At least in the US the Episcopal Church teaches the “real presence” which is usually explained as not being transubstantiation. Thus it is “Christ” but it is not actual blood and flesh.
They wouldn’t explain it in more depth when asked in confirmation class.
I have not found a member who thinks the transubstantiation thing happens.
They probably wouldn’t explain it because the Episcopalian Church accomodates a pretty broad range of belief on the real presence, unlike the Catholic Church, which gets very specific.
However, Anglicans officially belief in the real presence. They may shy away from the word “transubstantiation,” or even “consubstantiation,” but they do, at least officially, believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, in some sense, in a way that Baptists, for example, do not.
Santorum is unquestionably a yahoo, and an embarassment to Catholics.
But there are other poster children. Mine were always Dorothy Day, and Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, Hans Kung, even, and a number of Jesuits of whom you would never have heard, who worked very hard for many years to teach me what little I know. And some you might have heard of: Ignacio Ellacuría, Ignacio Martín-Baró, Segundo Montes, Juan Ramón Moreno, Joaquín López y López, and Amando López. Amd not just Jesuits – Oscar Romero, too. Father Richard McBrien is fighting the good fight when it comes to the Church’s attitude towards homosexuality.
It’s not all bad. Right now the conservative faction of the Church is in ascendancy (espcially in America. Pope Bendict himself is far more liberal than the American bishops). But we can hope for change. Maybe we’ll get a new John XXIII after Benedict. Who knows.
The ex-nazi is a CINO?
I’m gonna guess: if hell freezes over and Romney loses the nomination, then American Catholics are going to vote as they have always votes the last several years: about half for Santorum, about half for Obama. If Romney wins, replace “Santorum” with “Romney” above.
Although some of Santorum’s beliefs/statements jibe with conservative Catholicism, honestly if I knew nothing about his beliefs I would assume he was an evangelical. I would assume that Gingrich wasn’t Catholic either, but for very different reasons.
Love the others like you love yourself…respect this commandment and you will always remain Catholic…
But Catholics aren’t allowed to love themselves. 
That’s why the priests “love” the altar boys.
I could have sworn there were one or two other qualifications.
St.Augustine said “Love and do what you will”.
And what does that have to do with what it takes to be a Catholic?
Where the next words out of his mouth “…is all you need to do to stay Catholic.”?
St.Augustine was a Christian Catholic Saint and this line means that love is the only thing that matters…and,yes,to love means to be Catholic because the most important Catholic(and Christian,too)message is:love!..if a person hasn’t got faith,doesn’t know who Jesus or Mary is,hasn’t ever seen a Bible,but loves,is much better than those that say to be Catholic and then spend their lifes with indifference…so isn’t he/she Catholic?(maybe he/she doesn’t know it ,maybe is Buddhist,maybe hates the Church(even though it’s impossible because he/she loves everyone),but isn’t he/she respecting the Catholic message?)…i hope you understand my point of view and excuse me for my poor and maybe uncorrect English(i’m Italian)…
Nitpick: Augustine of Hippo was born in 354. There was no schism yet, most extant sects did not yet exist. So he is honored/Sainted in the: “Catholic Church, Assyrian Church of the East, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Anglican Communion, Lutheranism, [and] Aglipayan Church.”
I have no problem with your English, but I think your definition of Catholic is too vague to be useful. I love, but I am not(and never have been) Catholic. I know Jews that love, Hindus that love, atheists that love, Protestants that love, Mormons that love-are you trying to claim that Catholic is the default religion at birth, and that we never really leave it? Some might find this both ignorant and offensive.
Of sure!However,as you say,his thought was Catholic,too…I chose him because he makes part of the first Christian age,in which maybe Christ’s wills were followed more precisely…
I try to explain it better(i don’t know if i will be able to do it):we don’t know what there is after our death…maybe there isn’t nothing,maybe there is something…Catholic Church says there’s something,i.e. God,Paradise etc…so,i say that in the case in which there is the Catholic(and,in general,Christian,Ebrew,Islamic) God and only in this case,who has loved is saved…who is atheist is free to think what he wants,but then,if there is God,he will go to Paradise or to Hell and if he loved,he will go to Paradise,even though he didn’t believe…so all you have to be Catholic is to love,but a person can love and not to fell himself/herself Catholic,or he/she can say that he/she is Catholic and not to love(but in this case he/she isn’t really Catholic)…
As a man who grew up in a devout Roman Catholic family (not just the typical holiday Roman Catholics), but now a Reformed Protestant… I can confidently say I’ve never met an actual Roman Catholic. Hear me out. I have even in college befriended Priests at the University I attended who were considered relatively theological giants and certain core doctrines of the church such as Mary’s supposed perpetual virginity vs her supposedly mortal sinless life… they realized were implausible…
For those who don’t understand… in Jewish Law (and for the record still in Roman Catholic Churches today)… if you abstained from sex from your husband… you wouldn’t have a husband at all. So she can’t be both. She either as the bible says… She didn’t have sex with Joseph until after - Jesus was born… or she was a grave sinner who never was legally married to Joseph.
But my larger point is this… I’ve never met anyone who 100% agrees with the Roman Catholic Catechism… if you don’t… well then… wouldn’t that make you your own Pope? And if you are your own Pope in certain areas… haven’t you just proven you don’t acknowledge the Pope as your infallible authority on earth?
But it’s okay… Jesus never gave authority for some universal Bishop (who supposedly would be eternally apostolic in his specific job title) anyways… that came around about 965A.D… Actually you have supposed “Pope’s” like Gregory in 600AD who actively refute any ideas of there being a "pope’ or head bishop as outright heresy… but what did he know anyways… he was only a Pope… or wait… was he? Seeing he says he wasn’t, but the Roman Catholic church claims he was? Sort of like a chicken and the egg debate at that point.
It has been some time since I have been on this thread,but I believe that A Catholic must believe in the articles of the Apostles Creed. But there is another Creed that suggests they must believe in the Virgin Birth(I would have to ask my Relative that is a Catholic priest)I think it is the Nicean Creed. There was no RCC before the council of Nicea called by Constatine, in the 300’s. Christianity was very divided and was then some united, and accepted as the only true church, with the calling of Peter as head of the Church(even though Paul didn’t seem to accept Peter’s being head).I believe since Constantine was head of the Roman empire, it would seem natural to make Peter and his successors as head of the church hence the Roman Catholic Church. And if the monks who translated the writings of the time, could well have added Jesus making him head of the church, changing his name from Simon to Peter which I think was a Roman name for rock!
In one respect, a Catholic is anyone who was ever baptized in the Church, regardless of his current beliefs. But this is a very technical definition, and I think it’s much more useful to look at the person’s actual faith when determining his religion.
So, I would say that a Catholic is anyone who accepts EVERYTHING that the Catholic Church teaches. If you support abortion, contraception, divorce, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, ordination of women, etc. then you are simply a heretic, and it doesn’t matter if you devoutly attend Mass every day.
Sound harsh? I know, it does. But the Catholic Church, unlike most other denominations, teaches itself to be “infallible” on matters of faith and morals. It is quite senseless to say “I know I disbelieve with the Church on X, Y, and Z, but I’m staying inside it in hope that someday it will change its position”. If the Church ever DOES change its position on any major issue, then it becomes a ridiculous and morally bankrupt institution, because it would be denying its own fundamental defining attribute - being the One True Church established by Jesus Christ. Take that away, and it’s just another Protestant denomination - a Protestant denomination which has perpetrated an enormous and disgusting lie upon its flock for centuries, and deserves to be immediately disbanded.
Myself, I am a Protestant. And while there are many things I admire about the Catholic Church, I won’t become a member, because it would be immoral. Not that’s it immoral for people in general to become Catholics - but it’s immoral for people like me to become Catholics. If I join an organization which demands unconditional obedience as a condition of membership, I am implicitly promising said obedience. And then if I turn around and practice heresy while continuing to call myself a Catholic, I am a complete and utter hypocrite.