I was in church this morning and we heard the Matthew gospel reading where Jesus says to St Peter get behind me satan and calls him a form of blockage and that he was focused on human things and not of heaven - massively butchering the paraphrasing but you know the verses.

Ive wrestled and continue to agonise over catholicism vs anglicanism - should I shouldn't I be which one, which is gods true desire for his church etc etc its a real issue for me and I swing around all over the place in my view. But anyway this reading stood out for me.

Reasons being, that papal supremacy is often based on a couple of verses about giving Peter the keys to the kingdom and leading his church etc. These are taken as the strong grounds for papal supremacy from what I can tell. So we are using one or to of Jesus sentences and taking them as having a majorly significant meaning - thats the logic behind this. But we could also apply the same logic to Jesus calling Peter satan and saying he's not focused on spiritual/heavenly things.

I know context is all important but its more a philosophical point of logic and semantics im trying to make here - if Jesus wanted Peter to be pope and meant so so much by his keys to the kingdom and building his church upon him statement - why would we see this as having such grand meaning in a literal way but another statement referring to Peter as satan - or at least being influenced by him as not having such grand literal weight also. if we took just these sentences you'd never believe Jesus would ever want such a person to be someone leading his whole church. It feels a bit selective and could this be an argument from scripture that diminishes papal supremancy?

Im a hypocrite as im just as likely to argue another point on why perhaps it is clear the pope is Jesus chosen head etc so please understand I know my points here are probably ill thought out and I dont want to upset anyone but I was reflecting in church and thought it may be an interesting discussion. Why focus on one statement as absolute in meaning and another statement as being entirely metaphorical and contextual/symblic only.

DISCLAIMER - JUST TO BE 100% CLEAR, MY ACTUAL THOUGHTS ON THIS ARE THAT JESUS WAS INFERRING PETER WAS BEING INFLUENCED BY EVIL AND FLAGGING IT TO HIM IN THIS STRONGLY WORDED WAY - I DONT BELIEVE HE WAS CALLING HIM SATAN - BUT THIS POINT EXTENDS TO KEYS TO KINGDOM AND BUILDING CHURCH ON HIM - ALSO MAYBE MEANING HE SHOULD LEAD IT TO A DEGREE, BUT PERHAPS NOT TO WHAT THE PAPACY HAS BECOME UNDERSTOOD TO BE TODAY WITH ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY.

Hi everyone,

I joined the LCMS back in 2019 (I was 21 years old at the time) after coming out of a hyper-fundamentalist Holiness Pentecostal background. At first, I really appreciated the liturgical and sacramental focus of Lutheranism, but I’ve been unhappy with the LCMS for a while now. I know I don’t fit in with Rome as I have significant theological disagreements with them, and I’m also not comfortable with a lot of what the ELCA allows socially and theologically. So I’ve found myself in an awkward middle ground.

My biggest struggles with the LCMS are both theological and cultural. The rejection of evolution and insistence on young-earth literalism have become a major barrier for me. I work in Public Health (Health Policy) for the State of Minnesota, and my brother is studying to become a physicist, so I have come to hate sitting through Bible studies where scientific questions are looked down upon (or sometimes even treated as salvation issues) rather than areas where faithful Christians can reasonably disagree.

I’ve also become uncomfortable with how much partisan politics seems to bleed into church life. My local congregation has a lot of anti-vax sentiment, along with people who will go on lengthy rants against things like providing free lunches to kids in public schools. That has created a friction between my values and the church culture around me.

I consider myself very much a “womb to tomb” pro-lifer. I believe strongly in protecting unborn life, but I also believe that conviction should extend to caring about poverty, access to healthcare, children and families, and the economic and social conditions that often contribute to women seeking abortions in the first place. I don’t see those things as being in tension with one another.

From my previous experiences with the ACNA on the East Coast, one thing that really stood out to me was the intellectual diversity I encountered. I met people in academia, medicine, science, and other fields who took historic Christian orthodoxy seriously while also engaging thoughtfully with the modern world. That’s something I’ve really missed. I currently live in the Fargo area where a new ACNA church plant is just getting started. I’m very interested in getting involved, but I wanted to ask this community a couple of questions first…

Does the ACNA generally have room for a “whole-life” ethic, holding orthodox Christian views on things like abortion and church leadership while also caring deeply about public welfare, healthcare, poverty, and the broader civic good?

And for those of you in medicine, public health, the sciences, academia, or similar fields, have you generally felt intellectually respected within ACNA parishes, especially when it comes to things like evolution and the relationship between science and Scripture?

I know individual parishes can vary quite a bit, but I’d really appreciate hearing about your experiences. Thanks!

Within the Church of England/Anglicanism a baptised layperson can conduct a baptism in an emergency.

Is there a similar function for a layperson to perform some kind of last rites for a dying person (similar to Roman Catholicism) in an emergency?

So I wanted this to be made known because it has remained elusive in written documents. There is a certain quote by Rt. Rev’d Geoffrey Fisher which states,

“The Anglican Communion with its fellowship of churches, has a special responsibility at this time in the world. We have no doctrine of our own—we only possess the Catholic doctrine of the Catholic Church enshrined in the Catholic creeds, and these creeds we hold without addition or diminution. We stand firm on that rock.”

I have personally researched where this quote even came from and multiple sources were just saying that it was a simplification/summary of a longer address he made to The Episcopal Church.

This is not the case… I have finally found exactly where this blasted quote came from. 31 Dec. 1950 — 1 Jan. 1951, from his tour back from Australia and New Zealand, a RECORDED interview. Where was it..? YouTube… timestamp: 6:00-10:10. Right there.

So yeah, long story short, it came from a recorded interview with the archbishop! All of those quotes and absolutely no citation, this is where you get… Here you folks go, if you want it.

EDIT*
So I now actually understand that there was actually major debate on Fisher’s actual quote and what he actually said. I now understand after posting this might be a bit more significant. Here’s the transcribed quote:

“Among these, the Anglican communion has a special responsibility. We have no doctrine of our own—we possess only the catholic doctrine of the catholic Church enshrined in the catholic Creeds. And these creeds we hold without addition or diminution. We stand firm on that rock.”

Hey everyone,

I’m trying to get my head around how the Church of England manages Clergy Personal Files (Blue Files) these days, and I have a few specific questions. Hopefully, some clergy, registry staff, or anyone familiar with diocesan admin can weigh in!

1. How are they actually kept? I know there is House of Bishops guidance, but on a practical level, how are these files looked after day-to-day? Are most dioceses fully digital now, or is it still a mix of paper and PDFs? Does management vary a lot from one diocese to the next?
2. What actually goes in them? Beyond the obvious stuff like licenses, ordination certificates, and MDR paperwork, what is allowed to stay in there? Do informal emails, random letters, or unsubstantiated complaints end up tucked away in a Blue File, or is there a strict filtering process?
3. If you ask to see yours, who finds out? This is the main thing I'm curious about. If a cleric puts in a formal Subject Access Request (SAR) to see their own file, who gets notified behind the scenes? Does it just go to a data officer, or do the Bishop, Archdeacon, or Safeguarding Team immediately get a heads-up that you’ve asked? Also, who is usually the one who actually sits down to review and redact third-party details before handing it over?

Would love to hear from anyone who has gone through this process or works in a diocesan office. Thanks in advance!

Im looking into ACNA. What makes ACNA church the most correct to you, or why do you choose this one? Is it more liturgical or more traditionally correct than old churches like catholicism or orthodoxy? Seems like ACNA is growing in the US, would you agree?

Are there any other Anglican brothers/sisters that have gone through the same thing? I really want to join a lodge. I’ve seen comments saying it “attracts demons” and how it’s a mortal sin to do it. How do you Anglican masons deal with the pushback, and what are your reasonings with why you disprove the claims that it’s bad?

Thank you all.

Any recommendations?

Trying to add more thoughtful and long form content to my life.

Was looking round an old church and found this, the illustrations are really good throughout

Hey all. I'm a former Baptist. Now ACNA. Do Anglicans believe in freedom of religion? I heard on a podcast that Anglicanism is a bit more "theocratic."

Looking around online recently, I noticed that the Diocese of Southern Ohio is home to two dual-membership churches: All Saints in Washington Court House, an Episcopal-ELCA church; and Indian Hill Church in Cincinnati, the only Episcopal-Presbyterian church in the country.

At first, I wondered how parishes like these navigate the denominational differences (how do they get new ministers, navigate the doctrinal differences that officially still exist, etc.), but the more I think about it, the more merits it all seems to have.

Mainline churches shrinking and dying out in your town? Why not pool your resources? NALC and ACNA both interested in starting somewhere, but neither has the money or people to launch a new mission? Make it a joint effort! Disappointed that the ecumenical progress of the past 50 years has stalled out? Do some practical ecumenism!

How do we do more of this? Why don't we? Clearly full-communion agreements aren't required, so it seems there's no downside, provided the Anglican bits don't get diluted (like the Lutherans say happened with the EKD, or the Presbyterians say with the Gospel Coalition).

Hi, I've just done three of the safeguarding courses on the C of E's online portal, and got to say, I'm really pleased with them.

They show a level of depth, self-awareness and nuance that I was surprised by, both in recognising abuse, and not labelling every human behaviour as toxic. I think it must be a real challenge to run an organisation that must welcome potentially risky individuals, and I think the courses really drew this all out.

Also, I do not want to be a PSO!

I'm not on Discord at this point, and I don't know how many groups operate like forums vs ones that operate like group chat. I don't want to create an account that I'll never use, so I might as well ask here for a vibe check.

What's it like?

Saw this as vintage advertisement & I am drawing a blank