Episcopalians believe "________".

[Caesario]

The above quote was mentioned, oddly enough, during the announcements last Sunday when I was visiting another parish. The way it was described is that you can insert anything into the blank and it will basically be true. That Episcopalians value diversity and working things out with each other. But it certainly can't be absolutely true.. an organization needs to have some homogenity of belief in order to define its own mission and legitimize its own existence.. so what are the core beliefs of the ECUSA and how does that affect its mission?

[gtsecc]

The Book of Common Prayer is our source of unity.
It is my belief, and I would say that of the communion, even if they have no mechanism to enforce it, that those who do not use the BCP should be considered schismatic.

Liberals and conservative can still pray the same words together, and share the Eucharist.

[higgs2]

Read the Nicene Creed and the Baptismal Vows that we make in the BCP.

[Caesario]

Maybe its just my parish, but I don't believe that the BCP and the Nicene Creed are so commonly held anymore. Is that pretty standard for your parishes or is that just the canned response to the question?

[higgs2]

Maybe its just my parish, but I don't believe that the BCP and the Nicene Creed are so commonly held anymore. Is that pretty standard for your parishes or is that just the canned response to the question?

I can't imagine that. Every Episcopal church I have ever been to recites the Nicene Creed during the Eucharist and the liturgy is from the BCP. What do you do at your church? :confused:

[Caesario]

We recite the Nicene Creed.

[higgs2]

We recite the Nicene Creed.
You don't have access to a prayer book?

Well, the creed says "we believe..." etc. That seems to me a pretty good summary of beliefs. I'm not sure what your original question is asking perhaps.

[Caesario]

I'm not certain if any one else has run into this, but it seems as though there are some people within the Church who, when they recite the Creeds either don't read the parts aloud that they don't agree with or reinterpret the words to make them meaningful. And so it has to be with worship with such diversity of opinion, that since prayers, hymns, and statements of faith are positive assertions, one group responds to them in a more literal and superficial sense and the others reinterpret it.

Therefore, its not that we have a common understanding and therefore a common belief in the Creeds and the wording of the BCP.. so I was wondering what it might be in stead.

[RedneckAnglican]

to be honest when we do the Nicene Creed my voice always ends up going out round about the whole filoque thing...

[higgs2]

I'm not certain if any one else has run into this, but it seems as though there are some people within the Church who, when they recite the Creeds either don't read the parts aloud that they don't agree with or reinterpret the words to make them meaningful. And so it has to be with worship with such diversity of opinion, that since prayers, hymns, and statements of faith are positive assertions, one group responds to them in a more literal and superficial sense and the others reinterpret it.

Therefore, its not that we have a common understanding and therefore a common belief in the Creeds and the wording of the BCP.. so I was wondering what it might be in stead.



So, while you're reciting the creed, there are others who change the words to what they want them to say? It must be chaotic when this happens! Do they make major changes (Like I believe in a turnip...) or just leave things out or cross their fingers behind their backs? I have never heard of such a thing happening. THe closest would be when we get together for something with the Presbyterians and during the Lord pray we say "trespassors" and they say "debtors"!

[ChessCastle]

The above quote was mentioned, oddly enough, during the announcements last Sunday when I was visiting another parish. The way it was described is that you can insert anything into the blank and it will basically be true. That Episcopalians value diversity and working things out with each other. But it certainly can't be absolutely true.. an organization needs to have some homogenity of belief in order to define its own mission and legitimize its own existence.. so what are the core beliefs of the ECUSA and how does that affect its mission?


I have had these same thoughts, and what I've come to believe is that there is a wide variety of belief within the Episcopal/Anglican church, and this seems to be evident when you look from parish to parish. For example, at my parish we are encouraged to ask the saints for intercession, we're encouraged to pray the rosary, icons are present, and we often alternate visits with the local Roman Catholic Church for things such as stations of the cross. I thought this was the norm, but apparently from reading some of the posts here they are not. I think its pretty safe to say most of us believe in the Nicene Creed, but even there you will find people who have issue with the filoque. It also might very well be concluded (and this is just my opinion) that anyone who holds a universalist point of view does not believe fully in the creed. We have liturgical, and non liturgical parishes,some offer the Eucharist often and make it a focal point, while others focus more on fellowship and offer the Eucharist less frequently. If you ask about salvation you'll recieve a litany of answers, if you ask about church tradition you'll get just as wide a range of beliefs. So if you were to ask this question to individual parishes I think you'd begin to see the homogenity you spoke of, but as soon as you begin asking it to individuals of different parishes the gap seems to widen.

[gtsecc]

Maybe its just my parish, but I don't believe that the BCP and the Nicene Creed are so commonly held anymore. Is that pretty standard for your parishes or is that just the canned response to the question?
Well, with out the BCP, you can't make a legitimate claim to be Anglican, since that is the source of unity.
With out the Creed, you can't really claim to be Christian, since that is the creed, and that is what crreds do.

[Aymn27]

to be honest when we do the Nicene Creed my voice always ends up going out round about the whole filoque thing...
I drop out there too!

[pilgrimgal]

There is a unity of faith based on a common worship...thus the BCP...and the creeds. There is a common tradition and emphasis on scripture and reason.

It's not "anything goes." [lasse faire] We are Christian in belief and as Christians are followers of Christ. If this is not true then I am in the wrong place.

[Caesario]

higgs,

Sorry, I'm not gifted at communication. Everyone says the same creed and the worship goes off without chaos or anything like that, but with my experience in the church so far, it seems like there must be some people that when they say the Creeds they must not mean them in the literal sense because I've heard viewpoints directly contradictory to the Creeds. Now, since I can't see how some one would hold a viewpoint that is contradictory to the Nicene Creed and still repeat it every Sunday, I assume that they are reinterpreting the Creed (privately, not aloud) and making it meaningful to them.

[gtsecc]

higgs,

Sorry, I'm not gifted at communication. Everyone says the same creed and the worship goes off without chaos or anything like that, but with my experience in the church so far, it seems like there must be some people that when they say the Creeds they must not mean them in the literal sense because I've heard viewpoints directly contradictory to the Creeds. Now, since I can't see how some one would hold a viewpoint that is contradictory to the Nicene Creed and still repeat it every Sunday, I assume that they are reinterpreting the Creed (privately, not aloud) and making it meaningful to them.
There are certainly intellectually dishonest people communing.
Hopefully, they aren't Bishops charged with preserving doctrine.

[Caesario]

There are certainly intellectually dishonest people communing.
Hopefully, they aren't Bishops charged with preserving doctrine.
I wouldn't go so far as to say they're intellectually dishonest.. but, for example, I know for a fact based upon my Christian Formation classes that there are many people who stray from the big questions, ie. Christ's resurrection, who are still in communion with the Church.. so I'm assuming that they are saying the same words I am on Sunday, but they would have to attach a different meaning to them. And while I have seen bishops (assisting bishops, atleast) say things like there are more than one path to God (when speaking of Hinduism) I think such views are common among the laity of the parish as well.. the (current) clergy of the parish haven't really said anything that has raised any eyebrows.

[gtsecc]

The Creeds affirm a literal bodily resurrection, and everyone knows they mean that.
I don't know of a better way than simply saying it is intellectually dishonest to say the creed, and not believe in a literal bodily resurrection.

[gtsecc]

The sort of metaphysical “mechanics” of Christian communion are bound up in the binding of humanity to divinity in the 2nd person of the trinity.
Therefore:
If one doesn’t believe in the trinity, then they mean something different when they say communion.
If one doesn’t believe the 2nd person of the trinity is fully God, then they mean something different when they say communion.
If one doesn’t believe the 2nd person of the trinity is fully human, then they mean something different when they say communion.
And this differnt thing, what ever it is, is not Christianity.

[Caesario]

All right, that being said, I think that going back to the statement made as the title of this thread that the clergy seems 'okay' with all that. That its not really belief that unites us, but worship and the dialogue and the 'working things out'. So, back to the original statement question.. since an organization needs a mission to give legitimacy to its existence and needs common beliefs and values to create a mission.. where do we find those common beliefs and values?

[gtsecc]

Well, the clergy can't read your mind, and then refuse you communion.

Also, some clergy, are heck, not Christian, so I don't know what I can do about it.
Burning has been outlawed.

[Caesario]

I'm fairly certain none of these beliefs are held in secret.

But thats the answer to the problem, that there is no problem because the people who make up a part of the church are illegitimately Christian?

[gtsecc]

In some way the problem isn't that those beliefs aren't Anglican, but rather because we don't do anything about it, those beliefs are in some way, Anglican.

It is a problem for Anglicans in that sort of unique way.
You see, if a roman catholic priest held those beliefs, you still could not make the case that they were therefore RC beliefs, because it is clear they are not accepted by the magesterium. However, if an Anglican held it, you don't have any theological or ecclesial mechanism for renouncing it as an Anglican theological view.

[ChessCastle]

.

It is a problem for Anglicans in that sort of unique way.
You see, if a roman catholic priest held those beliefs, you still could not make the case that they were therefore RC beliefs, because it is clear they are not accepted by the magesterium. However, if an Anglican held it, you don't have any theological or ecclesial mechanism for renouncing it as an Anglican theological view.


Very true, and in my opinion this is problematic.

[gtsecc]

I choose to be anglican, and then check to see if my beliefs are in accord with those commonly held by both RC and EO.

[ebia]

Very true, and in my opinion this is problematic.
Whereas I don't see it as a problem at all.

[higgs2]

Here's the thing, the emphasis in Anglicanism is not what we believe as much as what we pray. We pray together. We worship together. We are in communion with each other. I am pretty busy trying to get my own act together spiritually, I am not going to spend time worrying about whether my brother gtsecc is crossing his fingers when he says the filioque during the creed. I will pray with him, I will take communion with him. If I wanted to be in a church where we worried so darn much about what everyone else believes I'd be a :doh:

[ChessCastle]

Here's the thing, the emphasis in Anglicanism is not what we believe as much as what we pray. We pray together. We worship together. We are in communion with each other. I am pretty busy trying to get my own act together spiritually, I am not going to spend time worrying about whether my brother gtsecc is crossing his fingers when he says the filioque during the creed. I will pray with him, I will take communion with him. If I wanted to be in a church where we worried so darn much about what everyone else believes I'd be a :doh:


In order to be in communion, isn't there a need for some form of common belief? Why would any church emphasize anything over belief? Is the message of the gospel to put a common prayer above belief?
This may be a small matter when you choose something as trivial as crossing fingers during liturgy as an example, but we should all spend time worrying about whether our beliefs and practices are orthodox. If I am holding on to heretical beliefs, it is the duty of my brothers and sisters to attempt to show me the error of my ways. We should care about each others salvation just as much as our own. So while I really don't care who is crossing their fingers, I certainly do care when someone contradicts biblical and traditional teaching by stating there are alternate paths to salvation besides Christ.

[gtsecc]

Truth is a gift from God, not a burden.

[ebia]

In order to be in communion, isn't there a need for some form of common belief? Why would any church emphasize anything over belief?
Jesus seemed much more interested in how following him changed people's thinking and lives than whether they agreed on a set of specific facts (many of which he didn't even bother to spell out explicitly). It seems to me he was remarkably uninterested in doctine.

[ChessCastle]

Jesus seemed much more interested in how following him changed people's thinking and lives than whether they agreed on a set of specific facts (many of which he didn't even bother to spell out explicitly). It seems to me he was remarkably uninterested in doctine.


Thats a pretty vague statement. Changed peoples thinking and lives how? By loving God and our neighbors? And if we love our neighbors do we not wish for their eternal salvation? And if we wish for their eternal salvation shouldn't we wish for all our neighbors to accept Christ as their Lord? Since Christ explicitly stated that the only path to salvation was through Him, and since he explicitly ordered us to love one another, how can one say they love someone, but they 'can't be bothered' to worry about their salvation. Since Christ came to us specifically for our salvation, how uninterested could He possible have been when it was what He preached?

Changing lives and thinking is great, if done in the name of the Lord. In order to accept Christ as lord one has to believe.

[Fairbairn]

Thats a pretty vague statement. Changed peoples thinking and lives how? By loving God and our neighbors? And if we love our neighbors do we not wish for their eternal salvation? And if we wish for their eternal salvation shouldn't we wish for all our neighbors to accept Christ as their Lord? Since Christ explicitly stated that the only path to salvation was through Him, and since he explicitly ordered us to love one another, how can one say they love someone, but they 'can't be bothered' to worry about their salvation. Since Christ came to us specifically for our salvation, how uninterested could He possible have been when it was what He preached?

Changing lives and thinking is great, if done in the name of the Lord. In order to accept Christ as lord one has to believe.
Changing lives is what it's all about.

[ebia]

Thats a pretty vague statement. Changed peoples thinking and lives how? By loving God and our neighbors? And if we love our neighbors do we not wish for their eternal salvation? And if we wish for their eternal salvation shouldn't we wish for all our neighbors to accept Christ as their Lord? Since Christ explicitly stated that the only path to salvation was through Him, and since he explicitly ordered us to love one another, how can one say they love someone, but they 'can't be bothered' to worry about their salvation. Since Christ came to us specifically for our salvation, how uninterested could He possible have been when it was what He preached?

Changing lives and thinking is great, if done in the name of the Lord. In order to accept Christ as lord one has to believe.
Believe as in trust in Christ and be transformed by him, or believe as in make an intellectual assent to a particular statement or statement of facts?


Changing lives is what it's all about.

:thumbsup:

[Caesario]

Isn't common belief necessary for common action? There has to be some set of commonly held beliefs, the core values, if you will, of the church.

I mean, the views of Jesus and the importance of the common wordings of the prayers (despite perhaps meaning something completely different) are still beliefs. Are they not?