Ask an Anglican/Episcopalian

  • Thread starter Thread starter aidanbradypop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sy_Noe said:
Dustin, thank you. I probably should have been clearer and said Holy Matrimony rather than gay marriage since in some states in the US, gay civil marriage is legal. Anglicans/Episcopalians teach 7 Sacraments as does the Roman Church, 1 of which is Holy Matrimony or sacramental marriage, is this correct?
Click to expand...
It depends on how one interprets the catechism in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. The 39 Articles of Religion name only two; the 1979 is a great deal more nuanced.
 
aidanbradypop said:
The status of full communion means, ideally, that there is mutual agreement on essential doctrines and that full participation in the sacramental life of each church is available to all communicant Anglicans. So I would agree that in full communion would not be the same as a Catholic saying they are in full communion with the bishop of Rome.

The ELCA and TEC are in full communion with one another. Although we have som different beliefs on certain matters of faith, we celebrate what we do have in common for the greater good of sharing the Gospel. Does that answer it or am I way off? lol

We seek what we have in common and pray for what we do not.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the explanation. The Anglican idea of being in communion is still something I cannot understand. I guess it is sufficiently different from the Catholic concept. Some Anglicans I have discussed this with, conversely, could not understand a Catholic’s exclusion of other Christians from communion on the basis of differences in faith. For instance, the differences between ELCA and TEC would have precluded Catholic participation (if the Catholics had been a party) in such a communion as the differences between ELCA and TEC (though narrowing) are still wide.

Still, I do see the validity in your last line. I have encountered it when discussing with other Anglicans before. Something I agree with wholeheartedly but may execute it differently in practice.

On a practical point, how does the Anglican communion hold together when you have the liberal wing on one hand and the High Church & Evangelical wing on the other hand? Both have very different ideas of basic doctrines. It seems to me a consequence of the loose concept of communion.

Interestingly, one Evangelical Anglican told me that the disputes with the liberal wing over women & gay priests have brought the Evangelical & High Church closer together. At the risk of stretching it, Evangelical & High Church are more in communion (in the Catholic sense fo the word) with each other than with the liberal Anglicans.
 
David_Zampino said:
It depends on how one interprets the catechism in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. The 39 Articles of Religion name only two; the 1979 is a great deal more nuanced.
Click to expand...
As far as TEC stands there are 2

Besides baptism and the Eucharist, the church recognizes other spiritual markers (sacramental rites) in our journey of faith. These include:

•Confirmation (the adult affirmation of our baptismal vows), pp. 413-419, Book of Common Prayer
•Reconciliation of a Penitent (private confession), pp. 447-452, Book of Common Prayer
•Matrimony (Christian marriage), pp. 422-438, Book of Common Prayer
•Orders (ordination to deacon, priest, or bishop), pp. 510-555, Book of Common Prayer
•Unction (anointing with oil those who are sick or dying) pp. 453-467, Book of Common Prayer
 
ChurchSoldier said:
As with many things in Protestantism, these reflect the theological belief that one’s theology must begin where the Catholic church ends. Meaning the starting point is “the Catholic Church is wrong” so how can we form a theology which reflects Scripture but not Roman Catholicism. NOT the way to do theology.
Click to expand...
I’m not so sure. Granted, of course, that I don’t consider it the way to do theology inasmuch as I consider Rome to be correct. But just supposing that I believed Rome to be in error, then it would make sense to me to condemn that error.

Isn’t that what we see in the early church? For example, the Council of Chalcedon in 451 stated its definition in opposition to the Second Council of Ephesus (the “Robber Council”) which it deemed to be in error.
 
aidanbradypop said:
As far as TEC stands there are 2

Besides baptism and the Eucharist, the church recognizes other spiritual markers (sacramental rites) in our journey of faith. These include:

•Confirmation (the adult affirmation of our baptismal vows), pp. 413-419, Book of Common Prayer
•Reconciliation of a Penitent (private confession), pp. 447-452, Book of Common Prayer
•Matrimony (Christian marriage), pp. 422-438, Book of Common Prayer
•Orders (ordination to deacon, priest, or bishop), pp. 510-555, Book of Common Prayer
•Unction (anointing with oil those who are sick or dying) pp. 453-467, Book of Common Prayer
Click to expand...
Respectfully, having spent 25 years in the Episcopal church; and having a seminary degree from Nashotah House, I stand by my statement. The Articles of Religion list two. The Book of Common Prayer (1979) is nuanced enough that both 2 and 7 are acceptable answers.
 
jimkhong said:
Thanks for the explanation.
Click to expand...
Very welcome!
On a practical point, how does the Anglican communion hold together when you have the liberal wing on one hand and the High Church & Evangelical wing on the other hand? Both have very different ideas of basic doctrines. It seems to me a consequence of the loose concept of communion.
Click to expand...
Let me try to explain it like this if I may. My sister-in-law is a cradle Catholic. She attends Mass every Sunday and take Holy Eucharist and all. I would not call her devout but faithful nonetheless. She married outside the Church, is pro-choice, for gay matrimony and believes the Church so bless such, etc…etc. Catholicism is not immune to the “liberal” sect either. Out of Catholic voters in ND, only 23% supported a state bill to keep marriage between a man and a woman.
Interestingly, one Evangelical Anglican told me that the disputes with the liberal wing over women & gay priests have brought the Evangelical & High Church closer together. At the risk of stretching it, Evangelical & High Church are more in communion (in the Catholic sense fo the word) with each other than with the liberal Anglicans.
Click to expand...
I am a high church Episcopalian but not so much Anglo-Catholic. If it were political parties, and I hate to do this lol, I would be an Independent.
 
David_Zampino said:
Respectfully, having spent 25 years in the Episcopal church; and having a seminary degree from Nashotah House, I stand by my statement. The Articles of Religion list two. The Book of Common Prayer (1979) is nuanced enough that both 2 and 7 are acceptable answers.
Click to expand...
Yes. One can believe 2 or 7. I have even met some that believe 5.
 
David_Zampino said:
Understandable! But that is probably the major reason why Catholics are not to receive at Episcopal altars.
Click to expand...
I would advice against a Catholic taking Eucharist in TEC. The RCC teaches Catholics not to and I hope the individual Catholic respects their Church and refrain from doing so. Just like I would not go up to receive Communion in a Catholic parish simply out of respect for the Bishop of Rome. 👍
 
Peter_J said:
I’m not so sure. Granted, of course, that I don’t consider it the way to do theology inasmuch as I consider Rome to be correct. But just supposing that I believed Rome to be in error, then it would make sense to me to condemn that error.

Isn’t that what we see in the early church? For example, the Council of Chalcedon in 451 stated its definition in opposition to the Second Council of Ephesus (the “Robber Council”) which it deemed to be in error.
Click to expand...
Yes it would. What I’m speaking about is many Protestants today will look at their theology through a filter of anti-Catholicism. An example would be our faith is about a “relationship” with Jesus, not a relationship with a “religion” or “church”. But if you look at both Luther and Calvin’s teachings, they both say there is no faith without being connected to a church.

Another example would be Mary. Most Protestants think it anathema to mention her because “the Catholics worship her” (I know “honor” not worship…). But they miss out on a great example of a family as well as a fullness of faith, particularly for those whose earthly mothers weren’t the best example. They miss out because their theology begins “where the Catholic church ends”. That’s all.

Again, error should be corrected.

PAX
 
ChurchSoldier said:
Yes it would. What I’m speaking about is many Protestants today will look at their theology through a filter of anti-Catholicism. An example would be our faith is about a “relationship” with Jesus, not a relationship with a “religion” or “church”. But if you look at both Luther and Calvin’s teachings, they both say there is no faith without being connected to a church.

Another example would be Mary. Most Protestants think it anathema to mention her because “the Catholics worship her” (I know “honor” not worship…). But they miss out on a great example of a family as well as a fullneww of faith, particularly for those whose earthly mothers weren’t the best example. They miss out because their theology begins “where the Catholic church ends”. That’s all.

Again, error should be corrected.

PAX
Click to expand...
👍
 
jimkhong said:
Thanks for the explanation. The Anglican idea of being in communion is still something I cannot understand.

On a practical point, how does the Anglican communion hold together when you have the liberal wing on one hand and the High Church & Evangelical wing on the other hand? Both have very different ideas of basic doctrines. It seems to me a consequence of the loose concept of communion.
Click to expand...
Whereas the Roman Church is much like a Triangular Pyramyd with the Pope on top and working downward, it is sometimes helpful to think of the Angilcan Communion as a wagon wheel with a central hub and spokes reaching out. The “hub” is Canterbury or the Church of England. The “spokes” each lead to a different Province which has a connection to the hub, but governs independently.

The connection is a “mutual respect” of generally common beliefs. This is why one body choosing to act unilaterally late last century was such a disruption. It “broke” the commonality of bond which was the glue of the communion.

Hope that helps.
 
aidanbradypop said:
TEC states that ALL human life is sacred from its inception until death. The Church takes seriously its obligation to help form the consciences of its members concerning this sacredness…We regard all abortion as having a tragic dimension, calling for the concern and compassion of all the Christian community. While we acknowledge that in this country it is the legal right of every woman to have a medically safe abortion, as Christians we believe strongly that if this right is exercised, it should be used only in extreme situations. We emphatically oppose abortion as a means of birth control, family planning, sex selection, or any reason of mere convenience.
./QUOTE]

I added the “bold” for that phrase.
The above statement seems compatible with the stated position of Planned Parenthood today; it is incompatible with the constant position of the Catholic Church, and even more liberal than Planned Parenthood of 1963. In that year they - PP - were still calling abortion “murder”, which I can’t imagine TEC calling it today.

I feel reluctant to muddy a wonderful “Q and A” thread by putting in my (RC) opinion. On the other hand, it seems fair to reframe the question. Isn’t it right to identify the TEC as mostly (with exceptions) on the Pro Choice side, rather than on the Pro Life side? Even if the TEC has not officially taken a position on a specific legislation, isn’t it true that TEC departments - I am thinking of youth, and women’s programs - have more or less promoted the pro choice position? Individual Episcopalians can be prolife, but isn’t it true that the TEC itself does not in any way directly promote legislation to make abortion illegal? Isn’t it fair to say the TEC supports the status quo on abortion, whereas the RCC opposes it?
Click to expand...
 
ChurchSoldier said:
From the 39 Articles: *XXV. Of the Sacraments.
Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.

There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles*, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.

The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.

You can see in the highlighted parts the “anti-Catholic” bias. As with many things in Protestantism, these reflect the theological belief that one’s theology must begin where the Catholic church ends. Meaning the starting point is “the Catholic Church is wrong” so how can we form a theology which reflects Scripture but not Roman Catholicism. NOT the way to do theology.

BTW-Cranmer and Henry “kept” 3 Sacraments. Baptism, the Eucharist and Reconcilliation. (After all, how can you worthily receive without a good confession!)
Click to expand...
The Articles are not normative for Anglicans, generally, save for (theoretically) clergy of the Church of England, under the Subscription Act of 1571. Laity in the CoE are not bound in the same way by those Parliamentary strictures. Without some other binding authort to which they are subject, Anglicans in general are free to affirm, partially affirm, or cut the Articles from their Prayer book and use them to kindle the new fire at Easter.

Henry played with a varying number of sacraments as being in the first rank, over time.

GKC
 
commenter said:
I added the “bold” for that phrase.
The above statement seems compatible with the stated position of Planned Parenthood today; it is incompatible with the constant position of the Catholic Church, and even more liberal than Planned Parenthood of 1963. In that year they - PP - were still calling abortion “murder”, which I can’t imagine TEC calling it today.

I feel reluctant to muddy a wonderful “Q and A” thread by putting in my (RC) opinion. On the other hand, it seems fair to reframe the question. Isn’t it right to identify the TEC as mostly (with exceptions) on the Pro Choice side, rather than on the Pro Life side? Even if the TEC has not officially taken a position on a specific legislation, isn’t it true that TEC departments - I am thinking of youth, and women’s programs - have more or less promoted the pro choice position? Individual Episcopalians can be prolife, but isn’t it true that the TEC itself does not in any way directly promote legislation to make abortion illegal? Isn’t it fair to say the TEC supports the status quo on abortion, whereas the RCC opposes it?
Click to expand...
But indeed you muddy the water anyways. 😉

I am glad you actually posted this. The Church does NOT support abortion as a means of birth control, sex selection…etc (what was stated before). TEC does not believe abortion is moral. There are extreme medical cases that may cause for such action and TEC tells the individual to examine their conscience before doing so. You have Catholics that are pro-choice. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top