Replies

Can you be more specific about the term 'clergy'? What constitutes clergy...

Some protestant denominations have female pastors. They are, technically, clergy. I'm fine with that. I don't go to those churches, but if a woman preaching there gets someone started on a path to God, I can't complain. If a woman helps someone stay in fellowship with God, I can hardly complain about that either. That's about as far as I extend my consideration of that issue. It gets stickier when you start having female Deacons and Priests, as is done in the Episcopal Church. While I have no specific objection to this, I also recognize that I am not a scholar of church canon and have no interest in enforcing my lack of objection in the form of support or demanding such be allowed anywhere else. I simply look and say "oh, that's what they do."

Perhaps more concise would be to say that "clergy" is "the group or body of ordained persons in a religion, as distinguished from the laity." I differentiate this from Priesthood, as protestant pastors are not priests. I probably could have explained that initially.

and by whose authority do these clergy have the right to lead.

It is not my opinion that the clergy lead. They may be the celebrants at Mass or whatever protestants call their equivalent (I should know that, given my background, but don't- for shame!), but they are servants first and foremost. At least, that is my understanding and given Christ's lessons I believe I am on the right track with that understanding.

Do you consider yourself a member of any of those 22 Catholic Churches?

The reason for my statement, in the way I made it anyway, is that a lot of Roman Catholics do not consider someone "Catholic" unless they were Baptized by a member of the Priesthood within the Roman Catholic Church specifically, under the umbrella of the Pope. I am not generally in agreement with that, however I harbor a very strong respect of the Roman Catholic Church, as well as the Orthodox churches and all branches within.

I was Baptized by the Dean of an Anglican cathedral and Confirmed by a Bishop of a parish that was once part of the Episcopal Church of the USA. Our Diocese was split on the matter of separating from the ECUSA, but a majority did leave and so our parish and others within the area are now aligned with the Anglican Church in North America. Long story short, we aren't Episcopalian.

All that said, we practice in the manner laid out in the Anglican liturgy, which is very "Catholic" in nature. During Mass we recite the Nicene Creed, which includes the line "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church," a thing I take seriously. Yet I would not be "allowed" to take Communion in a Roman Even still, I am fully supportive of the RCC in as much as I know about the Church. In fact, I am eagerly trying to learn more about the supposed move to accept Anglicans into full communion with Rome and, perhaps, allow us to celebrate the Mass at Roman Catholic parishes. I find the idea inspiring and exciting.

Hopefully this clears things up somewhat, or at least leads to further conversation that we can all benefit from and enjoy.

And I even proof read my post! Shame for missing bad grammar and a converged sentence.

What I meant was “Yet I would not be “allowed” to take Communion in a Roman Catholic parish. Even still...”

Sorry, and sorry for the double post.

I look forward to having orthodox, traditional Anglican-rite Catholics enriching the Church with their presence.

Thank you for the clarifications on my questions. It makes for a better understanding and dialogue. I will respond more in depth, later today.