Hey what do Anglicans believe exactly?

[itoldyounoalready]

I am searching forthe particular are I belong in , at first I tried liberal christians, but that was more or less a type of christian not a sect I didn't know this so I'm here now, and I was wondering what are your beliefs?

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Hey what do Anglicans believe exactly?

Brace yourself, friend.

[itoldyounoalready]

Brace yourself, friend.

Is it really that confusing? well even if it is , can u tell me I can take it?

[Mysterium_Fidei]

;)

Didn't mean to scare you. Anglicanism is just very diverse -- with many Churchmen practicing their faith in sometimes radically different ways than that of their fellow pew sitter.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Generally, Anglican Churches have attempted to be a "Via Media" (Middle Way) between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. We have one foot in both traditions, with some Anglicans favoring the more Catholic elements of their faith, and others the more Protestant.

Wikipedia has some great information on our Church.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

I'm sure someone can give you a better explanation than I. Our beliefs are summed up in the Apostles' and Nicence Creeds.

[higgs2]

Brace yourself, friend.
:D funny!

[itoldyounoalready]

Oh, okay.

[Velo Princesse]

I'm new, but the reason I came to the Anglican community is that they are very traditional w/ beautiful, reverant services and within those services are people w/ a wide range of beliefs. There is room for you here, I assure you.

Maybe we should try it this way... why don't you tell us what you believe and we can try to help guide you. The people in this community love where we are, but we can try to send you somewhere that best suits you. We are not a 'everyone other than us is going to hell' group. So- give it a whirl... what beliefs do you hold that you would consider defining of your faith?

[Thomas2618]

There is a great catechism in the back of the Book of Common Prayer 1979. It is very basic - read pages 845-862 I think it is on this site:
http://holycross-raleigh.org/bcp/845.html

Also, a book that was very helpful for me when I was looking into Anglicanism is "Whole Christianity" by Hugh C. Edsall (I think that is the author's name, but I am not sure). This book is one that will challenge you, but it uses very understandable language and starts from the very basic to the very complicated. It is somewhat long, but if you are really interested it is well worth the read.

[itoldyounoalready]

I'm new, but the reason I came to the Anglican community is that they are very traditional w/ beautiful, reverant services and within those services are people w/ a wide range of beliefs. There is room for you here, I assure you.

Maybe we should try it this way... why don't you tell us what you believe and we can try to help guide you. The people in this community love where we are, but we can try to send you somewhere that best suits you. We are not a 'everyone other than us is going to hell' group. So- give it a whirl... what beliefs do you hold that you would consider defining of your faith?

Well see , that's the problem I can't really distinguish between what I truly believe myself,I 'm in limbo sort of well i know I believe that Jesus came to die on the cross for our sins, he rose again, and ascended into heaven, someday he's coming back, baptism is merely a physical show of your faith, the trinity is three separate entities with one nature, mary was a virgin yes but she was still mortal, christians go straight to heaven,homosexuality is wrong, God judges all sins equally there is no final mortal sin, we are once saved always saved.

This is the gist of it , I cam up with more than I thought I could come up with I also consider my self to be a theistic evolutionist though I don't know if I really belong is this category.

[Velo Princesse]

Well see , that's the problem I can't really distinguish between what I truly believe myself,I 'm in limbo sort of well i know I believe that Jesus came to die on the cross for our sins, he rose again, and ascended into heaven, someday he's coming back, baptism is merely a physical show of your faith, the trinity is three separate entities with one nature, mary was a virgin yes but she was still mortal, christians go straight to heaven,homosexuality is wrong, God judges all sins equally there is no final mortal sin, we are once saved always saved.

This is the gist of it , I cam up with more than I thought I could come up with I also consider my self to be a theistic evolutionist though I don't know if I really belong is this category.

Well, you haven't said anything here that you couldn't believe as an Episcopalian. Although, the church does have homosexual priests if you go to a more conservative one that shouldn't effect you.

What I like about the Episcopal church is that they will guide you with regard to scripture and such but you are free to come to whatever conclusion you come to. The only thing that they seem to be really stuck to is the Nicene Creed, which is a given and you seem to agree w/ anyway. I would go to a service and see if you enjoy it. It isn't seductive in it's entertainment like other churches, but I really love it and you might also.

PM me if you have any questions about anything. I might not be able to answer, but I can try.

Randi

[gtsecc]

I think we could be safe in saying that the kerygma of the faith can be expressed by:
(a) The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as "containing all things necessary to salvation," and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.

(b) The Apostles' Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith.

(c) The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself--Baptism and the Supper of the Lord--ministered with unfailing use of Christ's words of Institution, and of the elements ordained by Him.

(d) The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.

[Thomas2618]

Well see , that's the problem I can't really distinguish between what I truly believe myself,I 'm in limbo sort of well i know I believe that Jesus came to die on the cross for our sins, he rose again, and ascended into heaven, someday he's coming back, baptism is merely a physical show of your faith, the trinity is three separate entities with one nature, mary was a virgin yes but she was still mortal, christians go straight to heaven,homosexuality is wrong, God judges all sins equally there is no final mortal sin, we are once saved always saved.

This is the gist of it , I cam up with more than I thought I could come up with I also consider my self to be a theistic evolutionist though I don't know if I really belong is this category.

Most of your beliefs it seems are very protestant-esque. Where as you might find a home as an Episcopalian, you would probably be just as likely to feel at home in any of the mainstream protestant denominations such as baptist, etc - in the Episcopal Church you will run into many people (such as the Anglo-Catholics like me) that disagree with you on many of those points. For those beliefs, if you are looking for a church you might want to go where you feel most comfortable with the worship style.
On the other hand, if you are really in a "limbo sort of" as you say, you may want to do some research on the early church fathers and get your hands on a catechism or some books and really do some thinking and praying on the beliefs you have versus those that the early church fathers had (for you do differ quite a bit from them on many of your listed thoughts).

[itoldyounoalready]

What topics do I differ on?

[Thomas2618]

baptism is merely a physical show of your faith Something physical and real happens in the sacrament of Holy Baptism. It is not just a "show" for other people to see. You are adopted into Christ's Body at Baptism.
christians go straight to heaven
Research the early church father standpoint on purgatory. Though it is different from the RCC belief of purgatory, they certainly did not believe that christians go strait to heaven. The deceased christians await with us for Christ's second coming and are called the "Church expectant".
we are once saved always saved
Salvation is a journey according to the early church fathers. Yes, at by Baptism we are marked as Christ's own, but we spend the time until Jesus returns in preparation for his Holy Kingdom.

[gtsecc]

we are once saved always saved.



So, nothing magical happens during Baptism, but if someone says some sort of formulaic "sinner's pray" they get the gift of eternal salvation?



I swear, I am constantly amazed at how much damage John Calvin has done to people’s concept of salvation. It is not your fault at all. However, I think if you hang around here, you will find some differnt answers which you can ultimately decide to accept or reject. My God comfort you through this.

[itoldyounoalready]

So, nothing magical happens during Baptism, but if someone says some sort of formulaic "sinner's pray" they get the gift of eternal salvation?



I swear, I am constantly amazed at how much damage John Calvin has done to people’s concept of salvation. It is not your fault at all. However, I think if you hang around here, you will find some differnt answers which you can ultimately decide to accept or reject. My God comfort you through this.

I don't believe in just saying the sinner's prayer either, the only way that you can get true salvation is by truly accepting Jesus in your heart 4 yourself, not from a prayer or any thing that's merely a public proclamation of your faith,I f you ask me the sinner's prayer is kind of impersonal.

[gtsecc]

I don't believe in just saying the sinner's prayer either, the only way that you can get true salvation is by truly accepting Jesus in your heart 4 yourself, not from a prayer or any thing that's merely a public proclamation of your faith,I f you ask me the sinner's prayer is kind of impersonal.
and what do you believe about the sacraments?

[Naomi4Christ]

I am searching forthe particular are I belong in , at first I tried liberal christians, but that was more or less a type of christian not a sect I didn't know this so I'm here now, and I was wondering what are your beliefs?

We believe what it says in the bible. :)

Here is a pretty good list of what it means to be an Anglican (http://www.cofe.anglican.org/faith/anglican/). And it's straight from the horse's mouth, so don't let anyone tell you anything different!;)

[Fish and Bread]

Here is a pretty good list of what it means to be an Anglican (http://www.cofe.anglican.org/faith/anglican/).

That's a wonderful summary that I hadn't seen before (Well, I'd seen the quote from Lambeth included in it, but not the rest. :)). Thank you for sharing it! Between that and the catechism from the '79 prayer book, I think there is actually gives a pretty good outline of my faith there, at least, though I won't presume to speak for all Anglicans on the matter. :)

By the way, why (And how) did you change your screen name? Lel and I were wondering, but she is too shy to ask. :)

John

[Naomi4Christ]

That's a wonderful summary that I hadn't seen before (Well, I'd seen the quote from Lambeth included in it, but not the rest. :)). Thank you for sharing it! Between that and the catechism from the '79 prayer book, I think there is actually gives a pretty good outline of my faith there, at least, though I won't presume to speak for all Anglicans on the matter. :)

By the way, why (And how) did you change your screen name? Lel and I were wondering, but she is too shy to ask. :)

John

Just felt like it!

[Fish and Bread]

Just felt like it!

Cool. I like your new name better than your old one, not that there was anything wrong with your old one! :)

How did you get enough blessings to change your name? Doesn't CF require like 10,000 or something like that?

John

[higgs2]

Just felt like it!
I have to admit I was fond of the old name. It reminded me of "dogbert" from dilbert. :D Not that you asked.

I'll always remember you as dogsbody :sigh:

[Naomi4Christ]

Cool. I like your new name better than your old one, not that there was anything wrong with your old one! :)

How did you get enough blessings to change your name? Doesn't CF require like 10,000 or something like that?

John

15000!

[Naomi4Christ]

I have to admit I was fond of the old name. It reminded me of "dogbert" from dilbert. :D Not that you asked.

I'll always remember you as dogsbody :sigh:

:)

[erin74]

ah - I've only just worked out you are one and the same - I thought there was some similarity!

[Simon_Templar]

itoldyounoalready,

What most people in here are giving you is a basic summary of "traditional" Anglican doctrines.. things that the anglican church has traditionally believed and taught.

However, the honest truth in the anglican/episcopal church today is that you can believe whatever you want. As long as you have submitted to baptism in the name of the trinity and are willing to undergo confirmation, (neither of which do you actually have to really believe in) you can believe whatever you want about any topic. In fact.. you can believe whatever you want and probably still be a bishop some day if you want. This is assuming, of course, that you live in Canada or the USA, you might be able to get away with most things in England, but they might call you on a few issues.

[gitlance]

itoldyounoalready,

What most people in here are giving you is a basic summary of "traditional" Anglican doctrines.. things that the anglican church has traditionally believed and taught.

However, the honest truth in the anglican/episcopal church today is that you can believe whatever you want. As long as you have submitted to baptism in the name of the trinity and are willing to undergo confirmation, (neither of which do you actually have to really believe in) you can believe whatever you want about any topic. In fact.. you can believe whatever you want and probably still be a bishop some day if you want. This is assuming, of course, that you live in Canada or the USA, you might be able to get away with most things in England, but they might call you on a few issues.

You are a pretty bad Anglican if you believe whatever you want. If you can't subscribe to the two Creeds, to proper beliefs in the 2 required Sacraments of the Gospel, to the Scriptures in their complete canon as interpreted by the Church, and to the Apostolic Succession as being necessary to preserving the truth and facilitating reunion with other Christians ... then you are a pretty bad Anglican.

We may not ask for much, but please respect the dogma we DO have. Such dogma includes the Trinity, the Incarnation, and all the rest of the Creedal statements.

If anyone honestly wants to know what we believe, they should read the Book of Common Prayer. Afterall, "as we pray, so we believe". Or, "correct practice leads to correct doctrine".

[PaladinValer]

:clap: Gitlance :clap:

:amen:

[karen freeinchristman]

You are a pretty bad Anglican if you believe whatever you want. The trouble is, I think a lot of Anglicans just aren't bothered to find out what "Anglicans" believe. The more I am finding out now, the more important I think it is for people to know what it means to be Anglican. It isn't "just another Christian church". It's more than that, in my view.

[AngCath]

To see what Anglicans believe refer to the Creeds and to the Prayer Book

[gitlance]

The trouble is, I think a lot of Anglicans just aren't bothered to find out what "Anglicans" believe. The more I am finding out now, the more important I think it is for people to know what it means to be Anglican. It isn't "just another Christian church". It's more than that, in my view.

It is MUCH more than that, YES! It has preserved the Holy Catholic Faith as received in the land of the Celts, and it has remained part of the Holy Catholic Church when so many others have schismed away from Her.

There does need to be better education among Anglicans today. But we mustn't let the few "bad Anglicans" spoil it for the rest of us who do know what Holy Mother Church teaches, and who strive to live by it.

There are bad RCs and bad EO too, but they don't speak for the whole Church, and they are certainly not respective of what the Church teaches.

[svdbygrace]

I have to admit I was fond of the old name. It reminded me of "dogbert" from dilbert. :D Not that you asked.

I'll always remember you as dogsbody :sigh:

Naomi! :wave:

I like your new screen name better :thumbsup: Couldn't remember to call your Naomi before. :blush:

[Naomi4Christ]

It is MUCH more than that, YES! It has preserved the Holy Catholic Faith as received in the land of the Celts,

Eh? :scratch:

[gitlance]

Eh? :scratch:

The Celts lived in the Isles before the Angles and Saxons invaded. They were the original inheritors of the Catholic Faith in Great Britain. St. Irenaeus mentions them in his Adversus Haereses, written between AD 177-200. There were Bishops from the land of the Celts present at the Council of Arles in AD 314.

[gitlance]

Here are some good basics:

http://anglicansonline.org/basics/what_believe.html

[gtsecc]

Eh? :scratch:

The faith, and the Church came to the Islands very early one near the turn of the 1st century. Legend has it that Joseph of Arimathea evangelized us, being sent out by John the Beloved.

[itoldyounoalready]

How did Catholicism bck in olden days and now differ from each other?

[gitlance]

How did Catholicism bck in olden days and now differ from each other?

Traditional Anglicanism and Eastern Orthodoxy have upheld the ancient Catholic faith. Rome has added much to the faith "once delivered to the saints" -- she now proclaims salvifically binding doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception of our Lady and Papal infallibility that have no ground in historic Church Tradition.

[itoldyounoalready]

Can you translate this into English please?

I'm not exactly up to date on all religious terms,I just learned what the Nicene Creed was.

[Velo Princesse]

Can you translate this into English please?

I'm not exactly up to date on all religious terms,I just learned what the Nicene Creed was.

Join the club... :) When I post questions around here, I generally have to say "talk to me like I'm stupid." They generally answer in English if you say that. :)

Randi

[itoldyounoalready]

Join the club... :) When I post questions around here, I generally have to say "talk to me like I'm stupid." They generally answer in English if you say that. :)

Randi

Oh, okay, let me try that.

Hey everyone who has posted here before or is posting now can you post like your speaking to someone with an IQ of 2.

[erin74]

You are a pretty bad Anglican if you believe whatever you want. If you can't subscribe to the two Creeds, to proper beliefs in the 2 required Sacraments of the Gospel, to the Scriptures in their complete canon as interpreted by the Church, and to the Apostolic Succession as being necessary to preserving the truth and facilitating reunion with other Christians ... then you are a pretty bad Anglican.

We may not ask for much, but please respect the dogma we DO have. Such dogma includes the Trinity, the Incarnation, and all the rest of the Creedal statements.

If anyone honestly wants to know what we believe, they should read the Book of Common Prayer. Afterall, "as we pray, so we believe". Or, "correct practice leads to correct doctrine".

you forgot the 39 articles didn't you. But I guess they're in the prayer book - or at least in ours,

[PaladinValer]

The Articles were chucked out after Cromwell for the most part.

[itoldyounoalready]

Waht happened during Cromwell?

[erin74]

Some anglicans decided not to believe what other anglicans hold to be a true doctrinal statement - the 39 articles.

I'll just add these same articles Anglican ministers must subscribe to in order to be ordained. Apparently those who don't believe them get around this by saying that they concur that they are part of the history of the anglican church. It does seem to go against the grain of lanugauge used at the ordination though IMO.

[itoldyounoalready]

Oh, so it's kind of like the Protestant Reformation.

[gtsecc]

Oh, so it's kind of like the Protestant Reformation.
the 39 article. Yes.
But the reformation was a mistake.

[erin74]

well the 39 articles are, in my understanding, a by-product of the reformation. And a good one. I'll see if I can find a good link for you. We listed them all out on this site a week or so ago.

http://www.churchsociety.org/issues/doctrine/iss_doctrine_39articles.htm

some of the members don't like this website. I only found it because it has simple english for the articles. I have not done a thorough read of it, but suspect I would like it, from what has been said.

[gitlance]

you forgot the 39 articles didn't you. But I guess they're in the prayer book - or at least in ours,

With the exception of VERY FEW provinces, they are no longer doctrinally binding in most areas of the Communion. In addition, the 39 Articles are not a work of the ancient undivided Church, and as such they are only authoritative where they uphold the Catholic Faith of the undivided Church.

[Velo Princesse]

Not to be a butt or anything, but this thread has turned into something it was not meant to be. itoldyounoalready has questions about our faith and I haven't seen them answered yet. Can we move past the 39 articles for a while and help her out? I would do it myself, but I'd like to hear the answers also and I doubt I'd be much help. She is looking for something and came to us for help so lets help.

Randi

[gitlance]

Not to be a butt or anything, but this thread has turned into something it was not meant to be. itoldyounoalready has questions about our faith and I haven't seen them answered yet. Can we move past the 39 articles for a while and help her out? I would do it myself, but I'd like to hear the answers also and I doubt I'd be much help. She is looking for something and came to us for help so lets help.

Randi

I am all for moving beyond the 39 Articles!!

Perhaps the OP'er could ask some more pointed questions? Or, perhaps the OP'er could read through the Catechism for the basics and then come back with more indepth questions?

[gtsecc]

Not to be a butt or anything, but this thread has turned into something it was not meant to be. itoldyounoalready has questions about our faith and I haven't seen them answered yet.
Randi

I gave a great starting point:
I think we could be safe in saying that the kerygma of the faith can be expressed by:
(a) The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as "containing all things necessary to salvation," and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.

(b) The Apostles' Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith.

(c) The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself--Baptism and the Supper of the Lord--ministered with unfailing use of Christ's words of Institution, and of the elements ordained by Him.

(d) The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.

Now he can ask more specific questions about the points listed if he does not know what they mean.

[Velo Princesse]

Why don't we do it this way... lets imagine that she is a non-christian looking for Christ and happened upon Anglicans wanting to know what we believe and why. Would we give her homework to do? Probably not. We all know she wouldn't do it and then her soul would be lost because we didn't even try. So, what would we tell her about Anglicans?

I'd love to answer, but I've been an Anglican for about two weeks. What drew me to this church is simply that they encourage reason, something that other churches don't always do. They want you to think and question things. Also, the services are beautiful. But that is what drew me to the church, not what the church believes. I am not knowledgeable on the subject so someone else will have to go deeper.

Randi

[gitlance]

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

[Velo Princesse]

I gave a great starting point:
I think we could be safe in saying that the kerygma of the faith can be expressed by:
(a) The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as "containing all things necessary to salvation," and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.

(b) The Apostles' Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith.

(c) The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself--Baptism and the Supper of the Lord--ministered with unfailing use of Christ's words of Institution, and of the elements ordained by Him.

(d) The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.

Now he can ask more specific questions about the points listed if he does not know what they mean.

What is the Apostles Creed?

What does (d) mean in it's entirety?

I don't know what they mean... LOL

[erin74]

Yes - and I like the doctrine. I find the 39 articles an excellent doctrine of faith. I also hold to the creeds, etc.

I love the anglican churches I have been a part of because the teaching is highly valued. I am sorry that so many of you disagree with the 39 articles - because our ministers hold them to be true, and teach sound doctrine, I have stayed with this denomination.

But that being said I do want to make it clear that not every anglican church holds to them.

[gtsecc]

(d) Means we don't believe the Church can exist outside of Bishops who were Consecrated by Bishops, etc.. going back to the Apostles.

[gitlance]

What is the Apostles Creed?

What does (d) mean in it's entirety?


Apostles Creed:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. AMEN.

-------------------------------

The "historic episcopate" refers to the apostolic succession -- the teaching that all of our present-day bishops have been ordained in a successive line of laying-on of hands with the intent to transfer the ministry since the time of the apostles. Every single one of our bishops can trace their ministerial lineage back to one of the apostles.

This has univerally been considered a fundamental of the Catholic faith -- for apart from it there are no valid sacraments, no unity, and no valid ministry.

[erin74]

see but not every anglican believes d)

[Velo Princesse]

Apostles Creed:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. AMEN.

-------------------------------

If that is the Apostles Creed, what is the Nicene Creed? I think I might have given itoldyounoalready some wrong information. :confused:

The "historic episcopate" refers to the apostolic succession -- the teaching that all of our present-day bishops have been ordained in a successive line of laying-on of hands with the intent to transfer the ministry since the time of the apostles. Every single one of our bishops can trace their ministerial lineage back to one of the apostles.

This has univerally been considered a fundamental of the Catholic faith -- for apart from it there are no valid sacraments, no unity, and no valid ministry.

That's awesome!

Randi

[gitlance]

The Nature of the Church

We gather as people called by God to be faithful and obedient to Him. As the Royal Priestly People of God, the Church is called to be, in fact, the manifestation of Christ in and to the world. True religion is revealed to man by God. We cannot decide what is truth, but rather (in obedience) ought to receive, accept, cherish, defend and teach what God has given us. The Church is created by God, and is beyond the ultimate control of man.

The Church is the Body of Christ at work in the world. She is the society of the baptized called out from the world: In it, but not of it. As Christ's faithful Bride, she is different from the world and must not be influenced by it.



The Essential of Truth and Order

We repudiate all deviation of departure from the Faith, in whole or in part, and bear witness to these essential principles of evangelical Truth and apostolic Order:



Holy Scriptures

The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and the authentic record of God's revelation of Himself, His saving activity, and moral demands -- a revelation valid for all men and all time.



The Creeds

The Nicene Creed as the authoritative summary of the chief articles of the Christian Faith, together with the "Apostles' Creed, and that known as the Creed of St. Athanasius to be "thoroughly received and believed" in the sense they have had always in the Catholic Church.



Tradition

The received Tradition of the Church and its preachings as set forth by "the ancient catholic bishops and doctors," and especially as defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church, to the exclusion of all errors, ancient and modern.



Sacraments

The Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, the Holy Eucharist, Holy Matrimony, Holy Orders, Penance and Unction of the Sick, as objective and effective signs of the continued presence and saving activity of Christ our Lord among His people and as His covenanted means for conveying His grace. In particular, we affirm the necessity of Baptism and the Holy Eucharist (where they may be had) -- Baptism as incorporating us into Christ (with its completion in Confirmation as the "seal of the Holy Spirit"), and the Eucharist as the sacrifice which unites us to the all-sufficient Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross and the Sacrament in which He feeds us with His Body and Blood.

Holy Orders

The Holy Orders of bishops, priests and deacons as the perpetuation of Christ's gift of apostolic ministry to His Church, asserting the necessity of a bishop of apostolic succession (or priest ordained by such) as the celebrant of the Eucharist -- these Orders in accordance with Christ's Will and institution (as evidenced by the Scriptures), and the universal practice of the Catholic Church.





Duty of Bishops

Bishops as Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Shepherds and Teachers, as well as their duty (together with other clergy and the laity) to guard and defend the purity and integrity of the Church's Faith and Moral Teaching.



The Use of Other Formulae

In affirming these principles, we recognize that all Anglican statements of faith and liturgical formulae must be interpreted in accordance with them.



Incompetence of Church Bodies to Alter Truth

We disclaim any right or competence to suppress, alter or amend any of the ancient Ecumenical Creeds and definitions of Faith, to set aside or depart from Holy Scripture, or to alter or deviate from the essential pre-requisites of any Sacrament.



Unity with Other Believers

We declare our firm intention to seek and achieve full sacramental communion and visible unity with other Christians who "worship the Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity," and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith in accordance with the foregoing principles.

[gitlance]

see but not every anglican believes d)

Every Anglican ought to, because every Anglican province in the world has adopted the Chicago-Lambeth quadrilateral.

Shame on people not obeying Holy Mother Church!!!!

[erin74]

well i'm quite certain gtsecc's definition is not the one that our diocese would have ascribed to. are there other interpretations?

[gtsecc]

well i'm quite certain gtsecc's definition is not the one that our diocese would have ascribed to. are there other interpretations?
?
You can't make up your own definition of what the Historic Episcopate is and accept it or not, even if you are from another country. The definition existed before the Church existed in Australia. Now, no one will refuse to offer you communion for holding a different belief.

[gitlance]

Solemn Declaration of the Church in Canada:


In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen.



WE, the Bishops, together with the Delegates from the Clergy and Laity of the Church of England in the Dominion of Canada, now assembled in the first General Synod, hereby make the following Solemn Declaration:



WE declare this Church to be, and desire that it shall continue, in full communion with the Church of England throughout the world, as an integral portion of the One Body of Christ composed of the Churches which, united under the One Divine Head and in fellowship of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, hold the One Faith revealed in Holy Writ, and defined in the Creeds as maintained by the undivided primitive Church in the undisputed Ecumenical Councils; receive the same Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as containing all things necessary to salvation; teach the same Word of God; partake of the same Divinely ordained Sacraments, through the ministry of the same Apostolic Orders; and worship One God and Father through the same Lord Jesus Christ, by the same Holy and Divine Spirit who is given to them that believe to guide them into all truth.

[gitlance]

well i'm quite certain gtsecc's definition is not the one that our diocese would have ascribed to. are there other interpretations?

There has been one interpretation throughout history -- and any change of that interpretation is revisioning the Church and Her ministry.

[itoldyounoalready]

the 39 article. Yes.
But the reformation was a mistake.

Wait how was the reformation a mistake ,I thought it was a series of deliberate acts.

[gitlance]

Wait how was the reformation a mistake ,I thought it was a series of deliberate acts.

The Reformers on the European continent went way too far and ended up separating themselves from the Catholic Faith. The Reformers in England, praise God, never separated themselves from the Catholic faith, but instead maintained that faith in its purest form.

[erin74]

?
You can't make up your own definition of what the Historic Episcopate is and accept it or not, even if you are from another country. The definition existed before the Church existed in Australia. Now, no one will refuse to offer you communion for holding a different belief.

So are you saying that my archbishop signed something that says that we have to have literal apostolic succession - and are linked to the roman catholic church, because I know this man does not hold to that teaching.

btw i wasn't looking to make up my own. I was genuinely asking if there were different ways this is interpreted, such as the different ways the 39 article statment of belief is interpreted.

[gitlance]

So are you saying that my archbishop signed something that says that we have to have literal apostolic succession - and are linked to the roman catholic church, because I know this man does not hold to that teaching.

Is there something other than "literal apostolic succession"? The Church doesn't know of anything other than that.

We are linked with the Roman Communion, the Eastern Orthodox Communion, the Old Catholics, the Oriental Orthodox, and a scant few others.

And it doesn't matter what your one bishop teaches -- what matters is the Faith of the undivided Church. Do you know how many people died to uphold that Faith?

[itoldyounoalready]

The Reformers on the European continent went way too far and ended up separating themselves from the Catholic Faith. The Reformers in England, praise God, never separated themselves from the Catholic faith, but instead maintained that faith in its purest form.

Oh, I get it like the puritans who trekkedto America.

[gitlance]

Oh, I get it like the puritans who trekkedto America.


Correct! The Puritans ultimately separated themselves from the Church.

[erin74]

Is there something other than "literal apostolic succession"? The Church doesn't know of anything other than that.

We are linked with the Roman Communion, the Eastern Orthodox Communion, the Old Catholics, the Oriental Orthodox, and a scant few others.

And it doesn't matter what your one bishop teaches -- what matters is the Faith of the undivided Church. Do you know how many people died to uphold that Faith?

gitlance - i am merely trying to equate two comments I have heard.

One is what this statement means
The other is that everyone ascribed to it.

See those two things don't equate to me... my archbishop does not hold threads to the catholic church.... and is not seeking to reunite.

I am genuinely interested to know, as I am sure he is not the only one, what the thinking is of those who don't believe that we all belong back with the roman catholic church, understand this statement to mean.

I am not being facetious or arrogant here. I am not making remarks about those who do believe. I am truly wondering what some of the bishops hold to be true, and what the others hold to be true.

Surely you must be able to acknowledge that there is a large part of the anglican church worldwide who don't see re-uniting with the roman catholic church as something they desire, or would ascribe to. So what did they see this statement to mean, if not gtsecc's definition?

[gtsecc]

So are you saying that my archbishop signed something that says that we have to have literal apostolic succession - and are linked to the roman catholic church, because I know this man does not hold to that teaching.



Your ArchBishop has had hands laid upon him by Bishops, and them by Bishops, going back to the Apostles. You can find a list of the names if you want. Most go back to Peter, James and John, and through them to Christ.

[gitlance]

gitlance - i am merely trying to equate two comments I have heard.

One is what this statement means
The other is that everyone ascribed to it.

See those two things don't equate to me... my archbishop does not hold threads to the catholic church.... and is not seeking to reunite.

I am genuinely interested to know, as I am sure he is not the only one, what the thinking is of those who don't believe that we all belong back with the roman catholic church, understand this statement to mean.

I am not being facetious or arrogant here. I am not making remarks about those who do believe. I am truly wondering what some of the bishops hold to be true, and what the others hold to be true.

Surely you must be able to acknowledge that there is a large part of the anglican church worldwide who don't see re-uniting with the roman catholic church as something they desire, or would ascribe to. So what did they see this statement to mean, if not gtsecc's definition?

I'm not saying we belong back with the RCC. If I believed that, I would be over on OBOB, and you wouldn't have me here to worry about! ;)

I would hope we wouldn't reunite with Rome until they removed their extra-conciliar doctrinal additions.

Perhaps you should ask your archbishop exactly what he meant. However, again, my point was simply that just because a bishop believes something doesn't mean it is correct. We all know the hogwash that comes out of Bishop Spong's mouth -- none of it is in accord with the Catholic Faith. So, when someone teaches something that is not in accord with the historic Catholic faith, we should take it with a grain of salt and perhaps ask that person why he/she said such a thing.

[erin74]

(d) Means we don't believe the Church can exist outside of Bishops who were Consecrated by Bishops, etc.. going back to the Apostles.

isn't this a little different to that though.

I see what you are saying about apostolic succession, but that is different to saying that church can't exist outside of apostolic succession. Is this statement claiming that?

[gitlance]

isn't this a little different to that though.

I see what you are saying about apostolic succession, but that is different to saying that church can't exist outside of apostolic succession. Is this statement claiming that?

St. Ignatius, a disciple of St. John, advocated such a belief around AD 100:

"Likewise let all men respect the deacons as they reverence Jesus Christ, just as they must respect the bishop as the counterpart of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and the college of Apostles; without those no church is recognized." To the Trallians

[gtsecc]

isn't this a little different to that though.

I see what you are saying about apostolic succession, but that is different to saying that church can't exist outside of apostolic succession. Is this statement claiming that?


Yes.

Anglicans always seek to reunite the Church, which we see as divided right now.

The Lambeth Quadrilateral is a set of minimums set forth as necessary for the reunification.

[erin74]

are you saying every bishop/archbishop in the world signed somethign to say they wanted to reunite with the roman catholic church?

[erin74]

I'm not saying we belong back with the RCC. If I believed that, I would be over on OBOB, and you wouldn't have me here to worry about! ;)

I would hope we wouldn't reunite with Rome until they removed their extra-conciliar doctrinal additions.

Perhaps you should ask your archbishop exactly what he meant. However, again, my point was simply that just because a bishop believes something doesn't mean it is correct. We all know the hogwash that comes out of Bishop Spong's mouth -- none of it is in accord with the Catholic Faith. So, when someone teaches something that is not in accord with the historic Catholic faith, we should take it with a grain of salt and perhaps ask that person why he/she said such a thing.

i totally agree that because a bishop says something it doesnt make it true. Our bishops teach us that. Although I am more about it they say something that the bible doesn;t say than the church.

I will be researching this to see what the thinking of the bishop was. by the was was it all bishops or just archbishops... or worse primates?

[gitlance]

i totally agree that because a bishop says something it doesnt make it true. Our bishops teach us that. Although I am more about it they say something that the bible doesn;t say than the church.

I will be researching this to see what the thinking of the bishop was. by the was was it all bishops or just archbishops... or worse primates?

The Apostolic Succession applies to all bishops in the Church Catholic.

[erin74]

no sorry - not the succession. but the lambeth quadrilateral thingy. sorry for confusion

[itoldyounoalready]

huh, english please, someone.

[gitlance]

no sorry - not the succession. but the lambeth quadrilateral thingy. sorry for confusion

Yes, to my knowledge every province in the Communion has accepted that statement as the most basic requirements of the faith and the guidelines for reunion with other Christians.

[erin74]

ok - i've just posted on another board I'm on for some clarification from someone who might know a bit more about this than I, and yet holds an evangelical viewpoint. I am genuinely intrigued by this one....

[erin74]

huh, english please, someone.


sorry about this. they are basically saying that the only body that can call itself a church is one that has apostolic succession. that is a bishop makes a new bishop, etc dating back to the apostles. Apparently the anglican church claims to have this, but I think I understand correctly when I say the Roman Catholics do not believe we do.

well to date I haven't given a fig whether we do or don't, and don't hold that it is necessary for a church either btw.

They are saying that the lambeth quadrilateral (after some research I foudn this is a document signed in 1888 by all anglican bishops) point (d) says that as anglicans we hold to this. I initially thought this was some modern document as the lambeth conference gets held fairly regularly, and so I posed a doubt that my bishop would have signed that. Well I still doubt he would. So i am wondering if there are multiple interpretations of this document, or trying to understand the standing it has in evangelical circles. These guys would probably say it doesn't matter, only church tradition matters. But then since they say it's ok to dismiss the 39 articles, I wouldnt' be surprised if it's ok if we dismiss point (d) of saying that it means there is no other church.

I am sorry if this makes them cross again, and use more big words. It's taken me a while to gain any understanding of this.

[erin74]

Yes, to my knowledge every province in the Communion has accepted that statement as the most basic requirements of the faith and the guidelines for reunion with other Christians.

do you mean in 1888 or more recently?

[gitlance]

do you mean in 1888 or more recently?

It has been continually upheld since 1888. No province has ever denied it.

If you look at ECUSA's recent entering into full Communion with the ELCA, you will see that part of the agreement requires them to receive the Apostolic Succession from our bishops.

[erin74]

sorry - what is the ELCA?

also - it's the insistance that this is required to be recognised as a church that I have a particular problem with. I have not qualms in others calling themselves churches. I know others do, but I am surprised at this claim for this document.

I am trying to ascertain the ongoing significance of this document, and particularly point (d) to ALL anglican diocese, and whether historically there is dispute over this claim, or whether it is understood differently by different people. I know that not all anglicans historically would have held this to be true, so I am wondering about how others have viewed it historically.

I know both yourself and gtsecc hold it to be the case, and will say that everyone always has, but can you see that not everyone would agree with it, and so don't you wonder how they do think about it?

[Naomi4Christ]

the 39 article. Yes.
But the reformation was a mistake.

How can the reformation have been a mistake, pray tell?

[Naomi4Christ]

(d) Means we don't believe the Church can exist outside of Bishops who were Consecrated by Bishops, etc.. going back to the Apostles.

That's not true at all. We believe that "the church" is anyone who is a Christian, regardless of their denomination.

I would wager a guess that very few Christians care very much about whether their church has an apostolic succession or not. It's one of those things that is sure to divide the body of Christ, so what is the point?

Have some respect, Gtsecc.

[Naomi4Christ]

Your ArchBishop has had hands laid upon him by Bishops, and them by Bishops, going back to the Apostles. You can find a list of the names if you want. Most go back to Peter, James and John, and through them to Christ.

Anyone that has been confirmed has had a bishop's hands laid on them.

[Naomi4Christ]

But then since they say it's ok to dismiss the 39 articles, I wouldnt' be surprised if it's ok if we dismiss point (d) of saying that it means there is no other church.

I am sorry if this makes them cross again, and use more big words. It's taken me a while to gain any understanding of this.

I really don't get how you can just dismiss the 39 articles. That is the height of disobedience, don't you think?

One thing that I have just learnt from these discussions, is that tradition seems to have two meanings.

Tradition to me is something that you can pick up and develop over the years, decades, centuries. I sense that some people here believe that tradition is anything they want to believe, that there is no scriptural support for, that came out of the ecumenical councils in the early days of Christianity - and then tradition stopped. Oh, it started up again to pick up some Romish doctrines about Mary etc., then it stopped again.

[Naomi4Christ]

sorry - what is the ELCA?


Lutheran church



also - it's the insistance that this is required to be recognised as a church that I have a particular problem with. I have not qualms in others calling themselves churches. I know others do, but I am surprised at this claim for this document.

In a true Anglican fashion, we probably get around it by using a different definition for church. As you know, church can mean a building, a service, a congregation, a denomination, a job/vocation...etc. but the favoured one is the entire priesthood of believers.

[Naomi4Christ]

I've just been looking at the Anglican-Methodist Covenant (1992), and this little sentence heads up the affirmations:


We affirm one another's churches as true churches belonging to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ and as truly participating in the apostolic mission of the whole people of God.


Anglican-Methodist Covenant (http://www.methodist.org.uk/static/factsheets/fs_anglicanmethodistcov.htm)

Did the Archbishop of Canterbury not realise that there was no apostolic succession in the Methodist church when he signed this document? How could he recognise the Methodist church as a real church if he held such a requirement to be essential?

[erin74]

I just thought I'd share this with you all... I found it on another site I frequentl

I don't see any biblical justification for the idea that we become spiritually healthier and more mature by debating against wrong ideas, except in the indirect sense that suffering produces perseverance. I have enough junked up ideas of my own without listening to the junked up ideas of others as well. Spiritual maturity comes through prayerful feeding on God's word, with the help of teachers who treat that word well.

I thought others might appreciate it as well.

[erin74]

Ok - here's my question.

Does a bishop, archbishop, presbyter, deacon, or anyone else have to ascribe to the Lambeth Quadrilateral upon taking their position anymore?

I know they have to ascribe to the bible, prayer book and 39 articles.

But if they don't have to ascribe to the LQ then it's not really the lowest common denominator is it - the 39 articles would be much better option then.

I am pretty sure you will answer to my question will be no, which is why it all didn't make sense. No wonder my archbishop wouldnt' hold to it - he doesn't have to!

he does, however, ascribe to, and, more importantly, believe, the 39 articles, bible and prayer book.

[Fish and Bread]

If that is the Apostles Creed, what is the Nicene Creed? I think I might have given itoldyounoalready some wrong information. :confused:

This is the Nicene Creed:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.


As you can see, the Nicene and Apostles creeds are very similar. :) The main difference between the two is that the Nicene is longer and contains more explicit information about the trinity. The Apostles Creed was an ancient state of faith used at baptisms whereas the Nicene Creed was written in the 4th century to clarify various doctrines and beliefs and is used at Sunday services to this day in most Anglican Communion provinces (Including the Episcopal Church), the Eastern Orthodox churches, the Roman Catholic Church, and in some Lutheran churches. Methodists also technically affirm it, but it is rare to hear it read at a Sunday service by one of their congregations, in my experience.

John

[Fish and Bread]

I know they have to ascribe to the bible, prayer book and 39 articles.

I don't think the part highlighted in bold is true of ordained clergypersons in the United States to the best of my knowledge.

John

[erin74]

Well someone was saying the other day they have to ascribe to it, and that they do this by ascribing that it is part of anglican history or something like that.

[Simon_Templar]

granted my outlook is somewhat cynical :) but I believe in being honest. You guys are all giving information that is "traditional".. of course your giving different levels of tradition because some hold to the 39 articles, some say that particular tradition is no longer necessary or binding etc.. But when I say traditional here I mean your talking about things that were in are in the past as in they were true once upon a time.

The simple truth of the anglican church today is that you do not have to believe in the Nicean creed, you just have to be willing to repeat it every sunday... you don't have to believe in the apostles, or athanasian creeds, you just have to be willing to repeat them on occasion (somewhat less often than on a weekly basis).
You don't have to believe in the lambeth quadrilateral, you don't have to believe in the prayer book (although you probably are required to think of it as high quality literature and pleasant for running a service.)

Not only can you not believe in all that and still be episcopalian, you can still be a priest.. or even a bishop. Whats more, in the discussions I've seen in the boards here alot of people seem to think it is great that you can not believe all that and still be episcopalian... so I really don't get it.. when people come in and ask "what do anglicans believe" why do we then suddenly require belief in the creeds, in the prayer book etc etc?

Gitlance, you can say thats being a bad anglican, and I'd agree... but the point is that a large percentage of episcopalians wouldn't. And the question at hand is.. what do we believe as a whole.. not what do gitlance and simon templar believe...
The only honest answer when it comes to Anglicanism today is that we don't believe anything as a whole.

[erin74]

granted my outlook is somewhat cynical :) but I believe in being honest. You guys are all giving information that is "traditional".. of course your giving different levels of tradition because some hold to the 39 articles, some say that particular tradition is no longer necessary or binding etc.. But when I say traditional here I mean your talking about things that were in are in the past as in they were true once upon a time.

The simple truth of the anglican church today is that you do not have to believe in the Nicean creed, you just have to be willing to repeat it every sunday... you don't have to believe in the apostles, or athanasian creeds, you just have to be willing to repeat them on occasion (somewhat less often than on a weekly basis).
You don't have to believe in the lambeth quadrilateral, you don't have to believe in the prayer book (although you probably are required to think of it as high quality literature and pleasant for running a service.)

Not only can you not believe in all that and still be episcopalian, you can still be a priest.. or even a bishop. Whats more, in the discussions I've seen in the boards here alot of people seem to think it is great that you can not believe all that and still be episcopalian... so I really don't get it.. when people come in and ask "what do anglicans believe" why do we then suddenly require belief in the creeds, in the prayer book etc etc?

Gitlance, you can say thats being a bad anglican, and I'd agree... but the point is that a large percentage of episcopalians wouldn't. And the question at hand is.. what do we believe as a whole.. not what do gitlance and simon templar believe...
The only honest answer when it comes to Anglicanism today is that we don't believe anything as a whole.

This is a cynical point of view - but also quite true. It is true to be an anglican you don't have to beleve much at all. We have an archbishop in our country who doesn't believe in the resurrection, so what does that say!

This is definitely a different way to look at it.

Especially since so many anglicans value the variety and breadth of the denomination. This is all so true.

[cathromang]

granted my outlook is somewhat cynical :) but I believe in being honest. You guys are all giving information that is "traditional".. of course your giving different levels of tradition because some hold to the 39 articles, some say that particular tradition is no longer necessary or binding etc.. But when I say traditional here I mean your talking about things that were in are in the past as in they were true once upon a time.

The simple truth of the anglican church today is that you do not have to believe in the Nicean creed, you just have to be willing to repeat it every sunday... you don't have to believe in the apostles, or athanasian creeds, you just have to be willing to repeat them on occasion (somewhat less often than on a weekly basis).
You don't have to believe in the lambeth quadrilateral, you don't have to believe in the prayer book (although you probably are required to think of it as high quality literature and pleasant for running a service.)

Not only can you not believe in all that and still be episcopalian, you can still be a priest.. or even a bishop. Whats more, in the discussions I've seen in the boards here alot of people seem to think it is great that you can not believe all that and still be episcopalian... so I really don't get it.. when people come in and ask "what do anglicans believe" why do we then suddenly require belief in the creeds, in the prayer book etc etc?

Gitlance, you can say thats being a bad anglican, and I'd agree... but the point is that a large percentage of episcopalians wouldn't. And the question at hand is.. what do we believe as a whole.. not what do gitlance and simon templar believe...
The only honest answer when it comes to Anglicanism today is that we don't believe anything as a whole.

sad but true my friend.
And I think that's one reason it's now splintering before our eyes...

The question now is where do we go from here?

[gtsecc]

sad but true my friend.
And I think that's one reason it's now splintering before our eyes...

The question now is where do we go from here?
Well, if you believe we need Bishops, then we can go to RC,EO, OO, OC.
Or, remain Anglican and hang on the the teachings of the undivided Church.

[gitlance]

sorry - what is the ELCA?

also - it's the insistance that this is required to be recognised as a church that I have a particular problem with. I have not qualms in others calling themselves churches. I know others do, but I am surprised at this claim for this document.

I am trying to ascertain the ongoing significance of this document, and particularly point (d) to ALL anglican diocese, and whether historically there is dispute over this claim, or whether it is understood differently by different people. I know that not all anglicans historically would have held this to be true, so I am wondering about how others have viewed it historically.

I know both yourself and gtsecc hold it to be the case, and will say that everyone always has, but can you see that not everyone would agree with it, and so don't you wonder how they do think about it?

I do understand that it may be difficult for some. Our point is simply that that is what was believed for 1500 years in the world by the Church -- and then, after the Reformation, the Church in England continued to believe it. If you look at our history, you will see a constant emphasis on the need for the apostolic succession -- it is what makes us validly Catholic.

[gitlance]

That's not true at all. We believe that "the church" is anyone who is a Christian, regardless of their denomination.

I would wager a guess that very few Christians care very much about whether their church has an apostolic succession or not. It's one of those things that is sure to divide the body of Christ, so what is the point?

Have some respect, Gtsecc.

And as we have said before, the fleeting cares of a few people don't have any bearing on truth. I doubt many people would care to sell all that they have and give it to the poor, yet that is arguably one of Christ's teachings.

We MUST move past this post-modern protestant subjectivism of "I will believe whatever is easy and makes me happy". Yes, we would all love to see the Church reunited, but NOT at the expense of truth. Jesus said the way to life was a narrow road, and one that few would find. Perhaps the very reason few find it is because it's the hardest, most uncomfortable road there is.

[gitlance]

granted my outlook is somewhat cynical :) but I believe in being honest. You guys are all giving information that is "traditional".. of course your giving different levels of tradition because some hold to the 39 articles, some say that particular tradition is no longer necessary or binding etc.. But when I say traditional here I mean your talking about things that were in are in the past as in they were true once upon a time.

The simple truth of the anglican church today is that you do not have to believe in the Nicean creed, you just have to be willing to repeat it every sunday... you don't have to believe in the apostles, or athanasian creeds, you just have to be willing to repeat them on occasion (somewhat less often than on a weekly basis).
You don't have to believe in the lambeth quadrilateral, you don't have to believe in the prayer book (although you probably are required to think of it as high quality literature and pleasant for running a service.)

Not only can you not believe in all that and still be episcopalian, you can still be a priest.. or even a bishop. Whats more, in the discussions I've seen in the boards here alot of people seem to think it is great that you can not believe all that and still be episcopalian... so I really don't get it.. when people come in and ask "what do anglicans believe" why do we then suddenly require belief in the creeds, in the prayer book etc etc?

Gitlance, you can say thats being a bad anglican, and I'd agree... but the point is that a large percentage of episcopalians wouldn't. And the question at hand is.. what do we believe as a whole.. not what do gitlance and simon templar believe...
The only honest answer when it comes to Anglicanism today is that we don't believe anything as a whole.

Well, if somebody came to the table and lacked all of those beliefs, then they may very well be able to be "confirmed" into the Church -- but that doesn't mean they are a Christian.

If someone can't even hold to the most basic of Christian formulae, the Creeds, I don't see how they can hold the title of Christian. The honest-to-God truth is that ANYBODY could understand doctrine and the creeds if they wanted to -- most people are just too lazy to try.

[PaladinValer]

see but not every anglican believes d)

That isn't Anglican then.

No Apostolic Succession = No Anglican. This is a cornerstone of required Anglican faith and belief.

In order to be a full church, as Gitlance and others have correctly stated, that church must have a valid historic episcopate that directly links today's clergy with the Apostles themselves.

[Thomas2618]

How can the reformation have been a mistake, pray tell?

Because, though it did remove some of the added incorrect doctrine, it also went too far in that those involved did not "reform" back to the Faith as it was held by the Apostles and the early church, but they decided that they were smarter than all those that came before them and decided they could just make up their own doctrines all by themselves. . Luther, Calvin, etc. all put themselves above the Church and that is the mistake they made - they invented a new church rather than "reforming" the Church. The Anglican reformation was different from that of the mainland reformations in that it genuinely "reformed" the church rather than simply inventing new churches.

[erin74]

It seems the catholic church kicked them out, and wouldn't allow them to reform the church. Oh yeah - and weren't quite a few of them burnt at the stake....... I'd say the likelihood of reforming the catholic church at the time was futile at best.

[itoldyounoalready]

I've also heard that the Anglican church was formed by a king who wanted to divorce his wife and ate meat.I was told this by Catholic friends.How true is this?

[erin74]

On another note.

I have been looking further into the apostolic succession bit.

2 Timothy 2:1-2


You then, my child, be strengthened by the grace that is in Christ Jesus, 2 and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.


Wouldn't it be fair to say that the most important thing about apostolic succession and what the importance of it for ANY church/denomination, is the succession of the truth - that is the gospel, namely Christ.

So the biological heritage is not the important bit - the preservation of the truth is.

[erin74]

I've also heard that the Anglican church was formed by a king who wanted to divorce his wife and ate meat.I was told this by Catholic friends.How true is this?

Um - that was more of a case of in the right place at the right time for the King... that is incredibly poor history - but I'm sure someone will fill you in on the detail of it.

It certainly wasn't a major part of the reformation that's for sure.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

I've also heard that the Anglican church was formed by a king who wanted to divorce his wife and ate meat.I was told this by Catholic friends.



:doh:

[itoldyounoalready]

Uhhh sorry if I offended anyone, this wasn't true was it.It was meant to villify the Anglican church, sorry?

[gitlance]

I wanna eat meat!

[itoldyounoalready]

Do anglicans fast on Fridays too, like the whole just fish thing.

[erin74]

I wanna eat meat!

is that some incredibly obscure answer to the question - very cryptic if it is....

otherwise - go to it and eat meat.... unless there is a medical problem of some sort preventing you.... in which case.... don't perhaps.....

or I guess you may be in a social situation which makes it a discretionary issue. I guess you will have to apply the principal of wisdom - what is the wisest action, to eat or not to eat.

[erin74]

Do anglicans fast on Fridays too, like the whole just fish thing.

not this anglican

our rector once held a bbq on good friday - lamb chops, pork sausages, beef steaks, the works - just to show that we have freedom to eat meat if we wish.

good way to make a point I thought.

[itoldyounoalready]

^_^ That's funny

[higgs2]

I wanna eat meat!

:D :D :D

[Mysterium_Fidei]

I'm a vegetarian! :D

However, I would like to begin praying the Divine Mercy on Fridays out of respect for the Crucifixion. We Anglicans are encouraged to make a sacrafice of some sort on Fridays.

[gitlance]

Do anglicans fast on Fridays too, like the whole just fish thing.

I fast on Fridays.

From the BCP:

The following days are observed by special acts of discipline and self-denial:

Good Friday and all other Fridays of the year, in commemoration of the Lord's crucifixion, except for Fridays in the Christmas and Easter seasons, and any Feasts of our Lord which occur on a Friday.

The Book says it, I believe it.

[itoldyounoalready]

Oh, so it actually says this in the bible ,to fast I mean.

[gitlance]

Oh, so it actually says this in the bible ,to fast I mean.

The Bible most certainly encourages fasting. Our dearest Lord did.

[itoldyounoalready]

But on Friday, in particular or any day?

[PaladinValer]

Fasting is truly required only on certain times of the year. Only during those times is this holy discipline a necessity.

The whole "fish on fridays" is also a holy discipline, but really isn't required. What is asked of on fridays is some sort of act of penance: it could be abstaining from meat, it could be reading the Bible for an hour, it could be a temporary vow of silence, it could be doing something charitus for the day (like working in a soup kitchen).

[itoldyounoalready]

So anything like meritorious could be accepted.

[Thomas2618]

What days of the years is fasting a requirement? I would like to start this discipline, but it is difficult for me to get started because I don't feel like it's required. If I started with the required days then I might be able to start...

[PaladinValer]

Lent is the time of required fasting. It can be as harsh as you want it.

Last Lent, I ate only before sunrise or after sunset and during these times, meat was completely off the menu.

As for other disciplines, I went to Morning Prayer every time it was offered, forsook my car (unless it was absolutely necessary) (yes, that means I walked in the ice-cold snow and air), and tried to read the Bible at least an hour each day.

I'm looking forward to similiar disciplines next Lent. :)

[gitlance]

Lent is the time of required fasting. It can be as harsh as you want it.

Last Lent, I ate only before sunrise or after sunset and during these times, meat was completely off the menu.

As for other disciplines, I went to Morning Prayer every time it was offered, forsook my car (unless it was absolutely necessary) (yes, that means I walked in the ice-cold snow and air), and tried to read the Bible at least an hour each day.

I'm looking forward to similiar disciplines next Lent. :)

That sounds almost as painful as eliminating Aspartame from the diet. ;)

[Naomi4Christ]

One thing to keep in mind with fasting, is that you are doing it for yourself, not for God.

If you want to do it, something that I think must be very pleasing to God, is to use the money or time that you save for some kind of mission.

[erin74]

Oh, so it actually says this in the bible ,to fast I mean.

He was quoting from the book of common prayer.

[erin74]

"Take up your cross daily and follow me"

No need to restrict yourself to fridays or other special days!

[gtsecc]

So the biological heritage is not the important bit - the preservation of the truth is.
Uh, no.
One of the things that defines the faith for Anglicans is the belief that the physical laying one of hands is an essential to the faith. See, (d).

[gtsecc]

Most folks at my parish fast before recieving the Eucharist, and on all the regular fasting days and seasons.

[gitlance]

On another note.

I have been looking further into the apostolic succession bit.

2 Timothy 2:1-2


Wouldn't it be fair to say that the most important thing about apostolic succession and what the importance of it for ANY church/denomination, is the succession of the truth - that is the gospel, namely Christ.

So the biological heritage is not the important bit - the preservation of the truth is.

They are both equally important. But it comes as no surprise that those groups which have lost the apostolic succession have also lost the whole truth.

[gitlance]

One thing to keep in mind with fasting, is that you are doing it for yourself, not for God.

If you want to do it, something that I think must be very pleasing to God, is to use the money or time that you save for some kind of mission.

Ummm... excuse me, but since when is the Christian life about ourselves? (Here's more of that post-modern protestant subjectivism.)

We fast in order to imitate our Lord, to subdue ourselves that we might be better able to have Him work through us, and in obedience to the Holy Catholic Church. Nothing we do is in a vacuum, and the Church has required that all we do be through Christ, for Christ, with Christ, by Christ, and in Christ.

[gitlance]

"Take up your cross daily and follow me"

No need to restrict yourself to fridays or other special days!

Fallacy of ignorance. Just because the Scriptures don't say "YOU MUST FAST ON FRIDAYS" does not mean that the Church's traditional discipline of extra-devotion and self-sacrifice on particular days isn't beneficial.

[Naomi4Christ]

Ummm... excuse me, but since when is the Christian life about ourselves? (Here's more of that post-modern protestant subjectivism.)

Then you can infer the importance I attach to routine, seasonal fasting.

[Naomi4Christ]

Fallacy of ignorance. Just because the Scriptures don't say "YOU MUST FAST ON FRIDAYS" does not mean that the Church's traditional discipline of extra-devotion and self-sacrifice on particular days isn't beneficial.

But we don't live in a nanny state, needing to be told what to do and when to do it. If you want to fast, do it from your heart, not out of some kind of obedience.

[Naomi4Christ]

They are both equally important. But it comes as no surprise that those groups which have lost the apostolic succession have also lost the whole truth.

What whole truth?

[higgs2]

Really, it might be good to keep in mind the scriptures that are read at the Ash Wednesday service, right before the biggest fasting season of the church year. Something about being humble and not bragging about how much you pray -- and usually the sermon is about how Lenten observations (such as fasting) are a personal piety and not a competitive sport.

[gtsecc]

Really, it might be good to keep in mind the scriptures that are read at the Ash Wednesday service, right before the biggest fasting season of the church year. Something about being humble and not bragging about how much you pray -- and usually the sermon is about how Lenten observations (such as fasting) are a personal piety and not a competitive sport.

Of course, but when we are discussing fasting and "what do anglicans believe," it is appropriate to say "I fast and this is what I do," rather than keeping it private out of humility.

[gitlance]

But we don't live in a nanny state, needing to be told what to do and when to do it. If you want to fast, do it from your heart, not out of some kind of obedience.

Then let's not be told what to do. If that is your logic, then you have no right spreading the Gospel. You have no right telling others about Christianity, because they may as well do what they want to do. Afterall, why should we obey the Creator and Sustainer of the universe? Why should we obey his bride, the Holy Catholic Church?

Post-modern subjectivism is the most dangerous deception of satan today: it leads to universalism, negligence, selfish conceit, egotism, and all the rest. You are advocating a belief that sets self on throne, and makes God submissive to us.

Genuine Christianity is a religion of obedience. You must discipline yourself, you must train yourself, you must "run the race set before you with endurance". You are not in control of your life. You are a slave of almighty God, a servant of the highest -- yet in his bountiful mercy he treats you as his very daughter. Show him the respect he deserves for dying for you, and obey him and his holy Church.

[gitlance]

What whole truth?

The Catholic Faith.

And in case it needs to be repeated: "Catholic" comes from two Greek words (kata and holou) which mean "according to the whole".

[gitlance]

Really, it might be good to keep in mind the scriptures that are read at the Ash Wednesday service, right before the biggest fasting season of the church year. Something about being humble and not bragging about how much you pray -- and usually the sermon is about how Lenten observations (such as fasting) are a personal piety and not a competitive sport.

Yes they are a personal piety... nobody should go around telling others about how "good they are" because they fast. The point of this conversation is simply to say that the Church has mandated certain times of fasting, and we are obliged to obey Christ's holy Catholic Church.

[Thomas2618]

Ok, I know about Fridays throughout the whole year, esecially in Lent, but what are the other days in the year that the Church requires or at least suggests some form of fasting?

[Thomas2618]

Most folks at my parish fast before recieving the Eucharist, and on all the regular fasting days and seasons.

I have been trying to adhere to fasting before receiving also, but I am still on the road getting in to the habit of consistently fasting when I feel I should be. Any suggestions?

[Thomas2618]

That sounds almost as painful as eliminating Aspartame from the diet. ;)

No aspartame? eek... Headaches for me. I think I may abstain from caffiene and aspartame for Lent next year... 'twill be my first year as a confirmed Episcopalian...

[Aymn27]

oops

[Aymn27]

itoldyounoalready,

What most people in here are giving you is a basic summary of "traditional" Anglican doctrines.. things that the anglican church has traditionally believed and taught.

However, the honest truth in the anglican/episcopal church today is that you can believe whatever you want. As long as you have submitted to baptism in the name of the trinity and are willing to undergo confirmation, (neither of which do you actually have to really believe in) you can believe whatever you want about any topic. In fact.. you can believe whatever you want and probably still be a bishop some day if you want. This is assuming, of course, that you live in Canada or the USA, you might be able to get away with most things in England, but they might call you on a few issues.
rofl...I LOVE your sense of humor..kinda like my own!!!

[higgs2]

Yes they are a personal piety... nobody should go around telling others about how "good they are" because they fast. The point of this conversation is simply to say that the Church has mandated certain times of fasting, and we are obliged to obey Christ's holy Catholic Church.
I have never gotten the impression that fasting on Fridays was mandated. Actually, I didn't think that a lenten discipline was considered "mandatory" either. Not that it's not a good idea.

[karen freeinchristman]

I have never gotten the impression that fasting on Fridays was mandated. Actually, I didn't think that a lenten discipline was considered "mandatory" either. Not that it's not a good idea.

Same here.

I have often wanted to try fasting, mainly because Jesus says in Matthew 6:16-18 - When you fast, do not look sombre as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show others they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that it will not be obvious to others that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (bold print mine)

So, he is not saying if you fast, he is saying when you fast, as if he expects us to do so. From all accounts, it is beneficial for us in terms of prayer and spiritual blessing. I've only ever tried fasting from caffeine and chocolate during Lent; would like to try other times, and more of a total fast (except water).

[Thomas2618]

Same here.

I have often wanted to try fasting, mainly because Jesus says in Matthew 6:16-18 - When you fast, do not look sombre as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show others they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that it will not be obvious to others that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (bold print mine)

So, he is not saying if you fast, he is saying when you fast, as if he expects us to do so. From all accounts, it is beneficial for us in terms of prayer and spiritual blessing. I've only ever tried fasting from caffeine and chocolate during Lent; would like to try other times, and more of a total fast (except water).

But that quote you gave sure does make it seem like fasting is mandatory at least in some form IMHO.

[karen freeinchristman]

But that quote you gave sure does make it seem like fasting is mandatory at least in some form IMHO.I don't think it's that clear. It's more like he's saying how to do it when we do it, not saying that we have to do it.

[Velo Princesse]

From all accounts, it is beneficial for us in terms of prayer and spiritual blessing.

I haven't found this to be true. I find it very difficult to pray or be spiritual at all when I'm hungry, my head hurts, and I'm shaking from low blood sugar. The only thing I've ever fasted from that was helpful at all to my spiritual life was TV, but that isn't a real fast. My understanding is that if you are eating anything, you are not fasting.

Still, I'll probably "fast" TV in the future because that is the most helpful to me.


Randi

[Thomas2618]

I don't think it's that clear. It's more like he's saying how to do it when we do it, not saying that we have to do it.

I'm not necessarily trying to debate you or anything, because this is a subject I know little about, but I was just saying that the word "when" implies that we are to do it at some point in some way. Using "if" would imply that it is optional, but "when" means you are going to do it at some point and here is how you do it...
But again I'll say that this is something I know little about...I have no idea what the original language from that verse is or if the translation of it is good or whatever. Just saying what seemed to strike me as what that quote was saying...
God's peace be with you.
Thomas

[karen freeinchristman]

I'm not necessarily trying to debate you or anything, because this is a subject I know little about, but I was just saying that the word "when" implies that we are to do it at some point in some way. Using "if" would imply that it is optional, but "when" means you are going to do it at some point and here is how you do it...
But again I'll say that this is something I know little about...I have no idea what the original language from that verse is or if the translation of it is good or whatever. Just saying what seemed to strike me as what that quote was saying...
God's peace be with you.
Thomas
It's cool, I don't really know either! :)

[Thomas2618]

My understanding is that if you are eating anything, you are not fasting.


I think that some fast where they eat only bread and drink only water. I think that does fall under the definition of fasting too.
Also, you can be fasting by eating absolutely nothing but still partake of the Eucharist and it counts as fasting. One of the Saints ( a nun, but I forget her name) lived for years on only once daily Eucharist...

[Velo Princesse]

I think that some fast where they eat only bread and drink only water. I think that does fall under the definition of fasting too.
Also, you can be fasting by eating absolutely nothing but still partake of the Eucharist and it counts as fasting. One of the Saints ( a nun, but I forget her name) lived for years on only once daily Eucharist...

I wouldn't think that Eucharist would break a fast. Assuming that you didn't just sit down with a bunch of wafers and a bottle of wine ;) . Although, bread and water would certainly be a huge sacrifice, I don't think it's a fast. Atleast, that is what my sister says and she's my big sister so she knows everything... it's part of her birthright.

:)

Randi

[gitlance]

I think that some fast where they eat only bread and drink only water. I think that does fall under the definition of fasting too.
Also, you can be fasting by eating absolutely nothing but still partake of the Eucharist and it counts as fasting. One of the Saints ( a nun, but I forget her name) lived for years on only once daily Eucharist...

St. Maria Faustina, I believe.

[gitlance]

From the BCP concerning fasting:


Fasts

Ash Wednesday

Good Friday



Feasts appointed of fixed days in the Calendar are not observed on the days of Holy Week or of Easter Week. Major Feasts falling in these weeks are transferred to the week following the Second Sunday of Easter, in the order of their occurrence.

Feasts appointed on fixed days in the Calendar do not take precedence of Ash Wednesday.

Feasts of our Lord and other Major Feasts appointed on fixed days, which fall upon or are transferred to a weekday, may be observed on any open day within the week. This provision does not apply to Christmas Day, the Epiphany, and All Saints’ Day.



4. Days of Special Devotion

The following days are observed by special acts of discipline and self-denial:



Ash Wednesday and the other weekdays of Lent and of Holy Week, except the feast of the Annunciation.

Good Friday and all other Fridays of the year, in commemoration of the Lord’s crucifixion, except for Fridays in the Christmas and Easter seasons, and any Feasts of our Lord which occur on a Friday.


The BCP does not seem to say that fasting/self-denial/acts-of-discipline are optional on these days (unless of course perhaps because of medical reasons -- use common sense!!!).


"The following days are observed by special acts of discipline and devotion."

[erin74]

Fallacy of ignorance. Just because the Scriptures don't say "YOU MUST FAST ON FRIDAYS" does not mean that the Church's traditional discipline of extra-devotion and self-sacrifice on particular days isn't beneficial.

I have no problems with people fasting for proper reasons.

I just worry that sometimes people categorise things, and so when they fast consider they have done their bit and nothing else is required. I was just reminding people that the idea of 'giving things up' for God is not something that we do at restricted times, but is the way every christian should consider every day.

"Offer yourselves to God as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to Him"

[erin74]

I haven't found this to be true. I find it very difficult to pray or be spiritual at all when I'm hungry, my head hurts, and I'm shaking from low blood sugar. The only thing I've ever fasted from that was helpful at all to my spiritual life was TV, but that isn't a real fast. My understanding is that if you are eating anything, you are not fasting.

Still, I'll probably "fast" TV in the future because that is the most helpful to me.


Randi

When my hubby goes on a particular conference he goes on they are supposed to do some fasting (the cynic in me thinks this is keep costs down). He is just like you, and I think a lot of the other guys are too. He says he gets shakey and finds it hard to stay alert enough to pray.

I think the TV thing is a great idea myself. I really must bring myself to put it up in a cupboard one day.

[itoldyounoalready]

Well, I do fast once a year at the beginning of the year, but we do it of our own volition, we don't really do it because the bible tells us.I mainly stick to the all vegetable, fruit and nut diet, no lower no higher.

[Thomas2618]

I haven't found this to be true. I find it very difficult to pray or be spiritual at all when I'm hungry, my head hurts, and I'm shaking from low blood sugar.

What I actually have had experience with is fasting prior to the Holy Eucharist. I am so used to having breakfast that my stomach growls rather severely, however, this does less to distracts me and moreso keeps me focused on what is about to fill me up, Christ's Body. Usually when I get hungry at these times I pray that Christ's Body fill me up so that I don't hunger as much afterwards. Interestingly, I am always not hungry as I pray afterwards...This is not to speak myself up, but to simply describe my experience and to speak positively for the practice of fasting.
I would say that if it becomes enough of a problem that you are hurting like that, then try to at least cut back to a point where you can stand it.

[gtsecc]

I just worry that sometimes people categorise things, and so when they fast consider they have done their bit and nothing else is required.

I know a great number of RCs, ACs, and EOs who fast, and I can assure you your fears are totally unfounded.

In fact, I don't know a single person who fits your image.

The reality is that you have been sold some sort of myth about Christians which to my knowledge does not exist.

I can see the preacher now railing against these imaginary Christians who follow the ritual, but don't have a personal relationship with Jesus. :doh:

[erin74]

I don't remember saying anywhere that this was about people who follow ritual. You are not the only people who fast.

In fact this is a problem that can be levelled at any form of worship. The idea that in doing something we have 'done our bit'. If Jesus was concerned enough that people might do this with reasons that were less than pure do you think you or anyone else might have become immune to that.

I was never attacking fasting. I was saying we don't have to just give ourselves up in this way - but we are told to offer ourselves to God at all times. This is one way - but not the only - way to make a sacrifice for God.