I
IrishHill
Guest
What are the major differences?
The answer is ~ way too many for Episcopalians to be considered “Catholic Light”.What are the major differences?
All reason why, even though I was baptized into the Episcopal Church, I would never return.women priests, homosexual noncelibate partnered priests and bishops, God the Mother, Wicca faith formation, church surveys to determine the deposit of their faith, homosexual bible verse interpretation, inclusive language in liturgy and language changed to the suit the feminine, and abortion being taught in seminary that it is a “blessing.”
But it’s not a doctrinal difference. No Anglican thinks that Spong’s opinions are official Anglican teaching. I agree with you that the tolerance of such opinions in a bishop (even a retired one) is outrageous and a serious flaw in Anglicanism. But the bottom line for us, doctrinally, is the Nicene Creed. Anything not in keeping with that is not orthodox by Anglican standards.You can believe that Jesus did not rise from the dead, and still be an Anglican, even an Anglican Bishop, like Jack Spong, who was invited to Lambeth after publishing “12 theses” that denied this and many other tenets of the Christian faith. You couldn’t do that and stay Catholic. That’s gotta be a big one.
Blessings,
Gerry
Clarification: the difference is that our official affirmation of the Real Presence is much vaguer than yours. Here is what the catechism from our Prayer Book (1979 edition, the currently binding one) has to say about it:I submit the key difference is that Catholic believe in the Real Presence and EPISCOPALIANS do not.
Note: the language of “inward and spiritual grace” is from the traditional, Catholic definition of a Sacrament, and does not necessarily imply a heretically “spiritualist” doctrine of the Eucharist. However, our language certainly allows for a more spiritualizing view than would be orthodox in your Communion.The inward and spiritual grace in the Holy Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ give to his people, and received by faith.
My copy of the Book of Common prayer is much older but here are a couple of excerpts from the Articles of Religion in the back of my copy which leads me to what I have posted:Clarification: the difference is that our official affirmation of the Real Presence is much vaguer than yours. Here is what the catechism from our Prayer Book (1979 edition, the currently binding one) has to say about it:
Note: the language of “inward and spiritual grace” is from the traditional, Catholic definition of a Sacrament, and does not necessarily imply a heretically “spiritualist” doctrine of the Eucharist. However, our language certainly allows for a more spiritualizing view than would be orthodox in your Communion.
Generally, most Episcopalians affirm the Real Presence but are reluctant to be too specific. Many of us hold to a view indistinguishable from the position of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
I should also say that there are parts of the Anglican Communion where a more Protestant view of the Sacrament prevails than is common in the Episcopal Church.
Edwin
Transubstantitation and real presence are not completely synonymous. Transubstantiation is a belief about how the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ.My copy of the Book of Common prayer is much older but here are a couple of excerpts from the Articles of Religion in the back of my copy which leads me to what I have posted:
Of the Lord’s Supper ~ … Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture…
on another topic the departure from the Catholic faith is even more straightforward:
Of Purgatory ~ The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worhsipping and Adoration, as well of Images and Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.
Edwin, perhaps if the text of those Articles of Religion have changed in between the time of the printing of my copy and yours, you could clarify the current language?
It was that aspect, however, that I was referring to in distinguishing the Episcopal faith from the Catholic faith.Transubstantitation and real presence are not completely synonymous. Transubstantiation is a belief about how the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ.
But you will find folks in the Episcopal Church who affirm transubstantiation, as the how, of which the Real Presence is the what. And the Articles are not normative, not an Anglican Confession. Some folks accept them, some don’t.It was that aspect, however, that I was referring to in distinguishing the Episcopal faith from the Catholic faith.
Interesting. I’ve never found that.But you will find folks in the Episcopal Church who affirm transubstantiation, as the how, of which the Real Presence is the what. And the Articles are not normative, not an Anglican Confession. Some folks accept them, some don’t.
I’ve been here before.
GKC
Very big, with patches, and lots of holes.Interesting. I’ve never found that.
I HAVE heard Episcopalians deny the filioque clause. I have never heard any, including any priest, affirm Transubstantiation.
A big umbrella I guess!
Major differences?What are the major differences?
Yes, that is true, but in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, you will find the Nicene Creed does contain the clause. Perhaps we are not so dogmatic about it. Back in Evangelical days, in college, I wrote a paper on the book of John, and defended the Orthodox position from a “Sola Scriptura” perspective. Go figure.Interesting. I’ve never found that.
I HAVE heard Episcopalians deny the filioque clause. I have never heard any, including any priest, affirm Transubstantiation.
A big umbrella I guess!
I can name at least one Episcopal priest! But out of deference to him, I won’t. Since it doesn’t really matter in this forum.Very big, with patches, and lots of holes.
Me, I’ve never heard any Anglican deny the* filoque*. Not doubt they are out there.
GKC
Yes, my even older BCP has the filioque in the Nicene Creed. When I mentioned that, I was discussing what people SAID, including at least one priest, not what was written in any official publication. I found it both interesting and startling at the time.Yes, that is true, but in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, you will find the Nicene Creed does contain the clause. Perhaps we are not so dogmatic about it. Back in Evangelical days, in college, I wrote a paper on the book of John, and defended the Orthodox position from a “Sola Scriptura” perspective. Go figure.