[quote=Isidore_AK]But, it is not a belief that is ‘official’ throughout the episcopalian church. As I said, some Anglicans are a millimeter of being Catholics, while others are closer in belief to Charismatic Fundamentalists. Some only believe in a ‘spiritual’ presence of Christ, while others are more literal- and the Anglican church does not require belief either way. As opposed to the Catholic Church which requires belief in the Presence of Christ through Transubstantiation.
Agree with both your observations, and with Pious’. As I have said before, including in this thread, there are Anglicans, and then there are Anglicans.Historically, you can find a range of doctrine, (once held under a common umbrella of historic Creedal orthodoxy, now not necessarily the case), ranging from more or less reformed to beyond Anglo-Cathlic (that’s Anglo-Papal). What I tend to respond to are statements that “Anglicans believe thus-and so” when Anglicans may believe that or may believe something else entirely, depending on whom you’re talking to. Right now, you’re talking to an Anglo-Catholic. And my parish practices are as I have described.
Yes, as I said, transubstantiation is a pious opinion among Anglicans, and is not de fide. It is a common belief in my parish, but as Lewis observed, Our Lord’s command was “Take, eat” not "Take, understand. We consider the “how” of the Real Presence as a mystery. Transubstantiation might well be the answer, to be sure.
As for females (or nonordained folk in general) and the distribution of the Body and Blood, you are right again. Some Anglicans have abandoned a lot of common doctrine. Including allowing EEMs, and laying hands on hairspray, as we say. Also, listening to Spong is not unknown. It’s one reason why you can find Anglicans no longer in communion with Canterbury, or in the US, not in communion with ECUSA.