/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>554138

tbh it seems like you are basically doing muh ancestors, tbh go to a divine liturgy there is nothing wrong with it for westerners.

I'm Catholic, I'd say: go to a Latin mass in a traditional church; if not, try to look into Eastern Orthodox churches. Just, please…let's not hate on one another. I have enough former friends who once they went into the Orthodox Church spent almost half of their time mocking and "softly" insulting my faith. I still love them, but the endless stream of "cuck"-tier insults was pretty sad to witness.

I am an Orthodox Christian who converted from Anglicanism, and for a time I was very invested in High Anglicanism and remaining in the CofE. Until my conversion I was for the most part nominal, I believed in God but did not go to Church.

The whole Anglican mindset is governed by a wishy-washy branch theory and view that as long as you believe the broad fundamentals of the religion you are in the all clear. This leaves the people who believe in the things you said (Marian Devotions, High Liturgy, etc) are just aesthetic things rather than essentials for the Christian faith.

I also think that this can be the case Eastern Catholics, who view the people whom they converted as merely practising 'rites' rather than holding different theological opinions. It's an Anglican universalist mindset that leaves you not valuing these traditions at all, and eventually sacrificing more essential parts of the Christian faith in the name of political unity.

So when I was Anglican, I would say that I thought these things were important but ultimately they were almost dogmatically not an essential part of the Christian faith–because they simply are not the norm within Anglicanism.

Anglicanism is CALVINIST sotoreiologically. They believe in double predestination and such, even Anglo-Catholics. So please assess whether you agree with this theology.

I genuinely do not think that Anglo-Catholicism is a fulfilling faith, I think it appeals to intellectual people because it has a lot of leeway regarding theology - it lets you believe what you want and there are whole churches that different on what they hold, what they think is important, and differ on some of the very basic elements of the Christian faith.

There are things which I think are clear theological errors in Anglicanism but I think the basis at which I stopped being an Anglican was just how dishonest it was.

John Henry Newman wrote a treatise when he was an Anglican about how you could reinterpret the 39 articles to support Catholic ideas. That is the sort of thing that I did (to a lesser level), and the sort of thing that most Anglo-Catholics do to justify their belief.

And I honestly think the Anglo-Catholic faith is limited to intellectuals who have come up with it themselves rather than a received church tradition.

>I'd maybe go Orthodox and suck up some stuff but I just don't feel like I'm connected enough to Orthodox tradition

This is a good thing because it means that you will be able to bring more people to the faith. In 10-20 years, as converts and immigrants bring Orthodoxy back to the West people will feel connected.

>>554154

I agree; Luke 6:41

>>554171

> Let former anglican priest lay it out for you

>First Reason Against Anglican Eucharist: Invalid Form of Priestly Ordination

If this is the case, then all modern Roman Catholic priests are also invalid, since their ordination was changed in V2

>Second Reason Against Anglican Eucharist: Invalid Form of Priestly Intent

The 39 Articles are not binding, and most Anglo-Catholic priests 'cross their fingers' when the articles are affirmed, which they're allowed to do

Also, as many in the comments of that article argue, the Orthodox church has taken part in many Anglican Ordinations. How is it that the Roman Catholic Church considers their sacraments and apostolic succession to be valid, but not Anglicans?

>>554364

>If this is the case, then all modern Roman Catholic priests are also invalid, since their ordination was changed in V2

Essentials reminded unchanged. It's literally as same change as "I baptise you in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit" and "I baptise (…) Holy Ghost".

While Anglican change it in sort this way: "I proclaim you are saved to the world. Have faith in triune God"

>The 39 Articles are not binding, and most Anglo-Catholic priests 'cross their fingers' when the articles are affirmed, which they're allowed to do

The 39 Articles are still the doctrinal formulary of Anglicanism. It is a public document. All clergy in the Church of England had to swear to the 39 Articles

>

Also, as many in the comments of that article argue, the Orthodox church has taken part in many Anglican Ordinations. How is it that the Roman Catholic Church considers their sacraments and apostolic succession to be valid, but not Anglicans?

You mean that valid bishop ordained anglican priest? Well, this begs the question, did he do it in valid, not anglican, way? If yes this priest is valid priest (just as Luther was still valid Augustinian monk even on deathbed). Now, if he offer sacraments in valid way, they are valid. If he do not, there is no sacrament at all.

>>554133

Orthodox.

Catholic