quote:

---

Originally posted by Fiddleback:
I should love to help, but I don't think it is possible unless your questions are a little more specific. What has baffled you about Anglo Catholic services? I ask this, not because I don't think that anyone should be baffled by them, but so that I can have an idea of where to start answering.

---

OK, well I've only been to a very limited number, but here are some questions to start:

1) Why incense?
2) Why bells during communion?
3) What is a thurifer?
4) Why wafer, not proper bread?

All the best,

quote:

---

Originally posted by rachel_o:
OK, well I've only been to a very limited number, but here are some questions to start:

1) Why incense?
2) Why bells during communion?
3) What is a thurifer?
4) Why wafer, not proper bread?

All the best,

Rachel.

---

1) a) Symbolic of prayers rising to God.
b) Because the congregation smell
c) Because the priest smells
d) Because it's fun

2) a) They're rung at the bit when the Real Presence "comes into" the bread and wine. When the bread and wine become the body and blood. It's to mark this important thing happening - to mark the presence of God exposed (cf in Benediction bells are rung when the Sacrament is got out of the tabernacle). Incense is waved at this point as well, again as a mark of the importance of the moment.
b) when everything was in Latin, to wake up the congo cos something important was happening.
c) to give the server something to do to stop them falling asleep during the long eucharistic prayer.
d) because it's fun.

3) a) Person in charge of the thurible, which is a tin can on chains in which incense is burnt on charcoals.
b) fire-raiser-in-chief to the Celebrant.
c) person tasked with making the choir cough loudly. There is a system of rewards based on coughs per unit of incense imposed.
d) server who has the most fun.

4) a) Because BCP stipulates that communion bread should be good and wholesome (proper recepticle for the Presence of our Lord), and some have interpreted this as meaning it's got to be made only of flour and water. Which gives you wafers (no yeast etc). It's not particularly an AC thing - plenty of middle-roadies use them.
b) Because they make less mess when you break them, so you don't have to hoover up Our Lord afterwards.
c) They taste nice
d) Because they're fun.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
2) a) They're rung at the bit when the Real Presence "comes into" the bread and wine. When the bread and wine become the body and blood.

---

OK. Explain the whole "Real Prescence" thing to me. Is this different from, or the same as transubstantiation? How do you know when the "Real Prescence" has arrived in the bread? Isn't Jesus really present all through the service?

quote:

---

[QB]
4) a) Because BCP stipulates that communion bread should be good and wholesome (proper recepticle for the Presence of our Lord), and some have interpreted this as meaning it's got to be made only of flour and water. Which gives you wafers (no yeast etc). It's not particularly an AC thing - plenty of middle-roadies use them.
b) Because they make less mess when you break them, so you don't have to hoover up Our Lord afterwards.
[QB]

---

OK - wait a minute - you BREAK wafers? I've never seen that done. In the middle-of-the road-but-leaning-towards-high churches I've been to they give you a whole little one.

oh, and are you allowed to touch it with your hands, or do you have to stick your tongue out?

Secondly, if you're going to be serious about the whole unleavened bread thing, why not use matzos? That should be the closest to what Jesus broke and blessed at the Lord's supper.

OK. That's it for now. But there will be more. If someone can direct me at a website which describes a good AC service (I have looked, using Google, but didn't find anything very helpful), then I'll have more of a structure to go with.

Thanks,

All the best,

Breaking wafers: the priest has a big 'un which he breaks at the words 'we break this bread to share in the body of Christ' (symbolic of Christ's body broken for us on the Cross) - then there's often lots of little ones as well that have been consecrated, but only one big one gets broken symbolically.

Touching the wafer: if you want to be REALLY high, don't touch it because it's Our Lord - the priest's holy and can touch it, but we can't. Personally, I take it in my hands - I mean, it's going to go in my mouth . NB the idea of not touching comes into play at Benediction when the Celebrant holds the monstrance through a bit of cloth (humeral veil).

Matzo's use other stuff - salt etc. And it's not about using what Jesus would've used, it's about pure ingredients, which is interpreted as pure flour and water, nothing else.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen:
Yes....one difference has already surfaced,between Joan and myself,in that I view the Real Presence as being the Risen Christ present in,with and under the bread and wine [to quote a Lutheran formula].Or...the bread and wine are still that but *added to them* is the Presence of the Risen Christ

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
Real Presence is more that God is actually (and really actually) present in the bread and the wine - sort of like a mini-Incarnation, if you like. That's why the Sacrament is treated with such reverence (genuflection to the Reserved Sacrament, Benediction, etc). It's God Incarnate, which is different from God as present spiritually, which s/he is all the time as you pointed out.

---

OK - here's where I get confused. How do you get God into the bread? Surely it's up to God where he is at any given moment. What in the service suddenly dictates that the bread has the "Real prescence" in?

I don't think I've put this terribly well. I hope someone can figure out what I mean.

Stephen - thanks for the recommendations. I'll certainly look at both the hanging pyx thread and some others when I get bored tomorrow at work. I did read a selection of MW threads when I first joined the ship - but mostly only understood one word in 3.

Ok - I'm off to bed, 2 more questions though before I go:

1) Tell me again what a Pyx is please!

2) Why are biretta's important? Similar question applies to all the roby things, too.

Thanks guys,

All the best,

quote:

---

OK - here's where I get confused. How do you get God into the bread? Surely it's up to God where he is at any given moment. What in the service suddenly dictates that the bread has the "Real prescence" in?

---

Not sure I should respond, since I'm the wrong kind of catholic (Roman, not Anglo), but I can't let this one pass.

The real trick is no try to not think is spatial categories: since God is no bounded by space, he isn't any "where" to the exclusion of any other "where." So what happens in the Eucharist is not that God becomes present some place that he wasn't before, but rather God becomes present in some way or mode that he wasn't before. And that mode is what we call "sacramental" -- i.e. by means of sacred signs.

One of the reasons I hold to the "transubstantiation" view is that it doesn't require you to say that God is "in" the bread, since what is on the altar is no longer bread and wine, but the body and blood of Christ, which is (thanks to the union of humanity and divinity in christ) the body and blood of God. Put in terms of metaphysics: the elements have undergone a change of substance. Put in terms of semiotics: the elements have undergone a change of meaning of signification. What once were signs of human nourishment and communion have become signs of divine nourishment and feasting with Christ in the kingdom of God. What a catholic (presumably either Roman or Anglo) would want to emphasize is that this change -- whether phrased in terms of substance or signification -- is not simply a change in what the elements mean "for us" but in what they mean for God, i.e. what they really mean.

As to how this occurs, of course it is ultimately through the action of the Holy Spirit, but it is also through the sacramental (i.e. ritual) recalling of the sacrifice of Christ by the community.

Hope this is some help.

The first sentence of my second paragraph should read: "the real trick is to try not to think in spatial categories."

quote:

---

Originally posted by rachel_o:
OK - here's where I get confused. How do you get God into the bread?

1) Tell me again what a Pyx is please!

2) Why are biretta's important? Similar question applies to all the roby things, too.

---

God into bread: Jesus said "Do this", it is his command, and he will fulfill his part. Therefore we can be confident that Jesus will be present during communion/eucharist/mass. Where Jesus will be is a matter for your theology. To me, where he is is nowhere near as important as that he is there.

1. I have just checked the MW dictionary, and it says: pyx a small ciborium. Well, that is less than helpful.

A pyx is a container to put the consecrated wafers in. They are often small enough to put in a priestly pocket so that they can be distributed to the sick of the parish. When the pyx is not 'on its travels' it will normally reside in a special box in the church. Sometimes this can be a hanging pyx, or a tabernacle, or a monstrance. Often there will be a candle, or a light showing that there is 'something' in the box.

2. biretta it is a hat that was originally worn by the graduates of Bologna. It then became a bit of a fashion statement within the church. Most items of clothing within in the church were fashionable (and worn by the educated/wealthy people) at one time. It is a matter of tradition. Do anything twice, and it becomes a tradition.

Rachel, in your opening post you said:

quote:

---

Convince me that high church is the way to do things. I promise to try to be open-minded, but don't promise to agree.

---

I was in a similar position just under a year ago. I don't think that you will be convinced that the high church way is the best. But you stand a good chance of seeing that it is an equally valid way of worshipping and serving God as the ways of the low churches.

It is going to be a baffling time, but well worthy while.

St.Mary and St.Michaels FAQ

Although I am not quite so far up the candle as to have to worry about half the stuff here.

Good questions, and an interesting thread

One other symbolism of incense: The rather grubby earthly mixture is purified by being burnt into the smoke of the incense. Which is symbolic of our grubby earthy natures being purified by the fires of Christ's passion.

There's lots of neat bits of symbolism in much of the liturgy/tat. Most of which I don't know about. One I love, that a friend told me about, is that the wine is mixed equally with the water. Which is symbolic of the human and divine nature being mixed in Christ. In the same way as, once mixed, you cannot seperate the water from the wine, you cannot seperate the divine and spiritual within Christ.

As far as all the funny robes go, there's a whole bunch of prayers that the priest says whilst robing. Can I remember them? No. But I vaguely remember they all tie the physical garment to its spiritual nature. I'm sure there are people here who can tell you far more about that than I.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
I was taught that the consecrated Host should only be touched by the priest (with the canonical digits), and it should NEVER be chewed. These rules, were designed to show deep reverence for the consecrated Host - special table manners for a very special meal. A proper Communion wafer will dissolve rapidly without mastication.

Greta

---

This really puzzles me, and has ever since I first came across this viewpoint. For me, one of the most moving thing about the Eucharist is how Christ humbles himself to come among us -- and how he puts himself into our hands just as he put himself into the hands of the authorities to be crucified. And as for chewing, well, isn`t that precisely which Jesus tells us to do in John 6?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emilie:

As far as all the funny robes go, there's a whole bunch of prayers that the priest says whilst robing. Can I remember them? No. But I vaguely remember they all tie the physical garment to its spiritual nature. I'm sure there are people here who can tell you far more about that than I.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CorgiGreta:

I was taught that the consecrated Host ... should NEVER be chewed.

---

I have failed to dredge up from the decaying brain cells which of the Fathers exhorts us on the contrary to press and grind the Bread with out teeth and squeeze out every last bit of goodness. But I always remember to do so.

[host mortar board in hand]

First of all where are all the tat queens in getting this discussion moving? Poor Joan of Diminutive Stature is shouldering the burden rather on her own. It's one to thing to pontificate (ha ha) about how things ought to be done, but another to actually sit down and explain.

Second, rachel and others might be interested in checking out the English Missal Usage thread on this board, where there are a lot of links to lots of exotic A/C stuff in action.

A very good website to visit is Project Canterbury.

A very cogent and readable introduction can be found at What is Anglo Catholicism? This rewards the time taken to read, I think.

Also, may I suggest having a look at the "Catholic Virgins" thread in Purgatory, where some people are sharing their conversion experiences.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oriel:
The warden was showing me how to lay out the vestments, and said that the stole (I think that`s what the scarfy thing is called?) should be laid out in a particular pattern which he`d never figured out how to do. So, everyone, what is the pattern, and how do you do it?

---

The maniple, stole and girdle should respectively form the letters of an IHS monogram, with the cross in the middle of the stole in the middle of the crossbar of the H.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
I was taught that the consecrated Host should only be touched by the priest (with the canonical digits), and it should NEVER be chewed. These rules, were designed to show deep reverence for the consecrated Host - special table manners for a very special meal. A proper Communion wafer will dissolve rapidly without mastication.

---

What Greta mentions was standard Roman Catholic practise until the 1970s. It actually arose because of abuses. During the early Christian centuries, communicants did have the Host placed in their hands. However (and, sad to say, this is no urban legend) there were occasions of irreverence, some going so far as to take a Host for potions, that receiving on the tongue became standard by the Middle Ages.

A number of RC theologians, around the time of the Reformation, did argue for both Communion in the hand and for the communicants to receive both the bread and wine. I am inclined to think that this did not happen then, at least in part, because those Reformers who argued for both (despite its scriptural and early Church bases) often moved away from acceptance of the Real Presence altogether.

I don't think that there was any official pronouncement about "not masticating," though I have heard this in the past. That comes from taking things a bit too literally (Christ, after all, is Risen...), as if we would harm Him by chewing Him up.

Rules about not touching the Host were extremely rigid in my (RC) youth. In fact, if one found a Host on the floor (when one was cleaning or something), one was supposed to (I swear I'm not making this up) kneel next to it in adoration until a priest or deacon could lift it. Linen that came into contact with the consecrated wine could not be washed until one in major orders "swished" them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by laudian:
The maniple, stole and girdle should respectively form the letters of an IHS monogram, with the cross in the middle of the stole in the middle of the crossbar of the H.

Modern tat queens suggest making an A (stole) and Omega (girdle) monogram, but if you want to do this sort of thing at all it would be better to stick to IHS and have the priest leave the maniple on the press if he doesn't want to wear it.

---

I think it was alpha and omega, but it definitely just involved the stole. Or maybe that`s why he`s never figured out how to arrange it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by sacredthree:

I will echo the idea that at root being "catholic" is about Spirituality rather than the way you do things in church. I know our local RC priest would agree with me. To my mind the way we worship should flow out of that spirituality not out of some text book of notes ritual or handbook of parsons.

---

There is no "magic." No one makes Him present - He was there in the first place. And His Body and Blood are not as they were when His bones were under them - He is risen and ascended to the Father, present by the power of the Holy Spirit in His Church, and all of that good stuff.

I'm a firm believer in the Real Presence, but I realised that, where those of us who are can be quite expressive, someone new to the idea may inadvertantly think we're describing a conjuring act.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
How does God get into the bread? I'm afraid someone else will have to give the standard answer as mine is wildly divergent (I'm willing to - and have - receive communion as sacrament in various diverse situations that would give an orthodox (small 'o') AC apoplexy ). I really really hate the idea that "the priest does the magic" and puts God in - IMHO that's as bad as the idea of an HTB worship leader telling the Holy Spirit to come along now we're ready for you.

.....

Liturgy etc sets apart the service as a place and a time focussed wholly on God and asks "please" - and we believe that God's promised to be there. It's very easy to take this idea to the extremes of the liturgy as an incantation summoniny God, or the other one of "why bother with communion if God can come anytime".

.....

NB swishy tatty things: they're FUN!!!

---

1) My real worry about the whole real prescence thing is exactly what you described - priest does some magic, summons God via incantation. What a yucky idea! I also have a real problem with people trying to invoke the holy spirit, and am not one of those who babbles away in tongues to order, but I have been in that sitauation and hence understand the analogy you made. What I need to know is when did God promise to be in the bread. I know about the last supper - I am after all a GLE, we read our bibles to the point of distraction at times - but how do you get from there to this idea really?

2) My next question: Joan is all this stuff really fun? I read the webpages The Coot recommended (and they were v. helpful). However, having read them, the only feeling I am left with is that this all sounds very stressful. In the part about recieving the host it was all very much - everyone MUST be taught to be INCREDIBLY careful because it would be SO awful if anyone dropped anything etc etc. Now, as someone who has a medical problem which causes me to have spasms and drop things, I would find these kind of strictures incredibly stressful. I wouldn't - to use a nasty GLE phrase - spend any "quality time" with God during communion, cos I'd be so worried about messing up. This doesn't just go for the first time you do it either. In a service where the talk was about God releasing us from fear, I heard someone give a testimony about never having enjoyed communion - for years - for fear of dropping the chalice (and this is in a GLE church where we don't have much fuss). Of course he was giving the testimony cos God has freed him from his fear, but you see my point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by babybear:
1. I have just checked the MW dictionary, and it says: pyx a small ciborium. Well, that is less than helpful.

---

That's why I decided not to try and learn stuff from the dictionary thread - it was too confusing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by babybear:
I was in a similar position just under a year ago. I don't think that you will be convinced that the high church way is the best. But you stand a good chance of seeing that it is an equally valid way of worshipping and serving God as the ways of the low churches.

---

That is what I'm hoping to learn. Not that I don't think high church worship is valid - although a few years ago I didn't.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen:
:
Both Edward and Hooker's Trick are I think right here.The thread has been going in the same way as many others,a discussion of "tat" which I think is not helping much here.The fiddly detail as to what the subdeacon should be doing at the Prayer of Consecration is perhaps not the most important thing here;the most important thing here is to try to discover the soul of High Church Christianity or if you like its spirituality.

---

Ah! Thankyou Stephen! - I was getting very lost in the descriptions of robe-folding.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen:
: But once you start accepting the idea that tradition has important things to say,other things may - but not necessarily must follow.You could for instance come to the view that the continuity of the Church in doctrine and worship is not insignificant.You may come to have a "high" view of the Church.Vestments are what the well-dressed citizen of Rome would have worn circa 4th.century and emphasise the continuity of the Church.The Eucharist was instituted by Our Lord and was important in the Early Church.Things which emphasise this become important.

---

3) OK. This gives rise to a - to me - very important question. How far back does this tradition go? In the churches I have regularly attended, we tend to ignore a lot of this tradition, but we still claim (doesn't everyone?) to be copying the early church - by which we mean the church as seen in action in Acts and as described in the various Epistles and perhaps also the beginning of Revelation. Now - I have tried quite hard to read these things fairly neutrally, and have probably failed - but I see in the very early church a simplicity and beauty of worship, a lack of emphasis on ceremony, and an emphasis on individual contribution to worship. All of this being withing the context of an orderly service. How do we get from this to the beginnings of the RC (for instance) tradition? Or do you all think I'm misinterpreting the Bible?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen:
: But there is or at least should be another side to it.The importance of the Holy Communion is that we use quite ordinary things.....bread and wine.St.Augustine (I think) said that these elements represented humanity too ("There you are on the Table:in the bread and in the wine").So the altar isn't a place to retreat to.....it's a place you rise from,sanctified and strengthened to work in the real world.....and the person selling the "Big Issue" round the corner from the church building is as much a part of that as you are,indeed as Christ is....

---

4) Now, this is one of the main reasons why I find all the tat and ceremony surrounding communion so confusing. It is precisely because I believe that communion has real world relevance that I don't feel comfortable with dressing it up in this way. I want to come to God at Communion as me - as He sees me all week. And I don't eat by having food placed in my mouth, I certainly don't eat without chewing, I don't only relate to God during the week in a highly reverential way (He is my loving father), I don't wear dressy clothes, I don't pray in fancy words. If I have to do all this to take communion, then don't I stop being me - coming just as I am to the foot of the cross. I know everyone's about to say that the differentness is all about awe of and reverence for God, but to me one of the most awesome things about communion is the ordinariness of it - real bread and real wine and a real experience of God - a God who is willing to work with very ordinary material - me and you - to do His work in His world.

Did that make any sense?

I guess what I'm trying to say is - you can have symbolism without all these symbols!

5) OK, I know this is a very long post, but I must add one more thing. How do you prevent this type of worship from become very exclusive? I mean this in 2 ways - firstly, how do you make this accesible to people who haven't done it before - whether Christian or non - rather than turning it into something of a private members club? Secondly, how do you avoid giving the impression of looking down your nose at those who don't do it your way? Actually, lots of people on board ship do a bit of looking down noses at evos here and there. Is this necessary to maintain the purity of the way you worship, or is it snobbery? Some of the webpages Coot recommended (don't worry Coot, I know you were being sweet and helpful) did make me feel that the author was saying - "You're doing it all wrong you horrible little blasphemer!".

HT - I will read you recommended webpages tomorrow, I hope.

Sorry this is very long. I have numbered the actual questions for ease of reference.

All the best,

Rachel.

As one who was raised Southern Baptist [for those in England who dont know what this is , it's about as evangelical a background as you can get in the US], and now a member of an Anglo-Catholic Episcopal
congregation in the US, perhaps I can help interpret.

You writenull

quote:

---

OK. This gives rise to a - to me - very important question. How far back does this tradition go? In the churches I have regularly attended, we tend to ignore a lot of this tradition, but we still claim (doesn't everyone?) to be copying the early church - by which we mean the church as seen in action in Acts and as described in the various Epistles and perhaps also the beginning of Revelation. Now - I have tried quite hard to read these things fairly neutrally, and have probably failed - but I see in the very early church a simplicity and beauty of worship, a lack of emphasis on ceremony, and an emphasis on individual contribution to worship. All of this being withing the context of an orderly service. How do we get from this to the beginnings of the RC (for instance) tradition? Or do you all think I'm misinterpreting the Bible?

---

Some of the ceremony and ritual is, I understand, of medieval origin. Other parts
borrow all the way back to Jewish temple worship. Certainly things like the use of incense, some forms of priestly vestments,
etc. may have been carried over by some in the early church.

It is fairly clear, though, that the Eucharist (or Lord's Supper, if you are a Baptist) was a central part of the worship of the 1st century church. Besides the writings of the Apostles in the Bible, we
also have the writings of the first generations taught by them directly (often referred to as the Church Fathers...)Though these writings are not canonical, they are useful to see how the early church worshipped. These people include Polycarp (d 156),said to have been a disciple of John, and Irenaeus (125-202), and many others.

From them, we know that parts of the liturgy we use today are largely unchanged from the 1st century church. In particular , the
Great Thanksgiving ...

The Lord be with you.
People And with thy spirit.
Celebrant Lift up your hearts.
People We lift them up unto the Lord.
Celebrant Let us give thanks unto our Lord God.
People It is meet and right so to do.
....
was clearly used by the early Church. And the
Eucharist was clearly central to worship.

Yes, many trappings have been added on since then. But the fundamentals of liturgical worship go back to the 1st century church.

So, I've come to have an appreciation for this continuous link to the forms of worship in the early church. And frankly, I don't believe anymore that the first century church
was recreated in a pure form by Roger Williams or any other Reformer in the 17th century. [The Reformation goes back a lot
further than that!]

Frankly a lot of the discussions of cermonial minutiae in this board are just plain silly. But the fact remains that many
extreme protestants have thrown out the baby with the bath water and left behind some authentic practices of the early church.
[Although, conveniently, they ignore
the process of the development of the Bible
canon when they "they don't rely on tradition". Who determined the books of the Bible, but the early Church ?]

Yes, Jesus is your friend. But He is also the
Awesome and Mysterious Word who Spoke the
Universe into Being. We do well to remember
that, and approach his throne in fear and adoration as well. Take a look at the imagery
of the throne of God in the Book Revelations...Incense! Bowing! No happy-clappy stuff here! [Rev ch. 8]

I find that the high church ritual is helpful
in reminding one of that aspect of God. We bow as the processional cross passes, not as empty ritual, but in reminder and acknowledgement of His Sacrifice for us.

Is there room for all the styles of Christian
worship found in different denominations today? Absolutely! Do I get hung up on it ? No.

Is it unfortunate that the Church is split this way ? Yes, but I think God has managed to turn even this evil into good. I think of
the various denominations as polishing the various facets of a diamond as they pratice their different forms of worship. All work together to reflect the Glory of God.

Bouncing Lace!

quote:

---

In the part about recieving the host it was all very much - everyone MUST be taught to be INCREDIBLY careful because it would be SO awful if anyone dropped anything etc etc. Now, as someone who has a medical problem which causes me to have spasms and drop things, I would find these kind of strictures incredibly stressful.

---

Silly Point My most embarrassing communion moment ever has to be when I managed to mistime the whole sip/swallow/amen thing and splattered myself, the deacon's shiney new vestments and the floor with the Blood of Christ. Since I was very much into the this is the *real* blood and must be treated with awe, I briefly considered dropping to my knees and licking the floor. Being thoroughly British, tho, I settled for just slopping off in embarrassment.

quote:

---

but to me one of the most awesome things about communion is the ordinariness of it - real bread and real wine and a real experience of God

---

Serious point Actually I entirely agree. I find the contrast of all that ceremony, pomp and majesty just highlights the simple ordinaryness of the breaking of bread. As if the liturgy serves to throw all the focus on that act. Which, through its very ordinariness, becomes transformed.

I guess that's kind of how I percieve Christ. The intense, contradictory harmony of Christ's divine and human natures. The liturgy works to mirror that for me.

Good luck with your exploring!

quote:

---

What I need to know is when did God promise to be in the bread. I know about the last supper - I am after all a GLE, we read our bibles to the point of distraction at times - but how do you get from there to this idea really?

---

Basically from Jesus' words at the Last Supper (see Matthew 26:26-8). He says 'Take this and eat; this is my body' and 'Drink from it, all of you. For this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, shed for many for the forgiveness of sins.'

2) Is it fun? I'm not sure, but then again I'm not an Anglo-Catholic. I can see that it could be very easy to get so caught up in the mechanics of it that you lose sight of the centre, this is particularly a problem for servers I suspect, but the visual nature is I think a very great strength. Protestantism is very much a literate religion (which is not necessarily a bad thing especially as it tends to promote literacy, so it ain't exclusive) whereas Catholicism is far more visual and perhaps engages more of us in worship as we stand sit, kneel, cross ourselves, genuflect even.

3) The early church. To be honest, I don't know. a) because my knowledge of church history is limited and b) because I'm not sure we can ever be that sure of what did happen. I'm very dubious about the Protestant claim that they are returning to how the early church did things, because there is such a gap between the two periods and I think the mindsets of the two are very different as are the cultures so we can't be exactly the same. We tend to forget, I think, the very Jewish nature of the early church. I suspect for example that a liturgical year developed very early within Christian tradition because of the sequence of festivals within Judaism.

5) Making in non-exclusive and looking down on evos.
Making worship accessible is a problem within any tradition and I don't really have a solution to it. I think it's mostly to do with the attitude and friendliness of the congregation more than with the style of worship.
Yes, some Anglo-Catholics do look down on evos, but then again many evangelicals are very unsure whether Anglo-Catholics are Christians at all, so there are faults on both sides. We all need to accept that there are different ways to worship and these different ways appeal to different people and enable them to express their worship. We need to value the diversity and accept each other.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Iakovos:
Frankly a lot of the discussions of cermonial minutiae in this board are just plain silly....

---

Yes, a lot of the discussions on this board are silly an nit-picking, and will not have any effects on the world. But it is good to have fun, and to be silly.

quote:

---

But the fact remains that many
extreme protestants have thrown out the baby with the bath water and left behind some authentic practices of the early church....

---

It is not "extreme" protestants. The standard run of the mill protestants do not rely on tradition in anywhere near the same way that the Orthodox or catholic churches do. The fursthest back most protestant traditions will go back is to the Reformation.

quote:

---

Yes, Jesus is your friend. But He is also the Awesome and Mysterious Word who Spoke the Universe into Being.

---

There a two main groups, a very conservative group, mostly older people who can only think of Jesus as the "Awesome and Mysterious Word who Spoke the Universe into Being" (Jesus the divine). They have just as much respect and awe during communion as the highest AC.

The second group, mostly younger people, see Jesus as being friend and brother (Jesus the human).

But thankfully a third group is forming, one in which people can appreaciate that Jesus is both!

quote:

---

Originally posted by babybear:
There a two main groups, a very conservative group, mostly older people who can only think of Jesus as the "Awesome and Mysterious Word who Spoke the Universe into Being" (Jesus the divine). They have just as much respect and awe during communion as the highest AC.

---

You're absolutely right. A/C's don't have a monopoly on awe.

Now, as for the 'this is my blood' thing. It's interesting that churches which promote literalist interpretations of Scripture tend to take this symbolically, while A/C churches (which often don't have literalist interpretations of scripture) take this literally.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
Now, as for the 'this is my blood' thing. It's interesting that churches which promote literalist interpretations of Scripture tend to take this symbolically, while A/C churches (which often don't have literalist interpretations of scripture) take this literally.

No opinion there or judgement, or anything. I just find it interesting.

---

S3 and Stephen are entirely right: what is most important is spirituality, liturgy flows from that (it's the public expression of spirituality, if you like). Here's some of the basics. The pillars of faith, so to speak, are 1) Scripture 2) reason (including experience) 3) tradition. Reason combines the three to form a theology and a spirituality. The idea is to gain an interplay of the three such that we are not static (as would be if we relied on Scripture/tradition alone) but that in the evolution we don't throw away everything that has been concluded up until now (hence tradition). It's a dynamic theology/spirituality that evolves all the time from where it was before. In this way we don't imprison God in the bible, or slavishly follow tradition (well, in an ideal AC world ) or re-invent the wheel (and repeat past mistakes and don't build on our heritage) by throwing away everything we've been given. I would liken it very much to the process of science: we build on what we have been given, gain new insights and understandings, and sometimes come up with new theories but they are never wholly divorced from what has gone before.

To answer Rachel's 2): yes, some people would find it very stressful and distracting. About as stressful and distracting as I find Aldates-type places and their style of worship . Different people need different ways of getting to God - which is why I think it's good there is such a difference of worship practise out there. I don't find having my actions prescribed stressful, and I speak here particularly as a server. I know what I'm meant to be doing (which takes away a lot of stress), and within those roles I can do things that I would feel incredibly uncomfortable doing outside. For example, I can prostrate before the Sacrament at Benediction focussing wholly on God because the role frees me from worrying about other people.
It is also a good check against going overboard: you don't get the sort of over-the-top flinging ones'self around that you can get in some churches, which can actually be quite unhealthy and detract from worshipping God. And no, I'm not just being excessively British here .
One further point about the prescribed roles is that liturgy ceases to become something that you say and becomes something that you are - you are a part of the liturgy, liturgy is much more than words, it is sights and smells and actions, very multi-sensory and very rich. I find this especially when I'm serving: my movements and actions in themselves are prayer.
And finally: ritual liturgy emphasises the corporate nature of Christianity. Being in a church service is different from personal devotions: it is not just a group of individuals who happen to be praying in the same place, it is a group that is a part of the body of Christ, a corporate entity. Having the thing mapped out (what everyone's doing etc) helps this: it's communal action, and communal prayer through that action (see previous point).

One important thing, though, is that this is all there to help people, to help them get closer to God, and if AC worship doesn't do that for some people then they shouldn't worship in that way. Furthermore, we should never get to the point where we consider liturgy to be more important that the people who are using it: if someone has an illness which means they spill the communion wine, they shouldn't be made to feel bad about it or stressed or even excluded - rather they should be included and worked with. Liturgy is for people, not people for the litugy (there y'go Rachel, that's almost a bible quote ).