Ask an Anglican/Episcopalian

[benjohnson]

You have both views as in every faith. I do not see it as liberal/conservative.

Do you find the ‘big tend’ in the Anglican sphere a source of comfort, or does it drive you nuts? For example, I know one confessional ELCA church that views their steadfast faith within an otherwise failing larger church as an opportunity to proclaim the Gospel in a target-rich environment.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Do you find the ‘big tend’ in the Anglican sphere a source of comfort, or does it drive you nuts? For example, I know one confessional ELCA church that views their steadfast faith within an otherwise failing larger church as an opportunity to proclaim the Gospel in a target-rich environment.

Both lol

I am very traditional on most issues but also side with those on certain civil issues. I do find comfort in knowing that all views listened to. Make sense?

 

[Estevao]

What do you think of (retired) Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

You have both views as in every faith. I do not see it as liberal/conservative.

I mean in terms of theology, not of politics. That is there are spongs in the episcopalian church, those whom support homosexual marriage and other (what I would consider) unorthodox views.

 

[aidanbradypop]

What do you think of (retired) Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong?

I was waiting for that one. lol

I place him in the same place I would place Fr. Malachi Martin. Does that answer your question in a charitable way? lol

 

[aidanbradypop]

I mean in terms of theology, not of politics. That is there are spongs in the episcopalian church, those whom support homosexual marriage and other (what I would consider) unorthodox views.

Ok gotchat!

Spong is Spong. lol

It really depends on the area in which the parish is located as to how orthodox they are.

 

[ClearWater]

What’s “consubstantiation”? I tried to look it up but it kept…working…working…working, didn’t have the patience to wait for its answer.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Consubstantiation is a theological doctrine that (like Transubstantiation) attempts to describe the nature of the Christian Eucharist in concrete metaphysical terms. It holds that during the sacrament, the fundamental “substance” of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present. The doctrine of consubstantiation is often held in contrast to the doctrine of transubstantiation.

 

[Contarini]

I believe the Anglican church, in general, teaches that the real presence is an “optional” belief.

It depends on what you mean by “the Real Presence.” Most Anglicans would say rather that we affirm the Real Presence but allow for a wide range of explanations of it. Some of those explanations are along the lines of Calvinist “spiritual presence”; others are indistinguishable from Catholicism, and others are in the middle. Outright memorialism probably does exist, especially in England and Australia (not so much in the U.S.), but it is not something that Anglicans as a whole would see as O.K. Most of us would affirm that if you don’t believe Christ is truly present and truly received in the Eucharist, you are missing out on something pretty fundamental to historic, orthodox Christianity.

Edwin

 

[aidanbradypop]

It depends on what you mean by “the Real Presence.” Most Anglicans would say rather that we affirm the Real Presence but allow for a wide range of explanations of it. Some of those explanations are along the lines of Calvinist “spiritual presence”; others are indistinguishable from Catholicism, and others are in the middle. Outright memorialism probably does exist, especially in England and Australia (not so much in the U.S.), but it is not something that Anglicans as a whole would see as O.K. Most of us would affirm that if you don’t believe Christ is truly present and truly received in the Eucharist, you are missing out on something pretty fundamental to historic, orthodox Christianity.

Edwin

And may I add that many will simply take it as is…Christ stated it is His Body and it is His Blood. No questions on how or why. Simple faith in the mystery.

 

[Contarini]

Does your Church teach that it is the one true Church of God with the fullness of truth?

Certainly not. Indeed, I for one have always been uncomfortable referring to either the Anglican Communion or the Episcopal Church as a “Church” at all. There is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and there are local churches, which in Catholic polity means dioceses. (And I’m not unique in this–+Rowan Williams said as much in a letter to an American bishop when he was Archbishop of Canterbury.) The current leadership of the Episcopal Church, while certainly not claiming to be the One True Church, does regard the Episcopal Church as “a Church,” and that is for me one of the fundamental reasons to question membership in the Episcopal Church.

Can your Church be wrong on matters that other Churches may be correct in?

We certainly can be, and some of us think that we are.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

How long before the anglican church becomes totally liberalised? Or do you foresee a conservative comeback of some sort?

That’s a very vague question. What would “totally liberalized” even mean? If you mean “becomes indistinguishable from the Unitarians,” I don’t think that will happen, even in the Episcopal Church. Younger clergy, on the whole, are more creedally orthodox than the current leadership, while being socially fairly liberal. And worldwide Anglicanism is certainly not becoming more liberal on the whole.

Edwin

 

[ClearWater]

Consubstantiation is a theological doctrine that (like Transubstantiation) attempts to describe the nature of the Christian Eucharist in concrete metaphysical terms. It holds that during the sacrament, the fundamental “substance” of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present. The doctrine of consubstantiation is often held in contrast to the doctrine of transubstantiation.

I’m still not clear on the differences in the terms “consubstantiation” and “transubstantiation”.
What’s the difference?

 

[aidanbradypop]

I’m still not clear on the differences in the terms “consubstantiation” and “transubstantiation”.
What’s the difference?

Con means that the Body and Blood are present WITH the bread and wine.

Trans states that the bread and wine become the substance of the Body and the Blood of Jesus, while all that is accessible to the senses ,the outward appearances, remains unchanged.

 

[RC_Sojourner]

The Episcopal Church teaches that we are one branch of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. We have Scripture and the Creeds as truth that guides us. Not sure what you mean by wrong. I am not sure any faith as all the answers.

I’m pretty sure you and Contarini have already basically answered my question.

But, just to be sure. **Do you believe that everyone should be Anglican?
**
The Catholic Church teaches that we should want everyone to be Catholic, because our Church has the fulness of truth. And, I’ve heard Catholic apologists ask the question in an ecumenical way: “If you’re Baptist, the question you should ask yourself is: should everyone be Baptist?” The same for Anglicans, and every Church.

The point they’re making, is if your Church is merely “the right fit” for you, but doesn’t contain the fulness of truth, then how do you have any incentive to evangelize?

Why belong to a Church that doesn’t claim to be the fulness of the truth?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

My sense is that the way Anglicans worship reveals their theology. I have attended several Lutheran-Episcopal masses. The elevation of the host/ cup, genuflection, kneeling for reception, Reserved Sacrament all suggest strongly that Anglicans believe in the Real Presence.

 

[aidanbradypop]

I’m pretty sure you and Contarini have already basically answered my question.

But, just to be sure. **Do you believe that everyone should be Anglican?
**
The Catholic Church teaches that we should want everyone to be Catholic, because our Church has the fulness of truth. And, I’ve heard Catholic apologists ask the question in an ecumenical way: “If you’re Baptist, the question you should ask yourself is: should everyone be Baptist?” The same for Anglicans, and every Church.

The point they’re making, is if your Church is merely “the right fit” for you, but doesn’t contain the fulness of truth, then how do you have any incentive to evangelize?

Why belong to a Church that doesn’t claim to be the fulness of the truth?

A heard once that the “truth is measured only by those that believe it.” Simple enough I believe.

I believe the Catholic Church teaches truth as well as the Baptist Church, Methodist…etc. Every Christian faith preaches a certain truth that is believed by those that are in communion with that faith.

Do I wish for everyone to become an Episcopalian? Sure I do. If I did not believe that then I have no business in TEC as I am certain you believe each and every person should convert to Catholicism. Now is it reasonable for me to demand such? No! I believe everyone should follow their conscience in fatters of faith. If one feels that the RCC is the place that teaches the fullness of truth then I gladly give my blessings.

 

[frobert]

Dustin,

Thank you so much for starting this topic and your straight forward questions and answers. It is a great interest to many of us. After having been in other discussions I am delighted to see one that is so civil. It’s a tribute to your leadership.

 

[aidanbradypop]

You caught me on a good day. lol

 

[GKC]

I believe the Anglican church, in general, teaches that the real presence is an “optional” belief.

It is an undefined belief. In my experience, the RP is the most common belief, but I associate only with traditionalist, high church Anglo-Catholics.

GKC