Anglicans believe in the Real Presence, as taught in the Bible 

Which church are preaching the gospel of the kingdom around the world to all nations as Jesus Christ said? Matthew 10:16, 24:14, 28:19-20, Mark 13:10.

Exactly....they may believe some in the real presence but their 39 articles state it is based on the believer which is not true. The body and blood change substance and substantially change into Jesus Body and blood in the appearance of mere bread and wine...not based on one's belief. A very different doctrine from Anglicanism. Plus they don't have valid or licit Holy orders...when they first broke off from Catholicism they had valid but not licit priests and then Thomas Cramner changed the rubrics of the priesthood from that of offering sacrifice and breaking away from the authority of the Catholic Church and the Successor of Peter they have broken apostolic succession. So today their eucharist is not valid nor their priests. Of they truly wish to come back they can join the Chair of St Peter the Anglican Ordinariate created by Pope Benedict.

article 28- labelled as superstition. they also had the audacity to state churches of Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, Rome have all erred. conveniently, marriage is not a sacrament - i guess to please a certain king. Anglicans have severely punished catholics-to put mildly. Now the queen is gone, none of the heirs care for it.

The ghostsof the pre Augustinian Celtic Bishops are laughing in their graves.

I can’t see your point. St Francis’ loyalty to the Pope is undoubted but why should that stop others from honouring him. The Anglican calendar recognises many “Catholic” saints along with ohters that are not recognised by the Catholic Church. You might even be more shcoked that there is an Anglican Franciscan order.

@@willx9352 Well because it is honoring someone that you share no communion with. Does that suggest being dishonest with yourself. If Anglicans want to honor non Catholic Saints, that is fine. Honoring someone who was not even of English Ancestry and 100% loyal to Rome and the Pope I find questionable. In fact, Anglicans are trying to claim a Catholic Saint that they have no communion with. If Anglicans want to honor pre-Henry VIII English Catholic Saints, I can somewhat understand that to a point, although How does an Anglican honor Saint Thomas Moore?

@@PalermoTrapani It is only being dishonest if I held to particular Roman Catholic doctrines about the nature of the church. You are entitled to hold them, but I don’t. If I held those beliefs, I would become a Roman Catholic, but I am not. I have no problems in honouring Christian people who have thought it important in their lives to be loyal to the pope. Catholics are Christian and I do not believe that only Anglicans are “saved” or that any particular denomination is the “true” church. Equally, I am happy to honour Orthodox saints and even (God forbid!), protestant holy people. Do you believe that Dietrich Bonhoeffer is in hell because he did not accept the claims of the Roman Pontiff - even though as a Lutheran theologian he would have been aware of them and therefore consciously rejected them. I should also mention, in a similar vein, I celebrate people such as Oscar Romero, Edith Stein and Mother Theresa - all of course who saw loyalty to the Pope as an essential feature of their Christian life. Obviously local churches will hold in particular, honour those saints who were part of their history but the church is wider than any nation and there is no reason why the Church of England should restrict itself to “English” saints (although many of them were not English!). Anglicans should (and do) in fact honour St Thomas Moore as they do John Fischer and other people who died as martyrs during the reformation. Equally, Anglicans honour martyrs such as Thomas Cramner and Hugh Latimer. The only way that any Christian should approach many of the events of the Reformation is with profound sorrow and pain rather than try to score polemical points.

@@willx9352 I am not God and make no such claim about Who is in Hell and Who is not. I do believe Christ found One Church and that is the Catholic Church and the Dogma Outside the Church there is No Salvation which as CCC para 846 says "All Salvation Comes from Christ the Head through His Church". So anyone is Saved is because Christ through Instrument of Salvation which is His Body (the Church). Now can those not in the visible Communion of the Catholic Church be saved, yes, in ways known to God they can be grafted to the Catholic Church even if they are not aware of that they should be in the Catholic Church through No Fault of their own/invincible ignorance. If you are Anglican than be Anglican. I find this honoring of Catholic saints questionable. If you want to honor fellow Protestants, then God Bless u.

@@PalermoTrapani As I said, you have your belief about the nature of the church, which Anglicans do not share. Given that Anglicans believe that all baptised Christians are in some way part of the catholic church, it would be exeedingly strange for us to then decide that 80% of baptised Christians who are in communion with the see of Rome, are somehow not Christians and are not part of the catholic church. The Church of England Calendar includes post-reformation Catholic saints such as Francis de Sales, Vincent de Paul and Teresa of Avila. These saints days are given the status of lesser festival with a specific collect for the saint. As well, of course, there are many other non-Catholic post reformation saints who are also similarly honoured: martyrs such as Bishop John Coleridge Patterson, holy people such Bishop Jeremy Taylor and John and Charles Wesley.

Depends on which churchmanship. Low church anglicans hang onto the puritan reforms, high church anglicans hold onto the pre-reformational beliefs. Most bishops these days are high church.

Consubstantion is actually associated with Lutheranism, though they don't prefer that term.

Friend, Fr. Matkin is not teaching Transubstantiation. You have no idea what Anglicans are “supposed” to believe because you don’t understand ecclesiology and Church Authority which Anglicans hold to. Your likely a libertarian democratic Congregationalist type Baptist with notions of egalitarianism and equality of all. We don’t hold to that heresy but neither do we hold to transubstantiation.

​@@crossvilleengineering1238 Pardon my ignorance if I've misrepresented Anglicanism. I thought that the 39 Articles were supposed to be the Anglican church's statement of faith. Are they optional for Anglicans, or just suggestions, or one option among many? Please help me to understand the how Anglicans and Anglican priests are supposed to think about them.

@@parksideevangelicalchurch2886 Not a problem. The issue really comes down to what does the Scripture teach and how do I know that Scripture teaches that and I’m not just deluded or in error like many, many folks especially Baptists, where new doctrines never cease to be crafted and created, or the Roman Catholics where new dogmas sprout continuously. I would rather not lie to myself that I believe in the Word of God, while holding to Dispensationalism, teetotalism, memorialism, egalitarianism, Prosperity Gospel, cessationism, rapturism, Calvinism, and worst of all rebaptism. And the list goes on and on of new and trendy doctrines that Evangelicals are powerless to resist. Now, at least the Roman Catholics, don’t claim that the Bible clearly teaches something that Christians for 1800 years unanimously read from the Bible and believed, like Evangelicals who claim that headcoverings are only valid only for the Church of Corinth, and husband and wife shouldn’t worry about that, because that’s what the Bible teaches. So as Anglicans, we don’t change Scripture to meet us where we’re at culturally. But we also believe that all that is necessary for salvation can be found in Scripture. We also have the Anglican formularies which expound on doctrine etc. but do not trump Scripture. We don’t hold to them as “Confessions” where we can be punished if we don’t adhere to someones particular interpretation of them (like accusing Fr. Matkin of Transubstantiation). We are not the Lutheran Church, where for example we have volumes of Confessions where even the perpetual virginity of Mary is required in the Confessions. This is one reason Anglicans are United on the essentials and do not have issues like the WELS and LCMS Lutheran churches that disagree on small doctrinal points and therefore are not even allowed to pray with each other. Each Anglican Church (your local Anglican Church) will be part of a whole. As Richard Hooker and many other theologians lay out, the Church is given the keys that Christ passed on to his Apostles and their successors. This means that the priest can forgive sins (John 20) as Hooker and even Calvinist Titan John Jewell spills much ink over to defend. The priest (English word for Greek presbyter) must be under the authority of the Bishop, just as your wife must be under your authority as her husband. And as Ignatius of Antioch, disciples by John, says in 100AD: “See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” So for example, the jurisdiction that I’m part of has Canon Laws implemented and carried out by our Bishops. These set up and give me the ability to even know which books that I should call Scripture. As well as affirming the Ecumenical councils where Christology was canonized eg Ephesus, Chalcedon, etc. So in effect, our canons don’t have to go into detail that Mary is the Theotokos, Mother of God, but it does affirm the ecumenical council where Mary is canonized as Mother of God and therefore to go outside that as many Baptists with their “heavenly flesh doctrine” or “Nestorian” view, would be heresy. The Thirty nine articles fit only after you understand the context and where they exist. Inside the Prayer Book, created and enacted by Elizabeth to keep the peace and Church intact during one of not the most chaotic periods the world has endured. The Reformation. And they worked. But what you don’t realize is that, while Church of England may have required at times past subscription to the Articles, the American Church and churches around the globe, that make up the vast majority (85%) of Anglicans do not and are not required to subscribe to every article as a confessional like Roman Catholics and their statements that members have to sign. The vast majority of Anglicans are under the Authority of their Bishop at their local Church, like your wife is under your authority. That is just as Scripture commands and as the Church has operated for centuries. Take a look at Jonah Saller and his series called “Anglicanism A Question of Authority”

@@crossvilleengineering1238 So is it up to each individual priest and Anglican to choose whether or not to believe Article 28 or to pick and choose which part he likes and doesn't like? And do priests, clergy and laypeople have the same right to pick and mix their interpretations of Scripture? I know that some Anglicans confidently affirm that Scripture is clear enough to summarise and that the 39 Articles are a good summary of what the Bible teaches, but that's just one option among many and it is equally acceptable to believe that nobody can summarise the teachings of the Bible in any way could suggest that other Christians or clergy ought to believe also? As an outsider looking in with sadness at the unending conflicts and unhappiness within the global Anglican community, I can't help worrying that this might be the case. I hope I'm wrong. Please feel free to show me I am and show me where the limits of what is orthodox and what a bishop has a right to condemn as a heresy. Does this ever happen?

@@parksideevangelicalchurch2886 I just at length described to you that Scripture is supreme, and that Scripture is authorized (for example King James Version) to be used by the Church. The articles are not infallible and it only saddens me that you are pursuing strawmen here. Just as my wife is under me as I am her authority, my local Bishop is over me as my authority, and I don’t run off under a tree with my Bible and discover new doctrines as Baptists do. Between you and I, the only one arbitrarily deciding what he personally will believe is you and that is based on your “individual interpretation” as you have chosen to remove yourself from a local Bishop just an unruly and modern wife chooses to be “equal” with her husband.

Well you haven't met many Anglicans if you think that all Anglicans are, to use your phrase, "gay-substantial, charismatic-substantial and female ordination substantial".

@@tonyoliver2750 I didn't say "all".. but there's plenty

@@tonyoliver2750 and the leaders aren't solving the problem

@@bigtobacco1098 OK you said "every" not "all" - what's the difference?

@@bigtobacco1098 The leaders are the problem, at least in the Anglosphere (US; Uk; NZ; Aus; Can.)