Those terms are really just the names of different traditions. All Episcopalian means is that the church has a Episcopal polity, which means it is run by Bishops. And Episcopalian as in The Episcopalian Church is just the name for the American Anglican Church. Baptists put a strong emphasize on the believer's baptism which means you need to be an adult who chooses to be baptized. Can't help terribly much with the other 2 I'm afraid.

Actually, Anglican is now used to refer to the churches which split from ECUSA (Episcopal Church - USA) after the 79 Prayer Book came about, along with the institution of homosexual and women priests. To further confuse things, there are now Anglican Usage Roman Catholic churches (I attend one), which use an Anglican liturgy but are Roman Catholic. Many churches with bishops (Methodists comes to mind) would NEVER call themselves Episcopalian, because it is now identified with ECUSA.
There are over 300 flavors of Baptists. That blows my mind.

Maybe it would be better to say that The Episcopal Church is the American member of the Anglican Communion. And most Anglican Use churches are former Episcopal parishes IIRC. And one thing I found out recently actually was that the Methodist Church was originally the Methodist Episcopal Church and the African Methodist Episcopal Church still exists.

Which Anglican Use Roman Catholic parish was Episcopalian? While there are many former Episcopalians in the pews, I was not aware of a former ECUSA church that went Roman Catholic. That may change with the new Anglican Ordinate, but that remains to be seen. I know of several former ECUSA parishes that are now in different Anglican churches (ACC, POCTK, DOHC, etc. . . ) but hadn't heard about an Episcopal parish joining the RCs.

I could be wrong, but that is what I was told. It's also possible I misunderstood and parishes split with some petitioning the RC church for membership? I'll be honest and say I don't know for sure.

Everything you could want to know - http://anglicanuse.org/index.htm

eta - Maybe you were thinking of the Sisters of the Poor? They left ECUSA for RC. St. Mary's in San Antonio started with ECUSA under a different name.

I've been letting this one perculate for a few days. I'm not sure how helpful this is, but I tend to think a proper answer may turn on what is meant by "prayer" and what is mean by "work."

I think too often, people think of prayer as asking for things, whether for ourselves or others. This may be okay as far as it goes, but if one isn't careful, it turns God into Santa Claus and prayer into a wish list. If I got what I wished for, it worked; if I didn't, it didn't. I fall into this trap myself sometimes.

But I think a better understanding sees prayer as conversation, the goal of which is deeper relationship with God and with others. Conversation, of course, involved talking and listening. Intercessory prayer in such a context "works" not only if the thing prayed for happens (say, cure from cancer), but also if the prayer produces a change in me and my understanding of how I need to relate to the person for whom I'm praying, a change in that person or a change in my understanding of how the prayer is being answered.

I know that in my own prayers, I try to remember to pray for all who suffer, including those known to me. I also have a tendency not to get too specific -- I tend to pray, say, for healing and comfort and peace and good, with an understanding that healing can come in forms other than just healing of the body. Healing of the spirit can be equally if not more important, and my idea of what is good for someone may be totally off.

I don't discount more specific intecessory prayer at all -- I know that if my kid had cancer, I would pray hard for that cancer to be gone. (And I have seen that happen in others.) But I think I would struggle to situate that prayer in a larger context of conversation like I've described.


I seem to recall that C.S. Lewis wrote in Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer something to the effect that his prayer list just kept getting longer and longer, because once he put someone on it, he couldn't bear to take them off.

He also said in that book: "It's so much easier to pray for a bore than to go and see one." Don't know if you'd find the book useful or not. I did.

Aside from other values, I think at least part of the value for intercession is that it reinforces, for me, that it's not all about me and my needs. It brings a consciousness of the needs of others and need to be in community with others. (See CSL quote above.) When the prayer is a conversation, then one might hear the answer to "please help ____" as "I can and will, through you. I need you to ______."

FWIW.

I'm going to look into the CS Lewis book, however I guess I'm still left with this thought process - many types of intercessionary prayer are simply... "doing it wrong" so to speak. But for those other types of prayer, and "correct" intercessionary prayer, if prayer is a conversation, then what is the explanation for those who receive no reply, no understanding, no feeling, no nothing?

None of the explanations I can come up with work, the only one that's passable for being utterly unprovable is that there's something 'wrong' with the person praying, but it's a shifting standard. And while absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, I'm just not any closer to finding answers.

/yeah this is all about me.

And this probably doesn't get you any closer -- I think there's always a response. I think "the explanation for those who receive no reply, no understanding, no feeling, no nothing" is not that's it's not there. It's that they're missing it. I wouldn't say that means there's something "wrong" with the person praying exactly. And I'd also say even the most devout saint has periods when there seems to be no response.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwald...%20smalley.jpg

And that's okay. :p

That was my thought when I first read the question as well. Sometimes we miss the response/answer or don't interpret it as the response/answer. Like in the movie Signs.. do you believe in Signs or Coincidence?

I read an article calling this "blowing holy wishes to God". I found that so interesting, because once you agree to pray for someone/something, you do tend to get into this. For me, I consider prayer a form of communion with the Lord, so I say, "you know my heart, and for all I want to pray," before I start.

As for the Baptist issue, oy. It's gotten to the point with MOST Protestant churches that you need to work on a church to church basis. There are certain elements that most hold true (ie: the issues of transfiguation, Calvinism, etc). Most Baptist churches I've attended don't believe in either.

Coincidence. If anyone's going to bother to send a sign, it's going to be obvious and not my brain trying to make patterns out of random occurrences which is something our brain is proven to do.
While I understand what you're saying there's no way for me to... accept it. If that makes any sense. I know what you mean, but I don't believe it.

It makes complete sense. I don't know that it could be otherwise. Either you believe it or you don't. Either it fits into your frame of reference for making sense of everything or it doesn't. I'm not sure it's something others can convince a person of one way or the other.

The Gospels according to Mark, Matthew and Luke all include accounts of the transfiguration. (For the last 100 - 150 years at least, Biblical scholarship has recognized that Mark, Matthew and Luke have very close literary resemblances. Probably the dominant -- but not the only -- scholarly view nowadays is that Matthew and Luke each used Mark as a source, sometimes word for word, sometimes with a few changes.) See for example the relevant texts (in English translation) at

http://www.rockhay.org/sermons/texts...figuration.htm

Exactly how a church would interpret / teach about the transfiguration story/stories probably does vary. Some might say "literally true," others, "highly symbolic of ___ (something)_____; probably never really happened ."

Not to mention what individual Christians might believe about it.

I'm surprised that the Baptist churches you've attended don't "believe in" it (in some fashion) but that probably says more about my unfamiliarity with Baptist theology than it does about the actual theology or Biblical interpretation.

^^ The general consensus if I actually recall my theology class is that Matt and Luke use Mark and unknown "Q" as sources. Hence similarities between Matt and Luke that don't come from Mark.

Yup, that's what I learned, too.

When I read that, I wondered if she meant transubstantiation, not transfiguration.

Granted, I don't know of any Protestant churches that believe in transubstantiation (except for some Anglicans who might or not might consider themselves Protestant), but some other groups -- Lutherans, Presbyterians/Reformed and others -- hold views that to some Baptists I know look a lot like transubstantiation.

OOPS! MC, as usual, is right - I meant transubstantiation. I blame the lack of sleep!

For the bolded do you mean the idea of the Real Presence? And you have a incredibly wide range of views in the Anglican Communion, though the 39 Articles do reject transubstantiation. But not all members of the Communion still follow the 39 Articles of Religion.

Yes, that's what I mean. And yes, on this topic, the 39 Articles reflect more of a Reformed understanding.

I think that broadly speaking, one could say that approaches to the Eucharist/Communion/the Lord's Supper fall into two main categories -- a Real Presence category and a memorialist (or Zwinglian or "No Presence") category.

In the memorialist view, the bread and wine are viewed as symbols only and Jesus is considered to be present in a way no different from his presence "whenever two or three are gathered" in his name. In my experience, this is the view shared by most if not all Baptists as well as many other evangelical Protestants.

In the Real Presence view, the consecrated bread and wine are viewed as more than symbols and Christ is believed to be present in a unique way, with communicants truly feeding on his body and blood. Where the groups that hold to some kind of Real Presence belief will differ is in their understanding of exactly what happens to the bread and wine (or how they are more than symbols) and how Christ is uniquely present. Transubstantiation is the way the Roman Catholic Church defines and describes the Real Presence (and many Anglo-Catholics will hold this view as well), while the Lutheran and Presbyterian/Reformed traditions will affirm the Real Presence but not transubstantiation -- they understand the Real Presence differently. But as I said, I have known people who hold to the memorialist view for whom the distinctions between Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed understandings blur and all amount to pretty much the same thing.

The Wiki actually has a good summary-type article about it: Real Presence.

Hey SWTX I got a question for you. Do you think the Anglican Use parishes will join the new Ordinate or stay as they are in whichever diocese they are part of?

Joining the new Ordinate - that's certainly what OLOW is going to do. I know we're having some sort of Anglican Use convention, when I imagine we'll find out more details. Our rector made a point of encouraging us to give to our diocesean fund even though we will be leaving the Diocese of Galveston-Houston because 1.) we are still a part of the diocese for now and 2.) geographically we want them to succeed in their mission(s).

Hmm I just looked and noticed that I have four prayer books. Is it possible to be a liturgy addict?

Are you ready for the new Roman Catholic liturgy?

Oh I can't wait until they reprint the Book of Divine Worship and it is affordable. I'm assuming they will just use that since it does exists.

ETA: I think it is worth saying that liturgically I am very very Anglo-Catholic.

It feels weird to say, but I'm not. It almost makes it a bit easier to give myself the distance I need from the Church itself.

Wait I'm confused. What new Liturgy?

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/opinion...b0cea95b7.html

I agree that the translations, while possibly more accurate, are clumsy. Overall, it'll make Mass less nostalgic and familiar to me which helps.

Ugh that is horrible.

ETA: Knowing about that, do you think that Rome is going to rewrite the Anglican Rite or keep it the way it is?

No idea. Here's the Revised Roman Missal site. I doubt they'll do much when they seem to be (trying) recruiting heavily from the Anglicans right now.

Heh. I have at least 75 prayer books/service books/liturgical books/hymnals of many stripes -- Presbyterian, Reformed, Episcopal/Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Orthodox, Baptist, Moravian, even Mormon. Bought another (Lutheran) today at a used bookstore. It is an addiction.

As for the new translation of the Mass, it is (apparently, and for the most part) closer to the Latin, but it is very clumsy English at times. And there has been quite a discussion going on over at Ship of Fools over whether "who for us men and our salvation" is the best English translation of "qui propter nos homines et nostram salutem."

Glad I'm not the only one. I plan on buying a ELW when I get a chance, and expand from my mostly Anglican collection. I might buy a copy of the Roman Missal, though not sure which. I'm trying to get a hold of the Book of Divine Worship but not sure where to go for that.

I'll check tomorrow - but I'm pretty sure OLOW has them for $15. I'll let you know.

Oooh, Drole thanks for posting the NWI article. I knew about the change, but I hadn't seen any of the comparisons of old and new text. If you've been to a Latin Mass and understand Latin (admittedly my Latin is very very remedial) you can see how much of it is closer to the Latin text. Most noticable, I think, is the change of "And also with you" to "And with your spirit" - that was a pretty obvious departure from the Latin text.

You know, it will be a little annoying at first, but I can definitely agree that it will renew my participation at Mass. A lot of times I feel like I'm just going through the motions, so hopefully this challenges me to become a more active participant. I can tell already that the Nicene Creed is going to throw me for a loop though!

^^ yw
It's interesting how the two of us have different perspectives on it. For me it's a good thing that it provides some distance. If Mass doesn't hold that nostalgia for me anymore, then I won't feel a pull to return just out of habit. It's interesting, since I don't know the Latin at all, how it changes your perspective on it.

I read the new proper of the mass and I did not like it at all. For one thing it piles on even more guilt onto the people. And thanks SWTX!

Ha! My column last week was on guilt - I'm for it! As I look around the world today, it seems to me that there are plenty of people for whom the concept of guilt is entirely foreign. I'll spare y'all the whole column - but I think guilt can be a very good thing.

I think it's two things - first, I identify more with structure and ritual than words, I'm a hands on learner so I think the movement is more resonant with me. I'll wait until it changes to give you the final verdict though. Second, I'm at a place where I'm trying to renew my faith life, so a change when I'm changing just seems to fit.

Re: Guilt
I tend to agree with SWTXBelle, as I don't necessarily see guilt as a bad thing. It is definitely missing from certain aspects of our society. I think Catholicism has become somewhat of a counterculture, so I can appreciate its emphasis on guilt.

Vito, do you have a link to where you read the full text?

Order of the Mass.

http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/order-of-mass.pdf

Oramus.