually exercised by the Pope and can be exercised at a general ecumenical (Church-wise, not denominations-wise) council of all the bishops in union with him. The doctrine itself was explicitly defined during what is known as the First Vatican Council during the reign of Pius IX and was later used by him to infallibly define the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in Ineffabilis Deus. Pius XII infallibly defined the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary in the encyclical Munificentissimus Deus and is the last Pope to have exercised the teaching office in such a way.
 
The second form of infallibility is the ordinary Magisterium. Although the infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium was specifically re-affirmed during the Second Vatican Council it has mostly been forgotten as a terrible inconvenience to all those Catholic couples who think that condoms and the pill are the greatest things since sliced bread. The ordinary infallibility of the Magisterium is exercised "when the Pope, Council, Bishop, priest or any authorized teacher teaches in accordance with Tradition, the Sacred Deposit of Faith, and what has been always accepted and taught by the Church in the past." This encompasses teachings such as the sinfulness of homosexuality/homosexual intercourse, teachings on marriage and the sinfulness of contraceptives, etc. etc. These are not just teachings or doctrines that can be disputed or rejected, but rather possess the full characteristics of infallibility. Joseph Cardinal Siri, noted conservative prelate and theologian, noted as late as 1968 that "[t]he object of the ordinary infallible magisterium is all the deposit of revealed truth" and that "the infallibility enjoyed by the solemn magisterium is the same as that enjoyed by the ordinary magisterium."
 
Having established how the Church defines and exercises the nature of her authority, let's ask one question:
 
Can the doctrine of the Catholic Church change?
 
This question has to do with the Church's quality of indefectibility. The Catholic Encyclopedia addresses indefectibility like so...
 
"By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men."
 
The Church can never be wrong because of the quality of infallibility vested in her teaching authority, and furthermore the essential characteristics of her doctrine and constitution can never change due to the quality of her indefectibility. These are the requirements which the Roman Catholic Church has established for itself, and it is at these requirements that she manifestly fails. It has been well-established elsewhere that the events of the Second Vatican Council and the subsequent far-reaching doctrinal, liturgical, and pastoral reforms which emerged as a result constitute at best a significant break in the continuity of the Church's previous teachings and practices. This I am taking as a given for the purpose of this writing. Although there are many Catholics who do not realise what this means, fully, to those who do recognise this as a problem, there is one central question that they variously try to answer: how this could have occurred.
 
As we have seen, the Church does not allow for her authority to alter its essential characteristics or corrupt in faith and morals. This is precisely what occurred at the Council; as everything from the ecclesiological structure of the Church to the meaning, form, and substance of the Mass was altered in such a way that it represented "a substantial departure" in the words of Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani and several others, from the "eternal" form of the Mass as established by the Council of Trent. Trying to reconcile how the Church has seemingly failed the characteristics of infallibility and indefectibility -- which by her own definition she cannot fail -- has been the driving impetus of the Traditionalist movement for over half a century now; and even today the prevailing prominent solutions (recognise the Church as legitimate but resist VII's errors, claim that the Church's hierarchy lost authority around the time of VII and there has been an 'eclipse of the Church', and read the Council 'in light of Tradition', respectively) see infighting among their supporters; each with their own problems. Now this of course is not unusual in the grand scheme of Christian denominations. As the old saying goes there are as many different kinds of Protestantism as their are Protestants. What makes the situation in the Catholic Church unique, however, is that without the attributes of infallibility and indefectibility the division or presence of reforms in other denominations is that -- regardless of whether they themselves are valid divisions/reforms or not -- are not impossible in and of themselves. A reform may not be good, but there is no reason why it absolutely cannot happen.
 
The indefectability and infallibility of the Church are not necessarily handicaps ipso facto but Vatican II has forced them into such a position. Whatever one's explanation, the Roman Catholic Church has in essence failed to play by her own rules. Whereas once those two attributes could reliably stand as guideposts to orthodoxy and orthopraxy they have essentially become proofs against themselves as they have manifestly failed to be abided by; which by their very nature is an impossibility. This presents the traditional Catholic with a heavy cross: to leave. In the wake of Vatican II many have left the Church in favour of other denominations, usually Orthodoxy, which do not set themselves up in such a fashion (explicitly unable to reform significantly, and therefore forced to reconcile if a significant reform does occur) and thereby avoid entirely wrestling with the issue. The Orthodox have not reformed or had any Ecumenical Council worthy of the name in centuries, while for example Episcopalians and Anglicans have leniency to reform or counterreform without the presence/lack thereof having intrinsic effect on their church authority. It is only Roman Catholicism which contradicts her own self, denying her own rules, and therefore implicitly disproving her own claims.

^^long post originally posted elsewhere detailing my issue with the Church which ultimately lead me to leave it.

So, I left Catholicism because blahblahblah Vatican II is bad mmm'kay? I'm looking into Episcopalianism as a favour to a dear friend of mine in the Church of England (which does have The Queen! Bonus points, Church of England, but your women clergy do you no favours) but there's a strong possibility I will end up back in paganism. I have roots here -- or as 'here' as a myriad bundle of non-People of the Book-religions can be -- and I don't have anything against polytheism, I'll just need to find the right fit again.

Figured I've give you all, my compadres of 4+ years now (!) a heads-up.
“Castus, meanwhile, goes straight for the bad theology like one of those creepy fish that swims up streams of pee.” — Darkhawk

Altair

  • Adept Member
  • ********
  • Join Date: Jul 2011
  • Location: New York, New York
  • *
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 3024
  • Country: us
  • Total likes: 395
  • Fly high and make the world follow
    • View Profile
    • Songs of the Metamythos
  • Religion: tree-hugging pagan
  • Preferred Pronouns: he/him/his
Re: I left Roman Catholicism :/
« Reply #1 on: March 30, 2015, 10:49:26 pm »
Quote from: Castus;173602
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckCwBAhz4oc[/video]

One of my favorites.

Quote
So, I left Catholicism

We may not often (ever?) see eye to eye, Castus (besides Maxine Nightingale), but best wishes in finding the path that hits the sweet spot for you.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2015, 10:50:31 pm by Altair »
The first song sets the wheel in motion / The second is a song of love / The third song tells of Her devotion / The fourth cries joy from the sky above
The fifth song binds our fate to silence / and bids us live each moment well / The sixth unleashes rage and violence / The seventh song has truth to tell
The last song echoes through the ages / to ask its question all night long / And close the circle on these pages / These, the metamythos songs

Castus

  • Sr. Master Member
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jul 2011
  • Location: Virginia
  • Posts: 821
  • Country: us
  • Total likes: 76
    • View Profile
  • Religion: that’s a great question
Re: I left Roman Catholicism :/
« Reply #2 on: March 30, 2015, 11:01:45 pm »
Quote from: Altair;173607
We may not often (ever?) see eye to eye, Castus (besides Maxine Nightingale), but best wishes in finding the path that hits the sweet spot for you.

Not ever to my recollection, no we haven't. But I appreciate your best wishes ^^
“Castus, meanwhile, goes straight for the bad theology like one of those creepy fish that swims up streams of pee.” — Darkhawk

Gaudior

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Posts: 139
  • Country: us
  • Total likes: 0
  • Moladh Bríd
    • View Profile
  • Religion: Clann Bhride
  • Preferred Pronouns: She/her/hers
Re: I left Roman Catholicism :/
« Reply #3 on: March 31, 2015, 07:18:09 am »
Quote from: Castus;173602
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckCwBAhz4oc[/video]


Spoiler:  
The Catholic Church establishes itself as an infallible authority. This infallibility is manifested in two ways: the extraordinary Magisterium (the Magisterium being the teaching authority of the Church) and the ordinary Magisterium. The infallibility of the extraordinary Magisterium is usually exercised by the Pope and can be exercised at a general ecumenical (Church-wise, not denominations-wise) council of all the bishops in union with him. The doctrine itself was explicitly defined during what is known as the First Vatican Council during the reign of Pius IX and was later used by him to infallibly define the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in Ineffabilis Deus. Pius XII infallibly defined the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary in the encyclical Munificentissimus Deus and is the last Pope to have exercised the teaching office in such a way.
 
The second form of infallibility is the ordinary Magisterium. Although the infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium was specifically re-affirmed during the Second Vatican Council it has mostly been forgotten as a terrible inconvenience to all those Catholic couples who think that condoms and the pill are the greatest things since sliced bread. The ordinary infallibility of the Magisterium is exercised "when the Pope, Council, Bishop, priest or any authorized teacher teaches in accordance with Tradition, the Sacred Deposit of Faith, and what has been always accepted and taught by the Church in the past." This encompasses teachings such as the sinfulness of homosexuality/homosexual intercourse, teachings on marriage and the sinfulness of contraceptives, etc. etc. These are not just teachings or doctrines that can be disputed or rejected, but rather possess the full characteristics of infallibility. Joseph Cardinal Siri, noted conservative prelate and theologian, noted as late as 1968 that "[t]he object of the ordinary infallible magisterium is all the deposit of revealed truth" and that "the infallibility enjoyed by the solemn magisterium is the same as that enjoyed by the ordinary magisterium."
 
Having established how the Church defines and exercises the nature of her authority, let's ask one question:
 
Can the doctrine of the Catholic Church change?
 
This question has to do with the Church's quality of indefectibility. The Catholic Encyclopedia addresses indefectibility like so...
 
"By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men."
 
The Church can never be wrong because of the quality of infallibility vested in her teaching authority, and furthermore the essential characteristics of her doctrine and constitution can never change due to the quality of her indefectibility. These are the requirements which the Roman Catholic Church has established for itself, and it is at these requirements that she manifestly fails. It has been well-established elsewhere that the events of the Second Vatican Council and the subsequent far-reaching doctrinal, liturgical, and pastoral reforms which emerged as a result constitute at best a significant break in the continuity of the Church's previous teachings and practices. This I am taking as a given for the purpose of this writing. Although there are many Catholics who do not realise what this means, fully, to those who do recognise this as a problem, there is one central question that they variously try to answer: how this could have occurred.
 
As we have seen, the Church does not allow for her authority to alter its essential characteristics or corrupt in faith and morals. This is precisely what occurred at the Council; as everything from the ecclesiological structure of the Church to the meaning, form, and substance of the Mass was altered in such a way that it represented "a substantial departure" in the words of Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani and several others, from the "eternal" form of the Mass as established by the Council of Trent. Trying to reconcile how the Church has seemingly failed the characteristics of infallibility and indefectibility -- which by her own definition she cannot fail -- has been the driving impetus of the Traditionalist movement for over half a century now; and even today the prevailing prominent solutions (recognise the Church as legitimate but resist VII's errors, claim that the Church's hierarchy lost authority around the time of VII and there has been an 'eclipse of the Church', and read the Council 'in light of Tradition', respectively) see infighting among their supporters; each with their own problems. Now this of course is not unusual in the grand scheme of Christian denominations. As the old saying goes there are as many different kinds of Protestantism as their are Protestants. What makes the situation in the Catholic Church unique, however, is that without the attributes of infallibility and indefectibility the division or presence of reforms in other denominations is that -- regardless of whether they themselves are valid divisions/reforms or not -- are not impossible in and of themselves. A reform may not be good, but there is no reason why it absolutely cannot happen.
 
The indefectability and infallibility of the Church are not necessarily handicaps ipso facto but Vatican II has forced them into such a position. Whatever one's explanation, the Roman Catholic Church has in essence failed to play by her own rules. Whereas once those two attributes could reliably stand as guideposts to orthodoxy and orthopraxy they have essentially become proofs against themselves as they have manifestly failed to be abided by; which by their very nature is an impossibility. This presents the traditional Catholic with a heavy cross: to leave. In the wake of Vatican II many have left the Church in favour of other denominations, usually Orthodoxy, which do not set themselves up in such a fashion (explicitly unable to reform significantly, and therefore forced to reconcile if a significant reform does occur) and thereby avoid entirely wrestling with the issue. The Orthodox have not reformed or had any Ecumenical Council worthy of the name in centuries, while for example Episcopalians and Anglicans have leniency to reform or counterreform without the presence/lack thereof having intrinsic effect on their church authority. It is only Roman Catholicism which contradicts her own self, denying her own rules, and therefore implicitly disproving her own claims.

^^long post originally posted elsewhere detailing my issue with the Church which ultimately lead me to leave it.

So, I left Catholicism because blahblahblah Vatican II is bad mmm'kay? I'm looking into Episcopalianism as a favour to a dear friend of mine in the Church of England (which does have The Queen! Bonus points, Church of England, but your women clergy do you no favours) but there's a strong possibility I will end up back in paganism. I have roots here -- or as 'here' as a myriad bundle of non-People of the Book-religions can be -- and I don't have anything against polytheism, I'll just need to find the right fit again.

Figured I've give you all, my compadres of 4+ years now (!) a heads-up.

 
Best wishes, friend. You made me remember I have a post that's a long time coming too. Haha.
I talk to plants.

Alatoru

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2015
  • Posts: 9
  • Total likes: 0
    • View Profile
Re: I left Roman Catholicism :/
« Reply #4 on: April 06, 2015, 03:27:04 am »
Quote from: Castus;173602

So, I left Catholicism because blahblahblah Vatican II is bad mmm'kay?

I would just like to add that it does not mean god is bad, if church is bad. Never forget that church is ruled by humans and humans are sinful. I am not Catholic , but just saying this to you. =)
The true terror is when your fears become reality.

Demophon

  • Master Member
  • ******
  • Join Date: May 2015
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 258
  • Country: ca
  • Total likes: 15
    • View Profile
Re: I left Roman Catholicism :/
« Reply #5 on: June 02, 2015, 09:02:28 am »
Quote from: Castus;173602
I'm looking into Episcopalianism as a favour to a dear friend of mine in the Church of England (which does have The Queen! Bonus points, Church of England, but your women clergy do you no favours) but there's a strong possibility I will end up back in paganism.

 
You may be aware of this, but Episcopalianism/Anglicanism can be very diverse, so if you have Catholic leanings, you might want to look into an Episcopalian church with "high" churchmanship or an "anglo-catholic" orientation. They are usually queer-friendly, which is nice because they apparently attract significant LGBT demographic, for some reason, and they are also pretty relaxed about contraception, reproductive rights, etc. A lot of Anglo-Catholic churches don't acknowledge Vatican II because they aren't in communion with Rome anyway, so the liturgy and music is very medieval except that it's (usually) in English. They also typically have statues of the Virgin Mary and the Saints, and pray the rosary, so most of it would be familiar to someone coming from Catholicism.

Not saying you should definitely become an Episcopalian, just that there are other options besides the Roman Church if you really find value in catholic Christianity. If not, welcome back to paganism!

EclecticWheel

  • Staff
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2013
  • Location: Texas
  • Posts: 706
  • Country: us
  • Total likes: 178
    • View Profile
  • Religion: Christo-Eclectic
  • Preferred Pronouns: he/him/his
Re: I left Roman Catholicism :/
« Reply #6 on: June 03, 2015, 09:56:45 pm »
Quote from: Castus;173602
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckCwBAhz4oc[/video]


Spoiler:  
The Catholic Church establishes itself as an infallible authority. This infallibility is manifested in two ways: the extraordinary Magisterium (the Magisterium being the teaching authority of the Church) and the ordinary Magisterium. The infallibility of the extraordinary Magisterium is usually exercised by the Pope and can be exercised at a general ecumenical (Church-wise, not denominations-wise) council of all the bishops in union with him. The doctrine itself was explicitly defined during what is known as the First Vatican Council during the reign of Pius IX and was later used by him to infallibly define the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in Ineffabilis Deus. Pius XII infallibly defined the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary in the encyclical Munificentissimus Deus and is the last Pope to have exercised the teaching office in such a way.
 
The second form of infallibility is the ordinary Magisterium. Although the infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium was specifically re-affirmed during the Second Vatican Council it has mostly been forgotten as a terrible inconvenience to all those Catholic couples who think that condoms and the pill are the greatest things since sliced bread. The ordinary infallibility of the Magisterium is exercised "when the Pope, Council, Bishop, priest or any authorized teacher teaches in accordance with Tradition, the Sacred Deposit of Faith, and what has been always accepted and taught by the Church in the past." This encompasses teachings such as the sinfulness of homosexuality/homosexual intercourse, teachings on marriage and the sinfulness of contraceptives, etc. etc. These are not just teachings or doctrines that can be disputed or rejected, but rather possess the full characteristics of infallibility. Joseph Cardinal Siri, noted conservative prelate and theologian, noted as late as 1968 that "[t]he object of the ordinary infallible magisterium is all the deposit of revealed truth" and that "the infallibility enjoyed by the solemn magisterium is the same as that enjoyed by the ordinary magisterium."
 
Having established how the Church defines and exercises the nature of her authority, let's ask one question:
 
Can the doctrine of the Catholic Church change?
 
This question has to do with the Church's quality of indefectibility. The Catholic Encyclopedia addresses indefectibility like so...
 
"By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men."
 
The Church can never be wrong because of the quality of infallibility vested in her teaching authority, and furthermore the essential characteristics of her doctrine and constitution can never change due to the quality of her indefectibility. These are the requirements which the Roman Catholic Church has established for itself, and it is at these requirements that she manifestly fails. It has been well-established elsewhere that the events of the Second Vatican Council and the subsequent far-reaching doctrinal, liturgical, and pastoral reforms which emerged as a result constitute at best a significant break in the continuity of the Church's previous teachings and practices. This I am taking as a given for the purpose of this writing. Although there are many Catholics who do not realise what this means, fully, to those who do recognise this as a problem, there is one central question that they variously try to answer: how this could have occurred.
 
As we have seen, the Church does not allow for her authority to alter its essential characteristics or corrupt in faith and morals. This is precisely what occurred at the Council; as everything from the ecclesiological structure of the Church to the meaning, form, and substance of the Mass was altered in such a way that it represented "a substantial departure" in the words of Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani and several others, from the "eternal" form of the Mass as established by the Council of Trent. Trying to reconcile how the Church has seemingly failed the characteristics of infallibility and indefectibility -- which by her own definition she cannot fail -- has been the driving impetus of the Traditionalist movement for over half a century now; and even today the prevailing prominent solutions (recognise the Church as legitimate but resist VII's errors, claim that the Church's hierarchy lost authority around the time of VII and there has been an 'eclipse of the Church', and read the Council 'in light of Tradition', respectively) see infighting among their supporters; each with their own problems. Now this of course is not unusual in the grand scheme of Christian denominations. As the old saying goes there are as many different kinds of Protestantism as their are Protestants. What makes the situation in the Catholic Church unique, however, is that without the attributes of infallibility and indefectibility the division or presence of reforms in other denominations is that -- regardless of whether they themselves are valid divisions/reforms or not -- are not impossible in and of themselves. A reform may not be good, but there is no reason why it absolutely cannot happen.
 
The indefectability and infallibility of the Church are not necessarily handicaps ipso facto but Vatican II has forced them into such a position. Whatever one's explanation, the Roman Catholic Church has in essence failed to play by her own rules. Whereas once those two attributes could reliably stand as guideposts to orthodoxy and orthopraxy they have essentially become proofs against themselves as they have manifestly failed to be abided by; which by their very nature is an impossibility. This presents the traditional Catholic with a heavy cross: to leave. In the wake of Vatican II many have left the Church in favour of other denominations, usually Orthodoxy, which do not set themselves up in such a fashion (explicitly unable to reform significantly, and therefore forced to reconcile if a significant reform does occur) and thereby avoid entirely wrestling with the issue. The Orthodox have not reformed or had any Ecumenical Council worthy of the name in centuries, while for example Episcopalians and Anglicans have leniency to reform or counterreform without the presence/lack thereof having intrinsic effect on their church authority. It is only Roman Catholicism which contradicts her own self, denying her own rules, and therefore implicitly disproving her own claims.

^^long post originally posted elsewhere detailing my issue with the Church which ultimately lead me to leave it.

So, I left Catholicism because blahblahblah Vatican II is bad mmm'kay? I'm looking into Episcopalianism as a favour to a dear friend of mine in the Church of England (which does have The Queen! Bonus points, Church of England, but your women clergy do you no favours) but there's a strong possibility I will end up back in paganism. I have roots here -- or as 'here' as a myriad bundle of non-People of the Book-religions can be -- and I don't have anything against polytheism, I'll just need to find the right fit again.

Figured I've give you all, my compadres of 4+ years now (!) a heads-up.

 
You're post is interesting I think because it contains within it similar tensions I've had.  On the one hand, you rightly believe that Vatican II undermined the Church's teachings and self-identity and you aren't keen on female clergy in the Church of England, but you would still consider a church influenced by the Reformation or even neo-paganism.

I've been Episcopalian and Roman Catholic, but I was Episcopalian first and left for Roman Catholicism for reasons I still don't completely understand.  I was looking for some sort of stability or consistency I found lacking in the Episcopal Church but failed to consider that my beliefs and practices have been eclectic for most of my life and that I didn't really need to align my beliefs precisely with my official religion, at least if it was tolerant of me which the ECUSA is.  Besides, I had many problems with the Catholic Church.

Well, I quickly found out that the Catholic Church also has much conflicting theology and practice, something I knew in the abstract but had to see first hand.  I'm a hands-on kind of person and can't really know if something will work for me spiritually speaking unless I just jump in and try it.  I was treated very badly in the Catholic Church mainly by the priest I suspect because I am gay, especially in the confessional.  Lay leaders in the church were also being rude to me because my prayer life and mentality coming from an Anglo-Catholic background was...well, just more Catholic than theirs.  I loved ancient hymns and incense and high liturgies and litanies, memorized prayers, the frequent usage of the sign of the cross.  I quickly found out that stuff ostracized me in the Catholic Church at least where I was.  Someone even had the audacity to tell me that I needed a reminder to love my neighbor.  ???

Having been on both sides of the divide I can say that the theology in both churches is very much muddled at this point, but it might not be a bad thing depending on your viewpoint.  Perhaps you could be okay with that in Anglicanism since it doesn't claim the same kind of indefectibility that has undermined the Catholic Church's authority.  If high liturgy is your thing, you might find more of that in the ECUSA.  It can be difficult to find in the Catholic Church and it made me nervous that in Catholicism traditional liturgies are often associated with homophobia whereas in the ECUSA this is not necessarily the case.  You might be going to an old tridentine rite in traditional English with a gay partnered priest (although it might also be very conservative).

The ECUSA also tends to be more openly tolerant of unorthodox spiritualities among both laity and clergy, even bishops.  So if you were really open to polytheism and neo-paganism you might find more openness in the Episcopal Church to that.

I am not very much concerned with identifying with mainstream Christianity anymore and instead am looking more into what I really believe in my soul, although the Episcopal Church is where I prefer to have Communion if I'm not having it (physically) alone.  I was always a polytheist of sorts and never felt a conflict with that in TEC.  As it turns out, a member of a neo-pagan group I belonged to (and who was quite snarky about Christianity at that) was also a regular communicant at my parish.  I noticed her at the altar several times communing and then serving tea after mass.  Small world, I guess.

Anyway, if your leanings are anything like mine I'd just focus on what you really believe, what works for you, and in terms of community if you should desire it you need to go where you feel most comfortable, accepted, and free to pursue what you really believe is true.  If you can do that in the Catholic Church, great.  For me personally, that didn't work out.  But that may have had a lot to do with my local community.  As damaging as my experiences were to my self-esteem and emotions, almost every Catholic I've known outside of this community has been a kind, warm person.  Conversely, not everyone will have a great experience in the Episcopal Church or another community.  I had some bad ones myself, but the good outweighs the bad mostly.  It's more of an introverted sort of religion, people let me be mostly, and don't inquire into my beliefs or tell me to submit to authority.
My personal moral code:

Love wisely, and do what thou wilt.

Demophon

  • Master Member
  • ******
  • Join Date: May 2015
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 258
  • Country: ca
  • Total likes: 15
    • View Profile
Re: I left Roman Catholicism :/
« Reply #7 on: June 04, 2015, 12:19:55 am »
Quote from: EclecticWheel;175761
 Lay leaders in the church were also being rude to me because my prayer life and mentality coming from an Anglo-Catholic background was...well, just more Catholic than theirs.  I loved ancient hymns and incense and high liturgies and litanies, memorized prayers, the frequent usage of the sign of the cross.  I quickly found out that stuff ostracized me in the Catholic Church at least where I was.

 
Yeah, that has been my experience too when I have visited Catholic churches. It was very disappointing, since the music was bad, the congregation wasn't very reverent, and the liturgy was bland and unremarkable. High Anglicans are more Catholic these days than the Romans. It just didn't seem very appealing at all to be part of a homophobic, misogynistic, child-abusing Church that really had very little to offer in terms of spirituality and ritual. The one exception was an Ordinariate parish, which maintains the high Anglo-Catholic liturgy, but is in communion with Rome. I found their Masses extremely beautiful and moving, but they tend to be very socially conservative. I wouldn't say they are homophobic, but they are not keen on same-sex marriage, and definitely not into women priests or choice regarding abortion. I couldn't reconcile myself to those attitudes, but I'm sure it's a good community for some people.

There are even different strains even within Anglo-Catholic traditions, if one wants to go that route. I think it's the Alcuin branch that wants to recapture the essence of the pre-Reformation Church, so medieval traditions are followed as closely as possible, and women priests don't preside. Then there's the Society of St Peter and Paul, which sees Anglo-Catholicism as more of a living tradition, and tries to be in line with Rome as if the Church of England never separated. Unless the Roman Catholic Church teaches something they don't like, in which case their Anglican identity comes out. Churches in this tradition usually acknowledge some Vatican II reforms such as the priest facing the congregation at the altar, and women priests are more common. The nice thing about Anglicanism is that at least you have a lot of options.

Tags:
 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
2365 Views
Last post May 19, 2013, 12:12:04 pm
by RandallS
1 Replies
1339 Views
Last post February 27, 2014, 06:16:56 pm
by RandallS
1 Replies
1492 Views
Last post September 26, 2014, 11:27:34 am
by Aeronis
4 Replies
1461 Views
Last post September 16, 2015, 06:49:58 pm
by RandallS
8 Replies
1591 Views
Last post January 03, 2016, 08:17:09 pm
by Yei

* Who's Online

  • Dot Guests: 43
  • Dot Hidden: 0
  • Dot Users: 1
  • Dot Users Online:

* Please Donate!

The Cauldron's server is expensive and requires monthly payments. Please become a Bronze, Silver or Gold Donor if you can. Donations are needed every month. Without member support, we can't afford the server.

* Shop & Support TC

The links below are affiliate links. When you click on one of these links you will go to the listed shopping site with The Cauldron's affiliate code. Any purchases you make during your visit will earn TC a tiny percentage of your purchase price at no extra cost to you.

* In Memoriam

Chavi (2006)
Elspeth (2010)
Marilyn (2013)

* Cauldron Staff

Host:
Sunflower

Message Board Staff
Board Coordinator:
Darkhawk

Assistant Board Coordinator:
Aster Breo

Senior Staff:
Aisling, Jenett, Sefiru

Staff:
Allaya, Chatelaine, EclecticWheel, HarpingHawke, Kylara, PerditaPickle, rocquelaire

Discord Chat Staff
Chat Coordinator:
Morag

Cauldron Council:
Bob, Catja, Emma-Eldritch, Fausta, Jubes, Kelly, LyricFox, Phouka, Sperran, Star, Steve, Tana

Site Administrator:
Randall