Anglicanism vs Roman Catholicism

[New England and The Maritimes]

Catholosism is the way to go. We have a Pope and not a Queen as the religious head.

How is that better? At least temporal authority is local and acknowledges its obligations to the people(if it doesn't it is destroyed.) Temporal power over religion is the way to go, and there is no justification for handling religious affairs otherwise.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

Catholosism is the way to go. We have a Pope and not a Queen as the religious head.

And that makes a difference how really? The Apostolic Succession continues in the Anglican Communion in the choice of Bishops and so on. The Queen acts as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, but the Archbishop of Canterbury truly "rules the roost" and is primus inter pares in the Anglican Communion.

[Revolutopia]

Was raised Catholic and have went to Catholic education for 16 years of my life, thus the answer would have to be.....Anglicanism. In that I find them more Christ like with their higher tolerance of women's rights and homosexuals.

[Risottia]

If you had to choose between Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism or death, what would you choose?

Death.

Not MINE OWN of course.

[Radiatia]

I was Anglican until about 6 months ago when I became an Atheist. I still have a lot of time for them, and I respect their attempts to modernise an ancient and now irrelevant religion.

[Jafas United]

I'm a non-practicing Lutheran, not that it matters. I would go with Roman Catholic because it's older and has a lot more history behind it.

[Laysley]

Am I the only practising Anglican on this stuffing (note the use of Church of England style moderation in the language there) website?!

[Aethelstania]

I'm an Anglican. I'm proud to have a modern church where a lot of its members allow gay marriage and female priest's, its not perfect but its head over heals above Catholicism in that respect. I also prefer ceremonies, hymns and prayers in English as it makes sense to know what your saying and to whom. Finally why do I care who the bishop of Rome is ? he seems to be a man who at a vast expense goes to Africa to tell people to stop using condoms. So yes my church is far from perfect but it's an improvement

[The Archregimancy]

Clearly there's only one way forward when faced with this sort of choice.

Renounce all schismatic Western heresies and become Orthodox.

[Vortiaganica]

Clearly there's only one way forward when faced with this sort of choice.

Renounce all schismatic Western heresies and become Orthodox.

Mmm...nope, still a pagan non-denominational.

The Non-denominational Church of Vort: If atheists can make up their own minds so can we.

Although I currently go to an Anglican school, and used to attend a Roman Catholic school.

[Inter de Milano]

If you had to choose between Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism or death, what would you choose? I really don’t want to give my opinion after I hear your guy’s opinion. I can hypothesize that most of the folks on Nation states would go with neither because of the high rate of Agnosticism

Edit:
Well, I used to be an atheist when I first joined nationstates.net. I was raised a Roman Catholic but left. The main reason I joined my country's Anglican Church is because I agree with them more on current things. For one, I will NEVER recognize the current Roman Catholic Pope or any other pope as the leader of anything. Secondly, I don't believe anyone is infallible, especially the current Pope of that Roman Catholic Church.

I also fell that the Roman Catholic Church is joining the "We are Arminian, but we are going to sound like Calvinists to bring people in" bandwagon. I don’t believe that Roman Catholic church is the “one true church”.

The Roman Pontiff has biblical evidence supporting him and his claim to infallibility. I am a Roman Catholic till I die. Anglicans have become too liberal in my opinion.

[The Archregimancy]

The Roman Pontiff has biblical evidence supporting him and his claim to infallibility.

If he does, it's awfully odd that no one noticed until 1870.

Are we supposed to assume that it was right there in the Bible for 1800 years, but no one - including every single Ecumenical Council prior to that point - had bothered to work it out until then?


What you actually mean is that the Catholic Church argues for Petrine Supremacy via Mark 3:16 & 9:2, Luke 22:32, 24:34 and 1 Corinthians 15:5. The primacy of the Patriach of Rome was then established via a series of Ecumenical Councils, though with considerable disagreement within Christianity over whether that primacy was a matter of doctrine or honour (hence, eventually, and in part, the events of 1054 AD).

However, there's absolutely nothing in the Bible stating that the pronouncements of the Patriach of Rome - a position that didn't exist when the Gospels or Pauline Epistles were written - is infallible when pronouncing ex cathedra on issues of doctrine.

That the Catholic Church waited until 1870 to define the issue dogmatically rather proves the point; and even then it's best understood as the political reaction of a tired and weary old man to the loss of the Papal States to a unified Italy (uncoincidentally also in 1870), and which only passed Vatican I by such a wide margin because the Eastern Rite uniate bishops - who were unanimously opposed to the dogmatic definition of the doctrine - all walked out prior to the vote rather than further embarrass an emasculated Pope who'd just lost the Donation of Constantine.

[Yootwopia]

Anglicanism, because I don't really have to care or anything about very much that way.

Catholicism suggests an attachment to the Papal system, which is Wrong and Bad.

[Yootwopia]

Clearly there's only one way forward when faced with this sort of choice.

Renounce all schismatic Western heresies and become Orthodox.

This is all well and good, but then I'd have to worry all the time about the role of the Old Testament.

[Thyce]

I'd have to go with Catholic. Then I'd behave like a true American Catholic.. and not go to church anyway.

[Inter de Milano]

[quote="The Archregimancy";p="8891769]
If he does, it's awfully odd that no one noticed until 1870.

Are we supposed to assume that it was right there in the Bible for 1800 years, but no one - including every single Ecumenical Council prior to that point - had bothered to work it out until then?


What you actually mean is that the Catholic Church argues for Petrine Supremacy via Mark 3:16 & 9:2, Luke 22:32, 24:34 and 1 Corinthians 15:5. The primacy of the Patriach of Rome was then established via a series of Ecumenical Councils, though with considerable disagreement within Christianity over whether that primacy was a matter of doctrine or honour (hence, eventually, and in part, the events of 1054 AD).

However, there's absolutely nothing in the Bible stating that the pronouncements of the Patriach of Rome - a position that didn't exist when the Gospels or Pauline Epistles were written - is infallible when pronouncing ex cathedra on issues of doctrine.

That the Catholic Church waited until 1870 to define the issue dogmatically rather proves the point; and even then it's best understood as the political reaction of a tired and weary old man to the loss of the Papal States to a unified Italy (uncoincidentally also in 1870), and which only passed Vatican I by such a wide margin because the Eastern Rite uniate bishops - who were unanimously opposed to the dogmatic definition of the doctrine - all walked out prior to the vote rather than further embarrass an emasculated Pope who'd just lost the Donation of Constantine.[/quote]

Peter is the rock Jesus built his church on (Matt 16:18). Whatever he binds on Earth is bound in heaven, whatever he looses on Earth is loosed in Heaven. God has spoken through the prophets in the old testament before, he can do the same for His Holiness. And Peter was crucified in Rome. It would make sense the papacy follows him there.

[Ashmoria]

If you had to choose between Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism or death, what would you choose? I really don’t want to give my opinion after I hear your guy’s opinion. I can hypothesize that most of the folks on Nation states would go with neither because of the high rate of Agnosticism

Edit:
Well, I used to be an atheist when I first joined nationstates.net. I was raised a Roman Catholic but left. The main reason I joined my country's Anglican Church is because I agree with them more on current things. For one, I will NEVER recognize the current Roman Catholic Pope or any other pope as the leader of anything. Secondly, I don't believe anyone is infallible, especially the current Pope of that Roman Catholic Church.

I also fell that the Roman Catholic Church is joining the "We are Arminian, but we are going to sound like Calvinists to bring people in" bandwagon. I don’t believe that Roman Catholic church is the “one true church”.

oh id have to stay roman catholic because the church of england broke the apostolic chain and thus has no authority to appoint priests and perform the sacrements.

duh.

[Acadzia]

Anglican. Removing Catholic influence on the state was the best thing that ever happened to society.

Lol so you prefer the Church that has a King or a Queen as the head? Caesaropapism, look it up.

[The Flavii]

Confucianism

[Acadzia]

The Roman Pontiff has biblical evidence supporting him and his claim to infallibility.

If he does, it's awfully odd that no one noticed until 1870.

Are we supposed to assume that it was right there in the Bible for 1800 years, but no one - including every single Ecumenical Council prior to that point - had bothered to work it out until then?


What you actually mean is that the Catholic Church argues for Petrine Supremacy via Mark 3:16 & 9:2, Luke 22:32, 24:34 and 1 Corinthians 15:5. The primacy of the Patriach of Rome was then established via a series of Ecumenical Councils, though with considerable disagreement within Christianity over whether that primacy was a matter of doctrine or honour (hence, eventually, and in part, the events of 1054 AD).

However, there's absolutely nothing in the Bible stating that the pronouncements of the Patriach of Rome - a position that didn't exist when the Gospels or Pauline Epistles were written - is infallible when pronouncing ex cathedra on issues of doctrine.

That the Catholic Church waited until 1870 to define the issue dogmatically rather proves the point; and even then it's best understood as the political reaction of a tired and weary old man to the loss of the Papal States to a unified Italy (uncoincidentally also in 1870), and which only passed Vatican I by such a wide margin because the Eastern Rite uniate bishops - who were unanimously opposed to the dogmatic definition of the doctrine - all walked out prior to the vote rather than further embarrass an emasculated Pope who'd just lost the Donation of Constantine.

If you knew anything about history and theology you'd know that most dogma isn't explicitly defined unless the underlying assumptive Truth is challenged. IE, you can't write against Arians before there are Arians, as an example.

[Yootwopia]

Peter is the rock Jesus built his church on (Matt 16:18). Whatever he binds on Earth is bound in heaven, whatever he looses on Earth is loosed in Heaven. God has spoken through the prophets in the old testament before, he can do the same for His Holiness. And Peter was crucified in Rome. It would make sense the papacy follows him there.

And yet, amusingly enough, Jesus says this later in Matt 16:

16:23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns."

Oh my. How very prescient.

[Unchecked Expansion]

If you knew anything about history and theology

That's the funniest thing I've read all day

[Farnhamia]

The Roman Pontiff has biblical evidence supporting him and his claim to infallibility.

If he does, it's awfully odd that no one noticed until 1870.

Are we supposed to assume that it was right there in the Bible for 1800 years, but no one - including every single Ecumenical Council prior to that point - had bothered to work it out until then?


What you actually mean is that the Catholic Church argues for Petrine Supremacy via Mark 3:16 & 9:2, Luke 22:32, 24:34 and 1 Corinthians 15:5. The primacy of the Patriach of Rome was then established via a series of Ecumenical Councils, though with considerable disagreement within Christianity over whether that primacy was a matter of doctrine or honour (hence, eventually, and in part, the events of 1054 AD).

However, there's absolutely nothing in the Bible stating that the pronouncements of the Patriach of Rome - a position that didn't exist when the Gospels or Pauline Epistles were written - is infallible when pronouncing ex cathedra on issues of doctrine.

That the Catholic Church waited until 1870 to define the issue dogmatically rather proves the point; and even then it's best understood as the political reaction of a tired and weary old man to the loss of the Papal States to a unified Italy (uncoincidentally also in 1870), and which only passed Vatican I by such a wide margin because the Eastern Rite uniate bishops - who were unanimously opposed to the dogmatic definition of the doctrine - all walked out prior to the vote rather than further embarrass an emasculated Pope who'd just lost the Donation of Constantine.

Was the Pope ever a Patriarch? Formally, I mean. Bishop of Rome ... wait, I can look it up! Hmm ... "Patriarch of the West" but only between 1863 and 2005, though the title goes back to 642. And the title is retained, if not used. There it is, then.

[Farnhamia]

If you knew anything about history and theology

That's the funniest thing I've read all day

I know, me too.

[Ifreann]

Can't imagine I'd care either way.