Do Episcopalians believe in transubstantiation?

[Langdell]

Thanks for the additional answers, everyone! It’s fascinating to learn how similar Episcopalian/Anglican theology is in many ways to Roman Catholicism.

 

[GKC]

Thanks for the additional answers, everyone! It’s fascinating to learn how similar Episcopalian/Anglican theology is in many ways to Roman Catholicism.

Sometimes, that is so.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[Tucson]

No, that’s not what I said. The Articles, technically, are binding on the ordinands, that is, the clergy in general, not the episcopate, of the Church of England, by virtue of the 1571 Act of Subscription passed by Parliament. Since the CoE is an erastian church, Parliament gets to do things like that. By binding on the ordinands (and ordinands only) it was meant that it established a legal requirement to hold a living in the Church of England.

There is no such requirement in the Episcopal Church, nor could there be, legally. TEC, cannot require and enforce adherence to the Nicene Creed, let alone the Articles. As can be noted from the current state of TEC.

Any given Anglican jurisdiction theoretically could make adherence to the Articles a requirement for membership to their Church, but with one exception I heard of in Africa, none does. And that not in the sense the Act of Subscription does, technically, in the Church of England.

GKC

Thank you GKC for the clarifications.

One should contact the Vatican if one really wants to know what the official, strictly doctrinal, stance of the Anglican communion truly is, strange as that may sound.

Prior to the present mess in the ECA, reunification of the Anglican and Roman communions was on the fast track via the ARCIC (Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission). Work on reunification was proceeding very well. We Anglicans were clarifying what tenets were official tenets and what were actions of rouge members of the Episcopate. In the spirit of brotherhood, Roman was explaining its official dogmas in a temporal context, a process Rome calls re-reception. Re-reception did not, and does not, require renunciation of Infallibility.

The process started under Pope Paul VI, really got traction under Blessed John Paul II, and was doing quite well under Holy Father Benedict. It had progressed to such an extent that the divisive issue concerning the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin was resolved to mutual satisfaction. This would have been an undreamed of accomplishment prior to the commission.

Then the present mess in the ECA.

If one were cynical, and for better of worse I am, one would almost believe the Episcopalian civil war was premeditated. The fog of war clouds vision, mine as much as the next guy’s. To reiterate, for the “official Anglican stance”, one may do well to contact the Vatican.

What a mess.

Pray for the Church.

PX,
Tom:thumbsup:

 

[GKC]

Thank you GKC for the clarifications.

One should contact the Vatican if one really wants to know what the official, strictly doctrinal, stance of the Anglican communion truly is, strange as that may sound.

Prior to the present mess in the ECA, reunification of the Anglican and Roman communions was on the fast track via the ARCIC (Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission). Work on reunification was proceeding very well. We Anglicans were clarifying what tenets were official tenets and what were actions of rouge members of the Episcopate. In the spirit of brotherhood, Roman was explaining its official dogmas in a temporal context, a process Rome calls re-reception. Re-reception did not, and does not, require renunciation of Infallibility.

The process started under Pope Paul VI, really got traction under Blessed John Paul II, and was doing quite well under Holy Father Benedict. It had progressed to such an extent that the divisive issue concerning the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin was resolved to mutual satisfaction. This would have been an undreamed of accomplishment prior to the commission.

Then the present mess in the ECA.

If one were cynical, and for better of worse I am, one would almost believe the Episcopalian civil war was premeditated. The fog of war clouds vision, mine as much as the next guy’s. To reiterate, for the “official Anglican stance”, one may do well to contact the Vatican.

What a mess.

Pray for the Church.

PX,
Tom:thumbsup:

As to the ARCIC, I often consider that the Devil has exquisite timing. The ARCIC arose from the particularly close relationship that developed between Pope Paul VI and Michael Ramsay, when he was Cantaur. While reunification might been its unofficial goal, it was an unstated one. But it did seek to follow the abortive efforts of those who, with possibly that end in mind, attempted to start some distance-reducing talks, such as Halifax and Portal, in the 1890s, or the Malines Conversations in the 1920s. And at precisely that moment, when the ARCIC began to achieve some traction, the Anglican Communion began to run off the rails. Though the ARCIC continues to meet, it is an exercise in futility.

GKC