SecretMethod70

Not necessarily but generally correct. Anglican churches have the option of being in communion with the Vatican, but it isn't necessarily so (see the section on Anglicans within the Roman rite here). Nonetheless, you make an important point that most people are not aware of. Roman Catholicism is only the largest rite within Catholicism. Catholicism as a whole has different rites which fall under the vatican, including some eastern rites which allow priests to be married (since it is not a theological decision of the Catholic Church but an administrative one, and the main point of these different rites, since they've rejoined the Catholic Church as a whole, is that they believe in different administrative practices).
Indeed, neither Catholicism or Protestantism is what early Christianity was, but that doesn't make anything necessarily better or worse (and I'm not saying you said it did, but some people think that way ). Personally, the idea of seeking some "pure" Christianity is pretty silly to me. There is a lot to learn from how Christianity was first perceived, and there's a lot to learn from our modern situation as well. One of my religious studies professors had a very interesting phrase he used: "changing to preserve the changeless"....meaning sometimes you need to let go of traditions and beliefs to maintain the relevancy of the core meaning of the religion in the modern era. Or, in the case of lent, you need to reevaluate it and what purpose it has, hence why I don't identify it with "suffering with Jesus" or any sort of symbolism ("Jesus was a 'fisherman' so we eat fish on Fridays") but with a more Buddhist-like approach: an exercise in rejecting the material world. Especially seeing as how materialism is the most relevant vice in western society today, most especially within the consumer culture of America.
I understand what you're getting at. But does the fact many people are sheep and don't think about what they're doing necessarily mean what they're doing is wrong? The biggest reason I have had problems with the practice of lent in the past is because it seemed to me there was nothing to be gotten out of it. For the most part, I was right. People give something up because they're "supposed to" and to "suffer with Jesus" and all that crap...and in the end it means nothing. Most of us are so distant from any real suffering that we have no idea what it means, and to equate giving up TV or something like that with being a martyr is just ridiculous, and deep down inside we all know that. Sure, it can serve as a reminder of Jesus and his message for 40 days, but 1) I don't think it lasts as a reminder for 40 days for most people and 2) I don't think the awareness it creates lasts beyond that 40 days. Worse yet, blindly doing something because you're told it's what you're supposed to do at this time of year is simply pointless. But, using TV as an example, the fact it is so difficult to ween ourselves away from it is a testament to the fact we each have our own many material "addictions." Reminding ourselves of this, and challenging ourselves to take a little focus off of these things and place it elsewhere in our lives *is* a benefit, and the awareness it creates can last well beyond the 40 days of lent. So, yes, I honestly think lent is pretty meaningless for most people who practice it, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that means the practice itself has no meaning. It's all in how you choose to experience and interpret it.

Try more water and fiber in your diet...should help.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling