Questions for Anglicans, Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc?


#1

Hello :slight_smile:
I’m wondering about holy communion and confession? I’ve heard many different things from many different people, but can never get a clear answer.

  1. What’s your views on holy communion? Do you believe that Christ is spiritually present, or it’s just symbolic?

  2. What about confession and absolution? Do you just have a general absolution, or private confession with your minister or what?

Also…What’s the difference between an Anglican and an Episcopalian?

Thanks!
God Bless


#2

Hello.

You phrase this in terms of “you” and “your”. I reply in that sense. What you get from an Anglican depends on which Anglican you ask.

  1. I believe that a validly confected sacrament of the Eucharist is, truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of Christ.

  2. Yes.

  3. The most straight-forward answer is that an Episcopalian (a member of the Episcopal Church in America, as is usually meant) is one type of Anglican (meaning, generally, a member of the official world-wide Anglican Communion). That is, all Episcopalians are Anglicans, not all Anglicans are Episcopalians. Other meanings are possible.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus


#3

[quote="GKC, post:2, topic:304002"]
Hello.

You phrase this in terms of "you" and "your". I reply in that sense. What you get from an Anglican depends on which Anglican you ask.

  1. I believe that a validly confected sacrament of the Eucharist is, truly, really and substantially, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of Christ.

  2. Yes.

  3. The most straight-forward answer is that an Episcopalian (a member of the Episcopal Church in America, as is usually meant) is one type of Anglican (meaning, generally, a member of the official world-wide Anglican Communion). That is, all Episcopalians are Anglicans, not all Anglicans are Episcopalians. Other meanings are possible.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

[/quote]

Oh, ok. That makes more sense now. Thanks.


#4

[quote="RileyG, post:3, topic:304002"]
Oh, ok. That makes more sense now. Thanks.

[/quote]

You are very welcome.

GKC


#5

[quote="RileyG, post:1, topic:304002"]
Hello :)
I'm wondering about holy communion and confession? I've heard many different things from many different people, but can never get a clear answer.

  1. What's your views on holy communion? Do you believe that Christ is spiritually present, or it's just symbolic?

  2. What about confession and absolution? Do you just have a general absolution, or private confession with your minister or what?

Also..What's the difference between an Anglican and an Episcopalian?

Thanks!
God Bless

[/quote]

1) In the Lord's Supper Lutherans believe, teach, and confess that the bread and wine are the true and substantial body and blood of Christ.

2) While private confession is not widely practiced among American Lutherans, it is available to all, and there seems to be a growing trend to recover and encourage this important means of grace. We do regularly practice corporate confession and absolution at every divine worship.

Jon


#6

[quote="RileyG, post:1, topic:304002"]

Also..What's the difference between an Anglican and an Episcopalian?

Thanks!
God Bless

[/quote]

England.
:D


#7

Thank you John. I live in a predominately Lutheran (ELCA) town btw, those there are some LCMS around.


#8

[quote="RileyG, post:7, topic:304002"]
Thank you John. I live in a predominately Lutheran (ELCA) town btw, those there are some LCMS around.

[/quote]

There is an LCMS college in Seward, NE as well. My daughter almost went there.

Jon


#9

Lutherans believe in "consubstantiation," as opposed to "transubstantiation." While Catholics believe that the bread IS Jesus Christ, with only a superficial appearance/taste/etc. of bread, Lutherans believe that it is both REAL bread and REAL Jesus, both things at the same time. However, most Lutherans I know are under the mistaken impression that it's all symbolic.

According to "Luther's Small Catechism," private confession with the pastor is indeed to be encouraged. However, the practice has generally fallen by the wayside in favor of the general absolution done during the service. I don't know any Lutherans who go to private confession.


#10

[quote="JonNC, post:5, topic:304002"]
1) In the Lord's Supper Lutherans believe, teach, and confess that the bread and wine are the true and substantial body and blood of Christ.

2) While private confession is not widely practiced among American Lutherans, it is available to all, and there seems to be a growing trend to recover and encourage this important means of grace. We do regularly practice corporate confession and absolution at every divine worship.

[/quote]

Jon,
Well answered. You beat me to the punch.;)


#11

[quote="RileyG, post:1, topic:304002"]

  1. What's your views on holy communion? Do you believe that Christ is spiritually present, or it's just symbolic?

[/quote]

For a Lutheran they believe Christ is truly present "in with and under" but they reject that the bread and the wine have in any way changed. Some will dispute over whether they believe in consubstantiation or not. Whether they believe the presence remains after consecration and the communion service itself ends seems to vary.

  1. What about confession and absolution? Do you just have a general absolution, or private confession with your minister or what?

Lutherans, especially confessional lutherans like LCMS, retain private confession and absolution because it is in the Book of Concord ( The Lutheran Confessional documents ) in theory. Though as was said above in practice it isn't followed and a simple general absolution is proclaimed to the congregation each service if they are still celebrating the lutheran liturgy. Many are more like non denom churches in practice these days yet still retaining the name Lutheran.

Also..What's the difference between an Anglican and an Episcopalian?

Back around 1776 those in the US who were members of the "Church of England" faced a bit of pressure because it looked like they were not supportive of the revolution. Therefore the Anglican / Church of England /etc. became named "Episcopal" here in the US. Naturally lots of organizational differences but by and large the same thing overall. The US Episcopal is part of the Anglican Communion along with the Church of England and a bunch of others descended from it.


#12

=mt_gooseberry;9970103]Lutherans believe in "consubstantiation," as opposed to "transubstantiation." While Catholics believe that the bread IS Jesus Christ, with only a superficial appearance/taste/etc. of bread, Lutherans believe that it is both REAL bread and REAL Jesus, both things at the same time. .

This is a misunderstanding of Sacramental Union. No where in Lutheran teaching is there consubstantiation.

However, most Lutherans I know are under the mistaken impression that it's all symbolic

Then the Lutherans you are around have been poorly catechized. The confessions, from Augsburg to the Formula of Concord teach the real presence. Every child confirmed should know this.

According to "Luther's Small Catechism," private confession with the pastor is indeed to be encouraged. However, the practice has generally fallen by the wayside in favor of the general absolution done during the service. I don't know any Lutherans who go to private confession.

:wave:

Jon


#13

=bitznbitez;9970164]For a Lutheran they believe Christ is truly present "in with and under" but they reject that the bread and the wine have in any way changed. Some will dispute over whether they believe in consubstantiation or not. Whether they believe the presence remains after consecration and the communion service itself ends seems to vary.

Clearly, the bread and wine are no longer mere bread and wine. therefore, it can be said there is a change. What we won't do is use metaphysical terms to describe the change. It is a mystery.
From the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord's body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord's body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh.

No dispute. Lutheranism rejects consubstantiation. And the Lutheran Church makes no claim regarding whether or not the presence remains, other than to say that Christ makes clear His purpose, that we eat and drink. So, we are certain of his presence during the sacramental act.

Lutherans, especially confessional lutherans like LCMS, retain private confession and absolution because it is in the Book of Concord ( The Lutheran Confessional documents ) in theory. Though as was said above in practice it isn't followed and a simple general absolution is proclaimed to the congregation each service if they are still celebrating the lutheran liturgy. Many are more like non denom churches in practice these days yet still retaining the name Lutheran.

It isn't retain "because it is in the Book of Concord". It is retain (and in the Book of Concord) because it is an appropriate function of the Church, historically and scripturally.

Jon


#14

I think the Episcopal story is a bit more complicated than that. I left the E church for Latin Catolicism and then the Antiochian Orthodox church shortly after the "new prayer book came out, but before womens ordination. In the US except for a couple of schismatic and small churches (the southern Episcopal church) for example to be Anglican was to be Episcopal.

But now there are self-styled "Anglican" churches in the US,and they are many, none of whom are in the Anglican Communion.

This to me at least seems related to the rightward trend in American Politics, and connected to womensd ordination and homosexaulity.

Formerly in TEC "orthodox" meant accepting the Holy Trinity as fact, the virgin birth, and the ressurection. Now it seems that orthodox has changed meanings to the rejection of homosexuals and womens rights.

That I surmise from reading The Living Church, and the Anglican digest for years. TLC seems to be the cheer squad for the breakers away.


#15

[quote="andrewstx, post:14, topic:304002"]
I think the Episcopal story is a bit more complicated than that. I left the E church for Latin Catolicism and then the Antiochian Orthodox church shortly after the "new prayer book came out, but before womens ordination. In the US except for a couple of schismatic and small churches (the southern Episcopal church) for example to be Anglican was to be Episcopal.

But now there are self-styled "Anglican" churches in the US,and they are many, none of whom are in the Anglican Communion.

This to me at least seems related to the rightward trend in American Politics, and connected to womensd ordination and homosexaulity.

Formerly in TEC "orthodox" meant accepting the Holy Trinity as fact, the virgin birth, and the ressurection. Now it seems that orthodox has changed meanings to the rejection of homosexuals and womens rights.

That I surmise from reading The Living Church, and the Anglican digest for years. TLC seems to be the cheer squad for the breakers away.

[/quote]

Notice where I said that other meanings were possible, up there in my post. Other meanings include Anglicans who are not in the official Anglican Communion. The subject is a complicated one; I gave an answer scaled to the level of the inquiry, IMO. I'm the one constantly proclaiming the motley-ness of Anglicanism, remember.

The question of who constitutes a valid subject for Holy Orders might be related to the idea of women's rights, by those who think the Church is a political structure, and dogma/doctrine is governed by votes, or some concept of political rights, or fairness. A common view in TEC, since roughly the 70s. More might be said on that (orthodox now meaning invalid orders, or a innovative concept of human nature/sexuality, perhaps), but it would not be strictly germane to the OP, as far as I can see.

I read The Anglican Digest for years, myself.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus, posterus traditus Anglicanus


#16

[quote="andrewstx, post:14, topic:304002"]
I think the Episcopal story is a bit more complicated than that. I left the E church for Latin Catolicism and then the Antiochian Orthodox church shortly after the "new prayer book came out, but before womens ordination. In the US except for a couple of schismatic and small churches (the southern Episcopal church) for example to be Anglican was to be Episcopal.

But now there are self-styled "Anglican" churches in the US,and they are many, none of whom are in the Anglican Communion.

This to me at least seems related to the rightward trend in American Politics, and connected to womensd ordination and homosexaulity.

Formerly in TEC "orthodox" meant accepting the Holy Trinity as fact, the virgin birth, and the ressurection. Now it seems that orthodox has changed meanings to the rejection of homosexuals and womens rights.

That I surmise from reading The Living Church, and the Anglican digest for years. TLC seems to be the cheer squad for the breakers away.

[/quote]

andrewstx,

I think the same-gender unions, etc. get most of the "press." Sadly, there have been some assaults on the beliefs in the Nicene Creed. TEC is dealing with many issues.

Anna


#17

Thank you for all of your answers. :)
God Bless +


#18

[quote="mt_gooseberry, post:9, topic:304002"]
Lutherans believe in "consubstantiation," as opposed to "transubstantiation." While Catholics believe that the bread IS Jesus Christ, with only a superficial appearance/taste/etc. of bread, Lutherans believe that it is both REAL bread and REAL Jesus, both things at the same time. However, most Lutherans I know are under the mistaken impression that it's all symbolic.

According to "Luther's Small Catechism," private confession with the pastor is indeed to be encouraged. However, the practice has generally fallen by the wayside in favor of the general absolution done during the service. I don't know any Lutherans who go to private confession.

[/quote]

You certainly were not catechized properly.


#19

[quote="GKC, post:15, topic:304002"]
Notice where I said that other meanings were possible, up there in my post. Other meanings include Anglicans who are not in the official Anglican Communion. The subject is a complicated one; I gave an answer scaled to the level of the inquiry, IMO. I'm the one constantly proclaiming the motley-ness of Anglicanism, remember.

The question of who constitutes a valid subject for Holy Orders might be related to the idea of women's rights, by those who think the Church is a political structure, and dogma/doctrine is governed by votes, or some concept of political rights, or fairness. A common view in TEC, since roughly the 70s. More might be said on that (orthodox now meaning invalid orders, or a innovative concept of human nature/sexuality, perhaps), but it would not be strictly germane to the OP, as far as I can see.

I read The Anglican Digest for years, myself.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus, posterus traditus Anglicanus

[/quote]

The "motley" nature was the exact reason I left. I was confirmed in an Anglo-Catholic parish and then had to move to a different city.

The parish there was 3 sundays a month morning prayer, with once a month Eucharist in surpllice and stole.

I went form Mass vestments and a crucifix church to a 2 sunday morning prayer with surplice and stole and plain cross. The bishop before the one who confirmed me actually forbade Mass Vestments and more than two candles on the altar.

It was like switching churches while staying in the same ecclesial body. I was out of TEC and in the Catholic church within one year of my confirmation, I needed stability and was not getting it in TEC.

You know the old saw "the French don't care what you do as long as you pronouce it properly"? To me TEC does not care what you believe as long as you pay your pledge and show up a couple of times a year.


#20

[quote="andrewstx, post:19, topic:304002"]
The "motley" nature was the exact reason I left. I was confirmed in an Anglo-Catholic parish and then had to move to a different city.

The parish there was 3 sundays a month morning prayer, with once a month Eucharist in surpllice and stole.

I went form Mass vestments and a crucifix church to a 2 sunday morning prayer with surplice and stole and plain cross. The bishop before the one who confirmed me actually forbade Mass Vestments and more than two candles on the altar.

It was like switching churches while staying in the same ecclesial body. I was out of TEC and in the Catholic church within one year of my confirmation, I needed stability and was not getting it in TEC.

You know the old saw "the French don't care what you do as long as you pronouce it properly"? To me TEC does not care what you believe as long as you pay your pledge and show up a couple of times a year.

[/quote]

Your last sentence is about as I found it (though the new masters of TEC certainly do care, if you happen to advocate a traditional approach to a number of things; ask Bishop Lawrence), but the idea of "motley" as it is found today in the wonderful world of Anglicanism is not best expressed by the sort of range of ecclesiology/churchmanship positions, under a general umbrella of mere Christianity that you mention here, which has been true more or less for 500 years. What I refer to particularly is the new dimensions of motleyness found in the past 40 years or so, which have warped the structure of Anglicanism to something unrecognizable. Heresy with a touch of apostasy, new and innovative concepts of human nature, of basic ecclesiastical polity, of what the essence of Scripture might be, and more. Fun for all. It's a rather more basic question than vestments, candles, or bells and smells.

But, as I said before, for the new dimensions of motleyness, rather than for my preference for the Anglo-Catholic arm of historic Anglicanism, I have nothing to do with the official Anglican crew. I need more than stability in vestments and altar fittings. I need valid sacraments.

GKC

*posterus traditus Anglicanus
*


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.