Differences between us and Anglicans

[Deegie]

BuThat Homosexuality (something never accepted in the grand history of Christianity), ressurection and female priests are existent in your church marks something wrong with your church.

I disagree. But that’s okay. That’s why I’m an Episcopalian and you’re a Catholic.

 

[Deegie]

Thanks for contributing. I don’t have any experience with Episcopal congregations.

Happy to be here. I appreciate your welcome.

Who decide what the “fundamentals” are?

I would suggest that the apostolic tradition, early ecumenical councils, and the creeds are a good start. Anglicans traditionally have accepted several other documents as authoritative – perhaps the 39 Articles of Religion has been primary among them. Recently, however, their importance has started to slip in practice. We also have a Catechism in our prayer books. It is an official statement of the church explaining what we believe. But there is no litmus test for membership.

Edited to add: I guess the fundamentals are determined by the individual churches within the Anglican Communion. If, for example, the African churches decide to no longer be in communion with the Episcopal Church over the consecration of gay bishops, then they have defined something as fundamental for them. Does that make sense?

How can there be an altar, when there is no sacrifice?

Interesting and insightful question. I’m not sure it’s a sufficient answer, but our liturgy refers to the Eucharist as a “sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving”.

It just boggles the mind that someone could call themselves Christian and still deny the resurrection. Isn’t this kinda basic?

I agree with you fully. I obviously cannot argue well for a position with which I disagree. My understanding, however, is that the resurrection is seen by some as symbolic much in the same way that many people see the seven day account of creation (Gen. 1:1-2:4a) as symbolic.

I guess I just never realized how many had drifted from the faith, since the Anglicans I meet here on CAF are the traditional variety.

I would only note here that I think my beliefs are fairly mainstream for world-wide Anglicanism. Compared to the “average” clergyman of the Episcopal Church, I would be considered conservative. Compared to most in the conservative splinter groups (ACNA, etc), I would be a bleeding-heart liberal.

 

[andrewstx]

Just a tiny quible. I am an ex Episcopalian and the Episcopal church is not congregational in polity. They have parishes and dioceses.

The very word Episcopal itself means ruled by bishops.

 

[Deegie]

Just a tiny quible. I am an ex Episcopalian and the Episcopal church is not congregational in polity. They have parishes and dioceses.

The very word Episcopal itself means ruled by bishops.

True. Yet the Episcopal Church has a bit of a congregational bent to it that reflects that democratic ideals of the Revolutionary era in which it was born. The laypeople of a parish oversee the temporal and financial operations and choose their rector. The people of a diocese (represented by both its clergy and elected laypeople) select a bishop. There is a much larger role for the laity in governance than simply calling its polity episcopal might otherwise suggest.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Interestingly, the Anglican Church began with essentially no changes from Catholic doctrine aside from the primacy of the pope, which was due to political reasons rather than doctrinal. Most of the “Protestant” aspects, so to speak, of the church, crept in after Henry VIII’s death. In fact, he adamantly defended the Mass and the Real Presence to his death, writing a request for a Mass to be said for the repose of his soul everyday in perpetuity. If I recall correctly, the only part of the Mass changed during Henry VIII’s life was the references to the pope, the rest of the more “Protestant” changes coming later.

The Anglican Church today is much different from its beginnings. Some historians theorize that Henry VIII did not intend for a permanent break with Rome.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I disagree. But that’s okay. That’s why I’m an Episcopalian and you’re a Catholic.

I’m orthodox and what good reason do you have to bless homosexual union?

 

[andrewstx]

True. Yet the Episcopal Church has a bit of a congregational bent to it that reflects that democratic ideals of the Revolutionary era in which it was born. The laypeople of a parish oversee the temporal and financial operations and choose their rector. The people of a diocese (represented by both its clergy and elected laypeople) select a bishop. There is a much larger role for the laity in governance than simply calling its polity episcopal might otherwise suggest.

Yes it is true that every parish has a vestry, Sr and Jr wardens, and general convention is based greatly onn the US government with its house of Bishops and House of Deputies.

In many ways TEC is media videa the central way between Catholics and Protestants.

But the bishops have a lot of power as well, A parish must have it’s choice of Rector approved by the Bishop.

The bishops word is law, esp when it comes to liturgical matters. The first bishop of Nortwest Texas dictated that the sacrament could not be reserved, Mass vestments were forbidden, and the Eucharist could only nbe celebrated the first sunday of the month.

Now there have been 4 bishops since Quaterman and things have loosend considerably, most wear Mass vestments and the Holy Euchartist is celebrated every week.

But most ofnthe small town missions have been closed including the one where I was confirmed. I dont know there is a single mission left in the diocese.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I agree with you fully. I obviously cannot argue well for a position with which I disagree. My understanding, however, is that the resurrection is seen by some as symbolic much in the same way that many people see the seven day account of creation (Gen. 1:1-2:4a) as symbolic.

That right there is the problem. This is not Chrisitnaity. This is gnosticism, a perversion of what Christians have understood for 2000 years. That the ressurection is real, that the creeds which you speak of actually confess this (I believe in the ressurection of the dead) and there was no gnostic understanding of ressurection in those formulations of the creeds. Quite frankly if you don’t believe in the real ressurection, you should not be called Christian.

 

[Deegie]

I’m orthodox and what good reason do you have to bless homosexual union?

I apologize for mischaracterizing your religious affiliation. But I don’t intend to debate homosexuality here. Nothing good will come of it.

That right there is the problem. This is not Chrisitnaity…Quite frankly if you don’t believe in the real ressurection, you should not be called Christian.

Umm…I already said I agree that belief in the resurrection is a necessary part of Christianity. I expect the vast majority of Episcopalians would concur. So I’m not quite sure what your point is here.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I apologize for mischaracterizing your religious affiliation. But I don’t intend to debate homosexuality here. Nothing good will come of it.

Umm…I already said I agree that belief in the resurrection is a necessary part of Christianity. I expect the vast majority of Episcopalians would concur. So I’m not quite sure what your point is here.

Except you don’t believe in ressurection, that is the real ressurection of the flesh. You believe in a vague spiritual notion which really doesn’t mean anything solid that we can grasp. Christians on the other hand believe in the real ressurection, from teh dead to life. A glorified body, like that of which christ received. What spong and other episcopalians promote is not Christianity. It is not in line with the creeds nor with the fathers.

As for homosexuality, there is no justification for it.

 

[Deegie]

Except you don’t believe in ressurection, that is the real ressurection of the flesh. You believe in a vague spiritual notion which really doesn’t mean anything solid that we can grasp. Christians on the other hand believe in the real ressurection, from teh dead to life. A glorified body, like that of which christ received. What spong and other episcopalians promote is not Christianity. It is not in line with the creeds nor with the fathers.

Excuse me? That’s just slanderous. If you are referring to my previous post in this thread (#42), then you obviously didn’t read it closely enough. I think I was clear that I was trying to express the opinion of the other side, not my own opinion.

I believe that Jesus, both human and divine, died and was placed in a grave. On Easter morning, he physically returned to life and left the grave. He later ascended bodily into Heaven. Is that clear enough for you?

Spong’s position represents the absolute liberal fringe of Anglicanism. It is completely unfair to impute his beliefs onto the rest of us.

As for homosexuality, there is no justification for it.

I already said I don’t want to debate the issue. I can’t imagine that everyone wants to read that. Please don’t try and bait me into it.

 

[GKC]

Except you don’t believe in ressurection, that is the real ressurection of the flesh. You believe in a vague spiritual notion which really doesn’t mean anything solid that we can grasp. Christians on the other hand believe in the real ressurection, from teh dead to life. A glorified body, like that of which christ received. What spong and other episcopalians promote is not Christianity. It is not in line with the creeds nor with the fathers.

As for homosexuality, there is no justification for it.

I am not the sort of Anglican that Deegie is, as many here know well. But not all Episcopalians are Spongish. Some are worse, some less so. Anglicans are variable. Motley even. Don’t be tempted to overly generalize about them. Generally, you will be incorrect if you do.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus, Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Excuse me? That’s just slanderous. If you are referring to my previous post in this thread (#42), then you obviously didn’t read it closely enough. I think I was clear that I was trying to express the opinion of the other side, not my own opinion.

I believe that Jesus, both human and divine, died and was placed in a grave. On Easter morning, he physically returned to life and left the grave. He later ascended bodily into Heaven. Is that clear enough for you?

Spong’s position represents the absolute liberal fringe of Anglicanism. It is completely unfair to impute his beliefs onto the rest of us.

I already said I don’t want to debate the issue. I can’t imagine that everyone wants to read that. Please don’t try and bait me into it.

Thats good, its just that when you spiritual ressurection like in a spiritual interpretation of genesis (ie non literal) I assumed you were of that camp who denied the ressurection, but thats fine, im glad you don’t. But that doesn’t solve the problem in my point of view. See to me there are clear lines for excommunication, that someone needs to be corrected or leave the church. If my priest suddenly came up and started saying Christ really wasn’t God I would not hesitate to confront him and then if neccessary go to teh Bishop. I simply don’t see how any anglican can justify being in communion with these liberals who deny these core things of the faith, who deny what your creeds actually confess.

I believe that theolugumnia has a place, that theological discourse in Christiantiy is needed on certain topics, but denying ressurection? Denying God as personal entity? As some anglicans do? There is no justification for this and you guys need to sort it out or leave the church.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I am not the sort of Anglican that Deegie is, as many here know well. But not Episcopalians are Spongish. Some are worse, some less so. Anglicans are variable. Motley even. Don’t be tempted to overly generalize about them. Generally, you will be incorrect if you do.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus, Anglicanus-Catholicus

If we define Anglicanism by its communion, and that anglicans will be in open communion with people like Spong and those of his mind, then i have conclude that these beliefs are ultimately allowed within anglicanism as a whole. I understand Episcopalians aren’t anglicans, but they are still in full communion with them and it seems to me a problem that episcopalians and Anglicans need to overcome.

 

[GKC]

If we define Anglicanism by its communion, and that anglicans will be in open communion with people like Spong and those of his mind, then i have conclude that these beliefs are ultimately allowed within anglicanism as a whole. I understand Episcopalians aren’t anglicans, but they are still in full communion with them and it seems to me a problem that episcopalians and Anglicans need to overcome.

And what makes you think all Anglicans are in communion?

GKC

 

[Deegie]

Thats good, its just that when you spiritual ressurection like in a spiritual interpretation of genesis (ie non literal) I assumed you were of that camp who denied the ressurection, but thats fine, im glad you don’t. But that doesn’t solve the problem in my point of view. See to me there are clear lines for excommunication, that someone needs to be corrected or leave the church. If my priest suddenly came up and started saying Christ really wasn’t God I would not hesitate to confront him and then if neccessary go to teh Bishop. I simply don’t see how any anglican can justify being in communion with these liberals who deny these core things of the faith, who deny what your creeds actually confess.

I guess you missed the part where I said I fully agreed with the previous poster but would try to explain a position with which I did not agree.

This “camp” that denies the resurrection, as you put it…it’s very small. In fact, I’ve only ever met one in all my years in TEC. And while he wasn’t excommunicated, it was made clear to him that his beliefs would never be accepted in his church and he went elsewhere.

 

[Deegie]

I understand Episcopalians aren’t anglicans

I’m afraid your understanding is wrong. Although perhaps some others might disagree, Episcopalians see themselves as fully Anglican.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

And what makes you think all Anglicans are in communion?

GKC

Are not the anglicans in communion? All the power to them if they are seperated from these spongs and others. But I don’t think thats the case. Im open for correction though.

 

[GKC]

Are not the anglicans in communion? All the power to them if they are seperated from these spongs and others. But I don’t think thats the case. Im open for correction though.

You are corrected then.

Within the official Anglican Communion (those 38 independent Churches in Communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury), some are in impaired communion with the Episcopal Church in America, over just these sort of issues. And some Anglicans are not in the Anglican Communion at all. I am one such. The common term is a Continuing Anglican, for us.

Anglicans are a diverse lot. I don’t say that approvingly.

GKC

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I’m afraid your understanding is wrong. Although perhaps some others might disagree, Episcopalians see themselves as fully Anglican.

Well I’ve heard other Anglicans express it completely thje opposite. Sort of like how the orthodox communion works. Like I am in the greek orthodox church, but I’m not Greek. Or to put it another way, the Russians and the Greek church are in communion, but the greeks are not Russians orthodox and the Russians are not Greek orthodox, but they are all orthodox.

At least thats what I’ve understood it as, that there are differing communions nwithin the wider church, anglican episcopalian and the like, and that they are defined as being in communion through being in communoin with the Bishop canterbury.

BTw, I don’t mean to make it sound like I have this huge dislike for anglicans, because I happen to like NT Wright and CS lewis. I just think your church is in a mess.