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,

Rachel.
 

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.

Right, next!
 

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,

Rachel.
 

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.

NB Rachel we shall have to do a tat box together sometime you're in London or I'm in Oxford - we can sit at the back and I'll give you a running commentary!
 

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

---

Sorry, I wasn't clear - I believe exactly this (the coming together of physical AND spiritual, not the replacement of the physical by the spiritual which is transubstantiation).
 

cf Christ as fully human AND fully divine.
 

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,

Rachel.
 

NB swishy tatty things: they're FUN!!! (And cos most male AC's love to cross-dress JOKE ). Seriously, they're part of the whole setting things aside for God and marking things out for God's use. There's lots of symbolism tied in with the different vestments as well, so when you're vested you're set apart for God (cf monk and nun habits), and in yourself become part of the 'thin place' where the physical takes on spiritual meaning and significance.
 

Greta
 

Evangelical Tat-Queen Wannabe,
The Coot.
 

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.

FCB
 

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

FCB
 

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.

bb
 

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.

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.
 

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.

Emilie
 

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?

But most of all, I just don`t understand why you should not touch it with your hands, when you`re going to be touching it with your lips, tongue, and digestive system? How can handling Christ be worse than swallowing him? Can anyone convince me that there`s a serious difference between them?
 

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.

---

This came in while I was typing my previous post, and it reminded me that I was going to ask you lot about something that came up this weekend while I was helping put up all the purple for Advent. 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?
 

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.

Don't Bite the Baby always seems such crass theology.
 

[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.

HT [MW Host]
 

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.

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.
 

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.

[Teasing tag ON] Once in awhile, an Anglo-Catholic is one who believes Christ is present, has no notion of "how," thinks the "how" tended to obscure the "what," finds Neil Boyd's description (in "Bless Me, Father") of burying a Hoover because he fears he has caught consecrated crumbs in the brushes all too believable, and had quite enough.
 

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?

(I was hoping for someone to describe how to fold the thing to form the pattern in question..)
 

First take your stole and lay it full length in a straight line across your vestment press with the cross at the centre. Place your left hand holda the stole down about six inches to the left of the cross, and then reach over and grasp the free bit of the stole about twelve inches from your left hand, bringing it up to a point directly above the said left hand. Fold it down, away from you, onto the surface so that the dangling free bit then folds back over it and lies toward you. The bit nearset you should be the spade end, which ought to have a nice bullion fringe on it and be no less than eight inches in width. Repeat the process on the other side, mutatis mutandis, and hey presto a stole folded into a letter 'H'!
 

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.

---

I am in a state of shock....A post by Edward,every word of which I agree....
Can you send me some virtual sal volatile please,S3?
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.
And yet I think that can be difficult.How do you define "spirituality"?It's hard isn't it?So it's only too easy to take refuge in incredibly detailed discussions of doctrine and ceremonial.To use an analogy from astronomy,what we've been doing is giving Rachel-O a lecture in the latest astrophysical discoveries......but what she really needs to do is to learn the constellations!
In other words,what I'm saying here is that we need first to go back to basics....I'm not really the person to do it,but I'll have a go.....Remember this is not cast in stone!
Right,back to basics then.Perhaps we could start with the word "Catholic".The word means universal,and I think it was St.Vincent of Lerins (NO will correct me should I go astray here I'm sure ) who said that the Catholic faith is the faith that is received always,everywhere,and by all.("Quod semper,quod ubique,quod ab omnibus creditum est" is I think the quotation) The foundation of doctrine is of course Scripture,but the interpretation of Scripture is difficult,or at least can be,so to this end tradition,( quod semper)and indeed what others believe (quod ubique,quod ab omnibus) is invaluable in the interpretation of Scripture.
So you can see that tradition is important not so much in wearing robes,but in quite basic things,namely the interpretation of Scripture itself
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.
At the centre of High Church Christianity is the Eucharist itself.It is central to your spiritual life.You will want to receive Holy Communion each Sunday,maybe during the week as well,to meet the Risen Lord in Holy Communion.So you emphasise these ideas by treating it with honour;hence the vestments....
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....
And I think that's enough from him!And I realise that I'm only skirting the main issue which I think is one of spirituality ....which Edward mentioned,and which I'm finding difficult to explain.I'm hindered in that I'm not a fully-fledged Anglo-Catholic,and there are some things in it that I have reservations about.What I've tried to do is to pick out one or two things
HTH
[BTW,thanks for that clarification Joan.I think I may have been at cross-purposes
]
 

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.

(As an aside... there is much one could get into trouble about in Turin... I'm surprised that the lady who munched didn't find the Host had begun to bleed - AB- blood, as on the Holy Shroud - after which some ingenious soul would be sure to sell tickets to pilgrimage groups from Ireland.)
 

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.

PS... Remember I'm a GLE - give me some Bible verses. I like Bible verses. I'll even let you proof-text at me a little bit....
 

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.

-Iakovos
 

Bouncing Lace!

Hope it helps.
 

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!

Emily
 

Emily
 

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.

Carys
 

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!

bb
 

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.

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

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.

---

So too the passages (spot the AC who can't quote chapter and verse and doesn't have a bible to hand to look it up) that Jesus spoke on divorce taken most literally by catholicism and not at all literally by protestants! Again 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 ).

Worship is there to help bring people closer to God, and closer to the perception of the spiritual world. What was said by the protestants on the Holy objects thread is, I think, right: the physical is holy after the Incarnation. The point is that we don't always move in the awareness of this, and the awareness that God came among us an through that joined earth and heaven inextricably - we need help to see this, and what I personally find very helpful is a place where it is made obvious that this is the case, by overtly symbolic and multisensory worship. This then helps me see the divine in what I perceive normally as the everyday. If you like, there's no qualitiative difference between a Palestrina motet and the latest SClub7 single - they're both a bunch of notes. But one can help bring us closer to God than the other, and closer to a realisation of the divine. For me that's Palestrina. Stretching credulity a bit, for others it might be SClub7.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by babybear:
But thankfully a third group is forming, one in which people can appreciate that Jesus is both! (human and divine)

---

So Chalcedon was not wasted, after all. sigh

...now, off to ponder the deficiencies of the concept of mini-Incarnation...
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Newman's Own:

...now, off to ponder the deficiencies of the concept of mini-Incarnation...

---

it's when you get a very small Saviour...
 

quote:

---

rachelwrote
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?

---

Are you sure about that? I thought GLEs only read small bits of the Bible to distraction, and then only as interpreted by John Stott.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fiddleback:
Are you sure about that? I thought GLEs only read small bits of the Bible to distraction, and then only as interpreted by John Stott.

---

As opposed to GLACs who only read the bits in the prayer book, you mean?
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fiddleback:
The Bible's only an anthology of quotations from the English Missal, as anyone knows.

---

LOL. Ahhh well, one inaccurate stereotype only deserves another.

(Besides, you living in Wales and all, you know very well that GLEs have nothing to do with John Stott. It's Martyn Lloyd-Jones all the way. Shame on you for not knowing that. )
 

Thanks to Joan for getting it back on track.

bb
 

One thing that the sources I have found on the web have not answered about AC and RC practice is the theological significance (if any) of addressing priests as "Father". Is this simply a term of respect, or does it have some deeper significance. As a "so low church I have nearly fallen off the bottom" type I have trouble with this. Following Matthew 23:9 ('call no man father except your father in heaven') I don't feel able to call anyone on earth father, but being a good Anglican I don't want to offend anybody.

In a Baptist church I used to attend we got round the problem of what to call the minister by calling him "Rabbi". I presume that this would not be acceptable practice in AC circles.
 

NB Chapelhead, if we follow Jesus' words, what ought we to call our biological dads??????
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
Oh my, S3, that's priceless!!!! Are the egg-shaped things assuming the server bodily into heaven?

---

I wondered the same thing; it seemed to be either an assumption or billowing clouds of incense, followed by the disappearance of the celebrant, from which I conclude that he is now passed out behind the altar.

As for the rest, as a long-time AC, I second everything JtheD said. I wish I could have said it as well myself.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
Chapelhead, if we follow Jesus' words, what ought we to call our biological dads??????

---

As mine got cremated about twenty years ago, I might call him dusty (with apologies for the poor taste).

It's a good question though. I suppose if I had to try to give a good answer (surely not) I might suggest that the original line was only talking about non-biological fathers, but I'll admit it's not a great answer.
 

There are some jokes, I promise….

quote:

---

Originally posted by Iakovos:
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.

---

I know the bit of liturgy you reference - it's one bit that the evos didn't throw out at any point!

However, when you talk about the Eucharist being central to worship, we start to diverge. As is clear from the following passage from Acts 2, the breaking of bread was central to both the early Christian community, and their worship:

They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
43
Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles.
44
All the believers were together and had everything in common.
45
Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.
46
Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,
47
praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

What I don't understand is how we get from what I see here - the breaking of bread as part of a meal, at someone's home, with the fellowship - to a big, posh, ceremony. This is, for me, the missing link!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Iakovos:

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]

---

Please tell me you're taking the mickey! Or do you seriously expect me to believe that you have a perfect interpretation of perhaps the most complicated book in the Bible. I've read this passage/passages, and I also see waving of palm branches, shoutings of Hallelujah, and fallings down onto faces in awe - all of which strike me as pretty happy-clappy to be honest.

Seriously there is awe, in our hearts, and in our worship you know. It may not be so obvious, but it's there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
1) 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

---

I may be Evo, but I'm not dim . I know what Jesus said at the last supper. Can I have some theology about different interpretations from someone?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
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.

---

I think I may have misphrased this question. What I meant was this:

Does the idea of the Real Prescence, and the awe and wonder that implies make the evangelical way of doing communion sacreligious in the eyes of a true AC? Or, would a true AC not see our communion as communion at all?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
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.

---

First Joan, thankyou for your very erudite and helpful explanations throughout this thread, and particularly in your most recent post.

Secondly, I found what you said about your movements and actions becoming worship/prayer particularly interesting. Now, I am a genuine nutty Charismatic, although from the less nutty end of the spectrum - and this, amongst other things, means I move a lot, during worship. You may all laugh, but I do dance and wave my arms about. I also, often, kneel or bow. I don't generally go in for prostrating myself - but that's cos I'm too British and hence feel a leetle embarrassed about the whole thing. I do, often, feel an immense sense of awe and wonder at the greatness and goodness of God, and this is part of how I express it.

Now, I do wonder if, in this way the two opposite ends of the Anglican church - the ACs and my lot, are actually closer together than we think. You guys use your whole selves in worship - but in a ritualised way. We use our whole selves in worship, but in a slightly chaotic way. In many ways the gestures etc you guys make sound very natural to me - even if the shiny stuff, smelly stuff etc doesn't. Maybe we're not all that far apart - we just look at each other via the lot in the middle, who neither bounce around nor move symbolically, and hence the differences are emphasised over the similarities. What does anyone else think?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fiddleback:
Are you sure about that? I thought GLEs only read small bits of the Bible to distraction, and then only as interpreted by John Stott.

---

OK. We have actually discovered in another thread, that since I believe in evolution, rather than the 7 day creation, I am in fact a naughty evangelical, and not good at all. I am finding this revelation very stressful . Please don't tell me that I'm not a GLE for other reasons too. It may shake the whole fabric of my existence .

Seriously - not all that keen on John Stott. Find him slightly patronising. Prefer to do my own thinking where possible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
Martyn Lloyd-Jones all the way. )

---

Who?

Oh dear I seem to be getting to be a W&WLE (worse and worse)!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
Rachel--one thing that hasn't quite come up here is that A-C liturgy done properly has the intention and the effect of making the servers, yes, and the sacred ministers, less conspicuous.

.....

In A-C worship, the personalities of all the vested and cotta'd folk utterly vanish---their piety is to do the liturgy plainly and devoutly, self-effaced. This is why for some of us the Anglo-Catholic way of worship is easier to walk in off the street to than a more evangelical style where the personalities of the people leading the worship tend to be more visible.

---

I actually like this idea. The cult of personality surrounding people like Matt Redmann does annoy me intensely .

Oh dear – getting worse by the second, aren’t I?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Firstly, many thanks from the bottom of my (deeply Prot) heart to JtD and S3 for some posts that have not only had me LoL but have also given me a far greater appreciation of life at your end of the candle than any number of "the angriest person on the board wins the argument" rants (not that either of you would indulge in such things).

---

Vote of thanks seconded - the attitudes of JtD and S3 among others is precisely why I started this thread here.

OK. Tonight’s extra question:
Everyone has stressed the importance of awe and reverence in AC worship. I have in recent times been to both a Catholic mass – complete with what I believe may have been a monstrance – and an AC evening service. Now, I know this isn’t a big sample, but it’s all I’ve got. In both cases the Priest absolutely rattled through the liturgy as if the only thing on his mind was to get out and get some gin. The congregation – during there bits – seemed to be racing him to be out the door. In the RC mass, the liturgy was not even spoken together cos some people were going so fast. Is this common? It stuck me as highly irreverent! The one charge that I most frequently hear levelled at High worship is that it is empty ritual. Is that ever the case, and how can it best be avoided?

All the best,

Rachel.
(World’s worst GLE, but still hanging in there)
 

quote:

---

I may be Evo, but I'm not dim

---

Sorry didn't mean to imply that you were. And looking back at your post I realise I didn't read it properly. You said you knew about the Last Supper.

Actually I've been thinking about your question

quote:

---

What I need to know is when did God promise to be in the bread.

---

As to Wood's comment

quote:

---

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.

---

I think the answer is tradition . Within the sola scriptura tradition it is taken symbolically whereas withing the catholic tradition it is more than symbol.

quote:

---

would a true AC not see our communion as communion at all?

---

Possibly not. I remember a sermon from an evangelical Anglican priest whereby he criticised some of those whom he trained with for making comments which questioned the validity of non-conformist communion, however in doing so he almost mocked the beliefs of those with higher Eucharistic theology and assumed that everyone present would agree with him - made me and a couple of friends feel very uncomfortable, despite the fact we didn't necessarily agree with the view of non-conformist communions expressed. Aargh, I'd forgotten about that until just then and I don't really want to go there but I failed to resist the chance to post it.

quote:

---

both cases the Priest absolutely rattled through the liturgy as if the only thing on his mind was to get out and get some gin.

---

That really really bugs me too. If you're going to use liturgy say it as though you mean it please.

Carys
 

Man separated himself from God so many times over the generations. God chose to rectify that problem by sending His Son to redeem us.

High Mass - the action happens far away, behind a closed gate. Having confessed our sins and sought God's forgiveness, we approach that gate in penance. We kneel before it - the closest we deserve to come to God; kneeling in penance before a closed gate and what happens? The body of Christ passes over that physical barrier; God reaches out beyond the barrier of our sin that holds us away from God and draws us into Himself.

Hate to sound dismissive of "eucharists in the round", for that is not what I mean to do, but I cannot easily dismiss the huge value of the imagery involved in a traditional mass. Mass in the round? Yeh, fine. It emphasises that Christ is amongst us, but so does the old way of doing it - I just find the "new way" a bit more shallow. If others find that the way to draw near to God - fine, but that's no reason to shut off we more image-based kinds.

I say all this because I figure "image-based" is what A-C-ism (how awful that sounds) is more about. Our differences are less in how we see God, and more in how we feel more comfortable in coming close to God. (Please note that I have avoided using the ghastly term "accessing God"!!!, like His Social Secretary is busy just now and can you call back...)
 

Second,

quote:

---

Now, I do wonder if, in this way the two opposite ends of the Anglican church - the ACs and my lot, are actually closer together than we think

---

The answer is yes. At the risk of making a huge oversimplification of the theological differences, you have a hit a fundamental similarity -- A/Cs worship with their bodies, and so do you.

One way is formal and ritualised, one way is informal and spontaneous.

Please avoid words like empty. There are a lot of High churchmen who see the low church as a preserve of empty emotionalism.

One final thought. The Eucharist (or, if you like, the Mass) is prayer. The best prayer there is. I think the key to understanding Anglo Catholicism (or High Churchmanship in general) is not to think of the Eucharist as a complicated ritual, but to think of it as a way of praying.

HT (who is High Church, but not Anglo Catholic)

[who also cannot type!]

[ 07 December 2001: Message edited by: Hooker's Trick ]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rachel_o:

I know the bit of liturgy you reference - it's one bit that the evos didn't throw out at any point!

---

quote:

---

Please tell me you're taking the mickey! Or do you seriously expect me to believe that you have a perfect interpretation of perhaps the most complicated book in the Bible. I've read this passage/passages, and I also see waving of palm branches, shoutings of Hallelujah, and fallings down onto faces in awe - all of which strike me as pretty happy-clappy to be honest.

---

I am so used to Baptists telling all Catholics that they are going straight to Hell that I felt compelled to defend some
of the A/C practices.

-Iakovos
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:

[qb] The answer is yes. At the risk of making a huge oversimplification of the theological differences, you have a hit a fundamental similarity -- A/Cs worship with their bodies, and so do you.

One way is formal and rutualised, one way is informal and spontaneous

---

The more charismatic forms of worship are a dance too...perhaps more akin to modern dance.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
One thing that the sources I have found on the web have not answered about AC and RC practice is the theological significance (if any) of addressing priests as "Father". Is this simply a term of respect, or does it have some deeper significance. As a "so low church I have nearly fallen off the bottom" type I have trouble with this. Following Matthew 23:9 ('call no man father except your father in heaven') I don't feel able to call anyone on earth father, but being a good Anglican I don't want to offend anybody.

---

'I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you, as my dear children. Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. Therefore I urge you to imitate me.'
 

We live in such a literalist world, a world where we demand scientific and conclusive proof and explanation for everything that the notion of symbolism is a difficult one to get across. Thus the most common charge against Ritual is that it is empty and formulaic, a means to pretend to worship God whilst not actually having to think it about it because it's all in a book (preferably Fortescue but Ritual Notes will do just as well).

What has happened in Anglo-Catholicism is that we have lost the realisation that the normative mass is the High Mass; that all the other sorts of masses and their different rituals come from the High Mass.

The High Mass is not a Low Mass with accretions but vice versa. The Low Mass is the High Mass with bits and pieces left out. We have lost this realisation for several reasons; partly a false modernism, a false notion of what 'partcipation' actually means, partly an inverse intellectual and cultural snobbism but also because it is difficult to do the High Mass well. It takes time, effort and manpower. And if the High Mass is done badly then it looks, sounds and comes across as awful and artificial.

If the High Mass is done well and the newcomer to the Mass is caught up in the beauty, ritual and symbolism of the Mass then it is much easier to explain why and how we do certain things and what they mean. It also makes the Low Mass (as well as things like Solemn Evensong and Benediction) much more understandable.

I'm sometimes criticised for explaining what the ritual means rather than the theology. The thing is that the two are inter-linked. If you explain why we do something (a gospel procession for example) in terms of ritual you also find you are explaining it theologically as well as without the theology there is no ritual. Joan and Sacredthree (although occasionally veering dangerously towards the liturgical and theological post-modernism which has dogged catholicism since the sixties) are quite correct when they talk of the Mass and the Ritual as being the vehicle of faith. Whilst the Mass can stand alone without widespread faith (after all it is Christ who offers himself at the mass upon the altar - we are not offering him up) we should recognise the mass as the prime act of the Church, the prime act of the Body of Christ. It also helps when the priest looks as though he believes it.

Cosmo
 

Incidentally, I'm not stating anything as truth, just asking.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Corpus cani:
Oh please come and see a traditional liturgy! You can choose to ignore the ideas of bells, smells, choirs and all, but consider the theology of theatre:

---

I will come and see - at some point very soon. And now that I understand a bit better, I will probably get more from it. It is, in fact, surprisingly difficult to find out what it's all about in understandable terms. I have actually tried before - before I found this Ship - by asking RC or AC friends, and have got basically nowhere in my attempts to understand the reasons for the ritual. This is helping me a lot, guys. Thankyou!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Please avoid words like empty. There are a lot of High churchmen who see the low church as a preserve of empty emotionalism.

---

HT - would you and others please note that I did not say that I thought the ritual was empty. I said this was a charge I had heard levelled against AC-ism. Now, I know that for many of you the ritual is not empty at all, but full and rich in many ways. What I wanted to know was this:

If the participants in the ritual start to perform it out of habit - rather than out of love for and awe of God - does it then still have any meaning, or does it become empty? If I wave my arms around, jump up and down or whatever in Charismatic worship because (a) everyone else is and (b) I feel like a bit of action, then my movements are outwardly the same as those of someone who is really enthused and joyous about God, but inwardly empty. Is the same thing not possible in AC worship? If so how can one prevent this?

(I think how we may prevent emptiness in Charismatic arm-waving me be material for a different thread!)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
I've quite deliberately stayed off this thread but it has seemed to confirm what I have thought for a while and that is Anglo-Catholicism suffers by parody, misunderstanding and want of explanation.

---

Trying to solve that is the reason I started the thread Cosmo. I do hope that I haven't worsened the situation!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:

Whilst the Mass can stand alone without widespread faith (after all it is Christ who offers himself at the mass upon the altar - we are not offering him up) we should recognise the mass as the prime act of the Church, the prime act of the Body of Christ. It also helps when the priest looks as though he believes it.

---

First - thankyou Cosmo, for your comments, which were most helpful.

Secondly, on this particular point - do you mean that if the rituals of the mass were "walked through" without faith they would not be meaningful, but with faith - or some or all of the participants - they become meaningful? Or am I misunderstanding you?

All the best,

Rachel.

PS… I may not be able to post very frequently over the next few days as I will be busy. Please do not think I have abandoned the thread.
R.
 

quote:

---

quote:
Originally posted by Rachel_o:
Martyn Lloyd-Jones all the way.

Who?

Oh dear I seem to be getting to be a W&WLE (worse and worse)!

---

Don't panic, Rachel. Martyn Lloyd Jones was a Welsh preacher who died, IIRC in the early 80s and who is to Welsh GLEs (particularly your 'chapel people') what people like John Stott etc. are to English GLEs.

Only much, much more so.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
Matzo's use other stuff - salt etc.

---

I used to use specially coloured candles and incense and faced east and so on when I did my prayers at home a few years back, but I don't anymore, not least of which because smoke and scents in general (apart from vanilla candles, or one brand anyway) seem to affect me adversely.
 

Rachel - yes, 'whole body' worship is a similarity. However, there are differences - spontaneity can have down-sides just as rigidity can. Taking part in ritual worship can do as Amos says - subsume the self into the corporate, which I said before is important for a church. Evo hand-waving is different because if everyone is waving as the Spirit moves them then they are not taking part in a bigger corporate action in as obvious a way.

The major difference though is - I would say - one of health and safety. If you fling yourself around as you wish then you have no idea as to when it stops being spiritual experience and becomes (potentially damaging) emotivism. People aren't 100% sane. People can't tell with 100% accuracy the difference between having a non-rational experience and acting irrationally. Having a liturgical tradition gives some guidelines on healthy spiritual behaviour, within which it's OK to worship God, you're not going to go potty

I feel quite strongly about this after two experiences in particular. The first was watching my mother dress up a mental breakdown as a spiritual crisis and doing some seriously insane things at various evo churches, which went along with what she said was happening. That was out of control in a BIG way, and God was not in control. The second is the last six months, when I've concurrently (and interlinked) had a breakdown and a strong experience of God. When the latter started I did not want to do anything about it because I was convinced that I was simply screwing with my own head and that it didn't come from God. Having a tradition and its liturgy has helped a lot to give me guidelines about what came from God, and what sort of actions are OK to do because people for hundreds of years have found that they're good and useful and not harmful or indicative of a disordered mental state. So I'm able to think it's OK to prostrate etc at the relevant bits, I'm not going OTT or nuts, so it actually frees me to be MORE demonstrative than if I was in a tradition that used spontaneity.

Did that make any sense? I'm aware of not having the words for most of what I'm saying on this thread (I'm completely untrained theologically, so I'm having to invent my own descriptions often).
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Old Fashioned Crab:
Cosmo (or anyone). One thing which I love about the Anglo-Catholic tradition is that it has a long history of standing alongside the most unfortunate in society. The 'slum priest' is a stereotype with a high degree of truth behind it.

---

I fully agree with you, Crab - in fact, I cannot imagine a truly Catholic commitment without this. (I am not suggesting, of course, that it is exclusive to those who
serve in poor parishes - but the concern for the unfortunate, expressed either in directly working with them or in supporting their needs and rights, is essential.)

I must add that, in modern times, the Roman Catholic concept of subsidiarity, concern for the labouring classes, statements regarding social justice, and the like were wonderful and highly progressive. This, joined to a centuries-old tradition of the Church's caring for the poor, sick, elderly, et al, is , I believe, an important part of every ministry. Intending no disrespect to the Reformed traditions - it seems to me that, where they placed emphasis on moral reformation of society, it was too easy to slip into a very "individual" concept of responsibility. We are a Church - as a whole - and trying to give the example of a devout or moral life is not enough. Concern for the needy, and some active response to this, is a part of our faith. (Quite a contrast to the idea that people will not allow themselves to be needy if they know they'll die in the street if they do...)

Of course, this working class kid does sometimes smile at the naivete of some of the early Anglo-Catholics, who came from more prosperous backgrounds. Their intentions were the best, but... well, people whose children were working in factories hardly wanted this to be the case, but survival had demanded it - so just making that illegal did not solve the problem.
 

Incidentally, some of the Anglicans I know (including some priests) who are the most Catholic in their thinking are not particularly inclined towards tat. (I'm "low to moderate tat" myself - so in love with Christ as King of Kings that I am crazy for incense, for example, but not one likely to give much thought to folded chasubles or maniples.)
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
Joan and Sacredthree (although occasionally veering dangerously towards the liturgical and theological post-modernism which has dogged catholicism since the sixties) are quite correct when they talk of the Mass and the Ritual as being the vehicle of faith.

---

Thank you Cosmo, although I wouldn't describe myself as veering towards post-modernism, or even embracing post-modernism, rather as embodying post-modernism ...

It was after all my post-modernism that attracted me to the catholic tradition in the first place.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Newman's Own:
Rachel,
Were you interested solely in the forms of worship, or in points of theological emphasis that are generally more Catholic?

---

I was in contact with Rachel yesterday, and she said "I have discovered that what I really need is a Beginners Guide to AC theology, rather than to AC tat".

I have mentioned it because she has also said that she will not be able to check on this thread for a couple of days.

NO, (and others) please feel free to take this thread more into the theology. If you can, please try to keep the language fairly ordinary rather than theological.

I am finding this a very fascinating thread. Thanks to all who have been taking part.

bb
----
MW Host
 

Some Reformed theology sees mankind as basically wicked (as a result of the fall, however one defines that.) In the extreme, all of creation is somewhat dangerous - if not wicked in itself, holding the potential to draw us away from God. The earthly life is a test of sorts - and a singular event of being "saved" is the way that one will avoid damnation.

In a Catholic perspective, we are weak and sinful, but still possess a longing for God. Contrary to what one may think, the focus is not at all on avoiding hell (or hoping for heaven, not that we do not!), but on intimacy with God that begins here. (Even in the Middle Ages, when the idea of purgatory was so dominant, there actually was more fear of some sort of purifying punishment after death than of eternal damnation.) There is a very strong sense of the Church encompassing not only what is on earth but what there is in heaven. (Obviously, this would make those who think we are "nowhere" until the Last Judgement shudder.)

If a Catholic asks the intercession of saints, for example, this is by no means any sign of thinking one needs "mediators," or that one cannot "approach God directly." Just as love includes praying for others during this life, our friends in heaven do the same. The Church is timeless, and even our worship does not unite us only with those in the pew but with all of those before.

Even the most prolific theologians could not have pondered the points they did without the underlying knowledge that our vision is limited - in the end, God's ways can never fully be grasped by us. We cannot say "those who didn't accept Christ are damned," nor "we know everyone is saved," just to borrow ideas that, actually, are far more popular in some Protestant circles. We need to respond to God's love, certainly with integrity, with what we believe, but cannot limit our perception of how divine grace may work.

Catholics emphasise sacraments - but neither see them as magical formulae nor believe that those with another emphasis are less holy than we are.

"Holy" is another key word. (No, we do not think we necessarily are holy - only trying... sometimes very trying!) Perhaps the largest point of confusion during the Reformation and beyond was that over "justification." There is no question that we are united to God through His grace, not by our own actions. But we are not called to just "salvation" (too often reduced to merely avoiding a fiery destiny in popular thought) but to holiness. God made us free, and, while His grace is what gives us the capacity for love, love involves a free response to be genuine. Our "works" are not a means to obtain salvation, but a way of sharing the love and removing obstacles which we place in the way of the intimacy with God. (Only God forgives sin, for example, but we seldom do not need to change things in our own lives to set them back in line with the gospels.)

One key Catholic point is that, while Scripture is primary (and, indeed, sacramental... but I'd best not get off on that tangent), divine revelation is dynamic. The Incarnation, for example, was not some far off event, but continues for eternity. Christ continues, by the power of the Holy Spirit, to reveal truth through His Church. (Roman Catholics would say through the magisterium - Anglicans would not have a clear "how," but revelation does end in the first century.) Certainly, the very first Christians, from a Jewish background that had no concept of Trinity as one example, did not have this truth announced to them on the first Easter - divine revelation requires some allowance for our human limitations. From the beginning, what happened in the time of the gospel was not all that a Christian could believe.

Catholicism does not see one's prosperity (health, worldly goods, whatever) as an indication of divine favour or its lack. This is important in the commitment to the disadvantaged which Crab referenced earlier. One's poverty, health, or circumstances are in no way signs of one's relationship with God. (Not denying, of course, that some suffering in any life is the consequence of sin - whether one's own or that of others.) Nor are we "here" merely to be concerned about our own salvation. I would say that the hallmarks of Catholic theology are both that "we're all in this together," and that the "kingdom of God", however more intense it may be in an afterlife, is also present here!

The commandments, an aspect of divine revelation, are certainly important,and there is no question that much of the intimacy is hampered by our own sinfulness. However, creation is good, and its enjoyment is as well. It is far from the concern that some of the Reformation era had that we were so basically wicked that even having leisure would lead us to become rowdy, drunken rogues.

I shall stop here, because I've already written quite enough. I hope that it has been fairly clear.
 

"It is the kind of world in which a wafer can be the sign, or perhaps I should say the shrine, of Christ's presence. Whatever theory of presence we hold - transubstantiation, transvaluation, transignification, even Tillich's theory of symbolism which allows the participation of the symbol in the reality which it symbolises - as long as it remains within the eucharistic context and the eucharistic community, that bread is for us the bread that comes down from heaven for the life of the world. And this...is not merely something for our contemplation. Christ is not confined to the eucharistic bread or even to the church. He is not the 'prisoner of the tabernacle.' ...George MacLeod used to watch the grain ships bringing their cargoes of wheat into Liverpool harbour, and he reflected that the wheat has the potentiality of becoming the body of Christ. This is (where) sacramental theology spills over into the market place. Bread is not a mere commodity; things are not mere bits of matter. We can learn some of this from natural theology, but we learn it above all from Jesus Christ, the bread of God which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sacredthree:
Thank you Cosmo, although I wouldn't describe myself as veering towards post-modernism, or even embracing post-modernism, rather as embodying post-modernism ...

It was after all my post-modernism that attracted me to the catholic tradition in the first place.

---

It's possible though isn't it to be an A/C or even moderately High without being a Post-Modernist?
Although from what I know (admittedly little) Post-Modernism does seem to make points worth noting,I do get the impression that there is an element of a "flight from reason" which I find a bit worrying......
On another note I think that what Rachel probably does need are posts of a theological nature, rather than "tat",an expression I'd not come across outside SOF before.It's only too easy to get bogged down in arcane details of ceremonial,interesting though they are....
 

Then Hooker's Trick says he's high church but not Anglo-Catholic -- pardon my ignorance as one who has been an Episcopalian for only eight years and who hasn't been to a lot of different Episcopal churches, but I honestly have always gotten the impression that high church and Anglo-Catholic were synonymous.

Then Chastmastr says Anglo-Catholicism has to do with theological things like the real presence and high church has to do with tat. But I was taught (in my apparently woefully inadequate confirmation class) that belief in Christ's presence in the elements of the eucharist is standard Anglicanism; though Anglicanism is rather vague about just how this happens, it happens. And now I'm told that Anglicans don't believe this? Since I do believe in the real presence I'm Anglo-Catholic? Despite the fact that I'm in a parish that only has incense on major feasts (Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, the feast day of our patron saint, maybe a few others)?

If anyone knows of an Episcopal parish in the Los Angeles area that is very properly high church, please let me know and I'll go visit -- that might clear up some of this for me.
 

On a slightly more serious note, tat is the visible, public side of AC'ism, so if you're not into linear exposition (I'm not - that's what I meant that 'epistemological postmodernism' is not an insult to me ) then it makes a good entry place into explaining the whole shebang.

And Rachel asked about tat in her second post and it kinda went from there .
 

Actually, Ruth, where the (very heated!) discussions (a mild term!) over "High," "Low" and "Catholic" had huge distinctions (with which there was involvement at the highest levels...) a century or even forty years ago, there really are not such clear-cut distinctions any longer, nor do practises have the implications they once had (religious or political). It's all the more confusing since much of the Roman Church is no longer "High," and since (why do I sense I'm going to be at least whacked for saying this?) the ARCIC led to much agreement between Canterbury and Rome on such matters as the sacraments. (I make my share of jokes about the fathers of the Oxford Movement, but admire them greatly - they were equally placed on the rack, often enough, by those in their own sister church and by Romans.)

I've already defined my Catholicism a bit (lots of ecclesiology there) - but I am very interested in hearing others explain what distinction they see.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
If anyone knows of an Episcopal parish in the Los Angeles area that is very properly high church, please let me know and I'll go visit -- that might clear up some of this for me.

---

Try St Thomas Hollywood. VERY high, loads of tat and a superb choir too
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
,
.....I honestly have always gotten the impression that high church and Anglo-Catholic were synonymous.

---

No,not necessarily.18th century High Church people were not Anglo-Catholics
I tend to think of it - no doubt frivolously - of A/C ism being table d'hote whereas High Church is a la carte
 

Incidentally, my question is quite close to that of Jus. Do we define ourselves as Catholic based on liturgy or theology?
 

My own view is that I'm a high church person who's become a Catholic (through being initially snared by high-church worship). I find it a way of worship and spirituality that is very useful to me. I don't accept it all 'in a lump' (this is, I think, one of the strengths of Anglo-Catholicism - you don't have to go for full-on transubstantiation and Marian devotion if you don't want to, but you're still an AC. IMHO ) - I take what's useful, and not the rest. I regard the richness of the tradition as saying "these are all the things that people in the past have found good and useful and not harmful. See which ones work for you". It's like someone whose opinion you trust recommends something, so you try it and persevere for a bit and see if it rings your sanctus bell.

So what do I see as particularly AC in theological method and spirituality? Method is what I set out before - dear old Scripture, reason (incl experience) and tradition. As I've said elsewhere, this is the theology version of the model of rational truth-seeking that I use in all areas of my life (eg my work - physics).

Spirituality is more complicated, and I'm still very much a baby as far as it's concerned. It's very much tied up with the idea that Christianity encompasses the whole of your life - work, leisure the lot. The whole of you is on a journey, you're growing and changing, and your perception of God is going to grow and change to. A lot of traditional stuff is to help on this journey, even when looking just at theology says it's unnecessary. Confession is the primary example - AC's don't have to, and the General Confession in any service carries the same amount of weight, so what's the point? But my goodness is it useful to some people (me included). Spiritual direction is another thing there to help us grow and develop. Personal devotion (rosary etc) are there if we need structure in prayer.

I'm not sure if I can put this next in a non-insulting way, but this point is important for me so I'll try. This is all IN MY EXPERIENCE/OPINION. I'm not out to upset people, it's that this is how things come across to me. Is that enough caveats?
Basically, I find Catholic spirituality to be grown-up spirituality, calm, experienced, wise and with depth. It meets people where they are - God is a God of unbearable pain as well as joy, knowing all sides of life. We don't have to be happy-clappy with God, being in God's presence doesn't magically make everything better. It meets us where we are with love rather than judgement, helping us to get closer to God starting at where we are, rather than condemning us for not being perfect and saying there is no chance of change. It recognises that our lives are dynamic, and that the aim is to get better than we are, in the knowledge that we can always be better, rather than forever grinding us down by yelling at us for not being there already. Ultimately, God is a God of love, not judgement. Which is the God I read about in the Bible, and the God I perceive.
 

Some other possibilities:

Ascension, Sierra Madre
St. Mary, Palms area of West L.A.
Blessed Sacrament, Placentia
St. Nicholas, Encino

St. Philips, South Cental L.A. may still be A/C

St. Mary of the Angels, Hollywood/Los Feliz, once an A./C. shrine, is now a thriving splinter group. Holy Apostles, Glendale, once more Catholic than the Pope, splintered and is either terminal or dead. I think the same thing happened to Our Saviour, Wilshire corridor.

I would consider St. James, Wilshire, to be the last remaining high church in L.A., and even it may be motr now. I am not very familiar with the four churches in Long Beach, but I seem to recall that St. Luke's was rather high several years ago. I would guess that you attend All Saints.

Greta
 

I'm totally confused on the Long Beach churches. I now think All Saints is A./C. with a twist of evangelicalism. Is St. Luke's the big neo-gothic pile that used to have a boy choir? Years ago, when I visited it, I had the impression that it was quite high, yet I have a feeling that it is your church, unless you are a baseball fan and attend St. Thomas.

Greta

Greta
 

High and Low church existed prior to the Oxford movement, in fact the EA (so loved by many evangelicals ) developed as a reaction to the Anglo-Catholic revival. You can have High church Methodists, High church Lutherans, High Church URC, but they are not Metho-Catholics or whatever.

Anglo-Catholicism today has a lot to do with Spirituality, but it is also theological. What lead me to Anglo-Catholicism was a rejection of the idea that the Church had been a complete cock ever since the early church that had only been restored in the 1970s / 1900's / Reformation. So being catholic to me is saying that God has been at work growing his church for 2000 years, not making it perfect, but making living tradition important. The other thing that lead me to catholicism was rejecting the leader + converts view of church to a wider understanding of what Priesthood is, both as church as priesthood and as individuals ordered by the church to represent that.

Anyone who has read as widely as me (grin) in Evangelicalism will know that such views can be found within broad and liberal evangelicalism. It is rare though. I found one church that shared my ideas in the whole of the UK, and they were probably a wee bit too charismatic for me. There are real Liberal Evangelicals Anglican churches about but lots of people seem to call themselves that and then are not.

What clinched it for me I suppose was the Liturgy. After years of being one of the brave ones who would go up the front and pray and prophesy all of a sudden everyone in the gathering could say something TOGETHER! I almost cried. I was already fairly "High" in my worship due to my interest in creative worship.

On a personal note I still enjoy Low church worship, I have been known to wave my hands, and find speaking in tongues helpful (as many Catholics have done for 2000 years!). I find a some evangelical teaching painful, but I always did. Evangelical heroes include Pinnock, Peirse and Brow.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
The traditional understanding is that our prayer and the way we pray precedes and underlies our theology, not the other way round. Can someone whose Latin is better than mine provide the precise Latin?----Something about "orandi" and "credendi" as I recall.

---

Just put 'lex' in front of each word and you've got it.
 

Thanks, Father!
 

"It is often observed in these days that Christians, like Muslims, are people of the Book. That is untrue. We are not people of a book. We are people of an encounter. 2000 years ago, humanity encountered as much of God as we could stand, and that was Christ Jesus. The Anglican Church prolongs and recreates that encounter. We re-encounter Christ when we are baptised into his death, when we are absolved of our sins, and when we make our Communion, day by day, week by week, over the whole history of the life of the Church."

This may help to explain the emphasis some of us place on the sacraments.

HT
 

I know you do not describe yourself as Anglo-Catholic, but you've managed to provide one of the most truly Catholic explanations on the thread.
 

I'm back - for this evening at least. I've got a nasty cold after my weekend's exertions but, buoyed up by Lemsip with honey, I think I may be able to make some cogent responses to this thread. If it all comes out as gobbledegook forgive me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
Rachel - yes, 'whole body' worship is a similarity. However, there are differences - spontaneity can have down-sides just as rigidity can. Taking part in ritual worship can do as Amos says - subsume the self into the corporate, which I said before is important for a church. Evo hand-waving is different because if everyone is waving as the Spirit moves them then they are not taking part in a bigger corporate action in as obvious a way.

---

So where is the middle way? Is there a way of “doing church” which both allows the individual to express the way in which the spirit is touching them, and involves big corporate actions at the same time ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
I feel quite strongly about this after two experiences in particular.

---

I can understand how your experiences have affected your thinking here, and in some ways you may be right. My personal reaction, however, is that although, yes, the type of “spirit-lead” worship to which I am used can go badly wrong, it is important to try and allow God to have His way with a congregation as with an individual, and hence trying to constrain/control charismatic worship would be disrespectful to His awesome power. Having said that, there are ways in which safeguards can and should be put in place to prevent abuse of this freedom, if a Charismatic Evo congregation is serious about God, rather than just up for a dizzying and weird experience or several. More on this perhaps in the E/P for Beginners thread.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Newman's Own:
With the caveat that my explanations may be awkward, perhaps setting forth a few points may be helpful.

---

Thankyou Newman’s Own for your explanations, which far from being awkward have been most helpful. The confusing thing is that whilst I set out expecting to disagree with you, I mostly found myself nodding and saying “Yes, I’d go with that” as I read your post. Please, everyone, realise, that I am talking from the point of view of my personal theology here, not from an “official” Evangelical standpoint.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Newman's Own:

In a Catholic perspective, we are weak and sinful, but still possess a longing for God. Contrary to what one may think, the focus is .... on intimacy with God that begins here.

---

Leaving aside your comments about heaven for now, partly because I’m not sure where I stand, I would absolutely agree with the idea that whilst we have all sinned, we still all yearn for God, and that the focus of our Christian lives should be an intimacy with God in the now, rather than a completion of a personal checklist of tasks to get us into heaven.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Newman's Own:
If a Catholic asks the intercession of saints, for example, this is by no means any sign of thinking one needs "mediators," or that one cannot "approach God directly." Just as love includes praying for others during this life, our friends in heaven do the same.

---

This is at least, to me, an acceptable explanation of the whole talking to Saints business. Again, I don’t want to sidetrack this thread onto the temporal relation of earth to heaven. Even ignoring that point, I still don’t quite understand this. If I heard of a particularly lovely vicar on the other side of the world, but had never met him, I might admire him, but I would not consider asking him to pray for me as a friend. After all, he doesn’t know me. So, why do you feel close enough to the saints to ask them to pray for you? And, why can’t you ask your loved ones who have gone to heaven ahead of you to pray for you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Newman's Own:

One key Catholic point is that, while Scripture is primary (and, indeed, sacramental... but I'd best not get off on that tangent), divine revelation is dynamic.

---

OK, so I’m a charismatic – at least in theory – and therefore have to agree with the idea of God continuing to reveal stuff to us. And, incidentally, I do think Communion is very important. Where possible, I like to take communion once a week. This is partly because I believe Jesus commanded us to remember him in this way, and partly because I feel that through Communion the Spirit can work within us, and reveal Christ to us more clearly – partly because this is an act we perform in obedience to him. I know this isn’t the same as believing in the Real Prescence, but it may be as close as I can get.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Newman's Own:
Catholicism does not see one's prosperity (health, worldly goods, whatever) as an indication of divine favour or its lack.

---

Nor in any healthy form should Protestantism (IMO).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
Lex orandi lex credendi!

---

The whole question of the differences and similarities between the terms High Church and Anglocatholic have left me entirely confused I'm afraid, so I shall leave you all to decide what’s what!

In the meantime, some more questions:

1) What do ACs think about Mary, and how does this differ from the RC viewpoint?
2) Do any AC churches have confessionals, like RC churches do?
3) What is the significance of (a) processions, (b) alters and (c) rood screens?

Thanks again for all your help,

All the best,

Rachel.
 

Apologies about the High Church/Anglo-Catholicism confusion. I knew I shouldn't have trod there. To the vast majority, High Church and Anglo-Catholic are synonymous.

However (as with everything) there are exceptions. I wonder if our Edward (sacred trois) would describe himself as Anglo-Catholic but not High.

And there are some High Churchmen who uphold ceremonial, sacramentalism (and are usually Prayer-Book fanatics) who would not describe themselves as "catholic".

But that's all esoterica.

HT
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
I wonder if our Edward (sacred trois) would describe himself as Anglo-Catholic but not High.

---

I was gonna answer this post ... but then i got high ...

oooohoooo

<ahem>

Sorry.

I think I am probably both. I am just very liberal liturgicaly.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rachel_o:
The whole question of the differences and similarities between the terms High Church and Anglocatholic have left me entirely confused I'm afraid, so I shall leave you all to decide what’s what!</QB>
Rachel, even those of us who call ourselves Anglo-Catholic or High Church can be equally confused!

[QUOTE][QB]
1) What do ACs think about Mary, and how does this differ from the RC viewpoint?
2) Do any AC churches have confessionals, like RC churches do?
3) What is the significance of (a) processions, (b) alters and (c) rood screens?

---

In answer to one question that I did not quote - I'm afraid I'm at loss to explain it, but I do feel very close to our heavenly friends - and not only those "raised to the altars," but my personal friends whose earthly lives have ended.

Mary: Many of us are devoted to her, as you would see from other threads on the Ship. However, we are not likely to accept all of the RC dogmas related to Mary - Immaculate Conception, Assumption - and, even amongst those who do, would not want to see anything imposed as an article of belief that does not have a scriptural basis. By contrast (well, at least in theory), RCs must accept these dogmas as a part of divine revelation.

Many Anglicans find sacramental confession valuable (as I do), but there is no obligation of confession in the Anglican Church. Roman Catholics, if they are conscious of a grave sin committed with full reflection and consent, are supposed to make sacramental confession of the sin before they next take Holy Communion (or at least make their act of contrition with the intention of making sacramental confession.) Some Anglo-Catholic churches do have the Roman-style confessional (St Mary's, Bourne Street, for example)... quite frankly, one Roman furnishing that I do not miss. (Part of what is strengthening in the action of sacramental confession is the sense of not being alone with the grief - and there aren't too many places where one feels more alone than in a close, dark box where one cannot even see the priest.)

The rest I'll leave to others on the board - who are far more tat-expert than I.
 

quote:

---

The whole question of the differences and similarities between the terms High Church and Anglocatholic have left me entirely confused I'm afraid, so I shall leave you all to decide what’s what!

---

It's left me fairly confused too. To further muddy the waters, I'd describe myself as quite High, and Catholic even, but I'm not an Anglo-Catholic.

I think the problem is how we are using the terms. To me, Anglo-Catholic implies the tat and the concern with ritual which leaves me cold, though I love liturgy and theologically I'm quite high in that I'm sacramental and my spirituality is more Catholic than anything. I think that HT's position might be similar from what he's said but he's using AC in a different way to me, I think we may even be using High and Anglo-Catholic the opposite way around.

Does that make any sense? Or have I just confused you all further?

Carys
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Ruth W:

I'm totally confused on the Long Beach churches. I now think All Saints is A./C. with a twist of evangelicalism. Is St. Luke's the big neo-gothic pile that used to have a boy choir? Years ago, when I visited it, I had the impression that it was quite high, yet I have a feeling that it is your church, unless you are a baseball fan and attend St. Thomas.

Greta

---

Greta, you seem to know Long Beach's Episcopal Churches quite well!

St. Thomas' lost its chief Dodger fan -- Greg Larkin was called to St. Columba's in Camarillo earlier this year. All Saints are Baptists with liturgy. I go to St. Luke's, which is a neo-gothic pile that used to have a fantastic boys' choir.

And I thought we were comparatively high, but I'm not sure since my experience is so limited. And what is generally described as high-church practice in MW sounds like what we do at Christmas, Easter and Pentecost, not every Sunday. We have Evensong monthly, if that counts for being high. When I was out of town last Christmas the Christmas Eve service I went to made me realize that not everyone knows how to put on the elaborate formal service -- I had taken it for granted.

Greta and Spike: Thank you for the recommendations of AC places with tat -- I'll check one of them out and see how my parish compares.
 

(Oh, goodness, now you all are perfectly equipped to zero in on me, because there is only one Episcopal church between New York and Boston that does.)

Rumor has it that occasionally the sisters from a nearby R.C. convent bring their novices here to see the confessionals, all the while stage-whispering, "This is how it USED to be!"

I'm not certain how often they are used. I myself am preparing for sacramental confession---my first, at age 32!---and I know I'd really rather not go in there. It does seem as though it would not help any with what promises to be a very intense encounter.
 

St Luke's Evanston has a few shoved in the transepts -- I've never seen them used.

Sacramental confession is probably one of those things that divides a High Churchman from an Anglo-Catholic.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:

Sacramental confession is probably one of those things that divides a High Churchman from an Anglo-Catholic.

---

Yes,I think you're right.I wouldn't say I would never use it,but the matter would have to be serious.I wouldn't do it on a regular basis.
However the C-i-W has a form of Confession in its BCP and the practice seems to be retained in the Order of the Visitation of the Sick in 1662.It is also mentioned in one of the Exhortations at the 1662 Eucharist,IIRC
 

quote:

---

However the C-i-W has a form of Confession in its BCP and the practice seems to be retained in the Order of the Visitation of the Sick in 1662.It is also mentioned in one of the Exhortations at the 1662 Eucharist,IIRC

---

Well in the introduction to the form of confession in the C-i-W BCP (1984) it says, 'The practice of confessing to God in the presence of a Priest, under the seal of secrecy, was retained at the Reformation in the Book of Common Prayer and in subsequent revisions of that book'. I discovered this yesterday when I started reading the tables and rules and things in the BCP (1984), though not having an English BCP I can't look and find these forms in it.

I doubt I'd ever use auricular confession regularly but I like the BCP(1984)'s explanation of it's use, 'Those who fail by themselves to find peace of mind can, if penitnt, be assured of God's forgiveness through the exercise of this ministry. Here, too, is the opportunity to ask for informed counsel when in doubt or difficulty.'

Carys
 

Carys
 

Having been brought up a Crade Catholic, we were made to go to confession at school regularly. What the Nuns told us and what the ordinal says may be different, but we were given cards on which to write out our sins, so we wouldn't forget to mention them in the confessional. Horrid as it may seem, it is a sobering experience. Spending some time doing this, and then actually having to say your sins out loud may not affect God's forgiveness, but it certainly increaces one's own penitence!
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:

...I thought about the reaction of most of the C-i-W priests I know, were I to go to them and ask whether I could make use of this form in the prayer book. Seeing as the majority are evangelical .. it would be interesting .. though one of them likes the prayer book a lot so might accept it as it's there ...

---

In the days of the Church Traveller's Directory, with its useful DSCR coding, there were some funny outliers: most, as far as I recall, were unexpected C's, and were signs of strict prayer book incumbents.

For instance, my local parish church has a rather dated notice reciting the prayer book rubric and indicating that after evening prayer on Saturdays a priest will be available; so used to appear as SC in the Directory.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by american piskie:
In the days of the Church Traveller's Directory, with its useful DSCR coding, there were some funny outliers: most, as far as I recall, were unexpected C's, and were signs of strict prayer book incumbents.

---

Is this in some sort of code?

What was the Church Traveller's Directory

What is DSCR coding

What is an unexpected C?

You have lost me. Well done.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
Sorry for the double post, but having posted the above I thought about the reaction of most of the C-i-W priests I know, were I to go to them and ask whether I could make use of this form in the prayer book. Seeing as the majority are evangelical - and often strongly so - I think it would be interesting (and probably amusing), though one of them likes the prayer book a lot so might accept it as it's there, another, I suspect, would be utterly horrified!

Carys

---

I assume that what you mean is that the majority of the priests you know are evangelicals, not that the majority of CiW priests are evangelicals, which is very far from the truth.
 

The code is as follows:

D = Daily Mass
S = Sung Mass every Sunday
C = regular tmes for confession
R = Reserved Sacrament

A DSCR chucrh is what one would normally be looking for, but if in desperate straits one would make do with an SCR or less.
 

However I think it would be rather fun to update this with a simple website. Anyone want to Poll all those churches?
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sacredthree:
I fear some of our less elated parishinors would baulk at C.

---

"elevated"?

presumably the more elated members would find themselved less in need of confession?
 

What's this I hear about the newly-ordained not being allowed to administer auricular confession for three years after ordination? Is that true? If so, why? How 'hard' a rule is it? Does that mean if s/he does then the absolution pronounced is not proper, even though it comes from one in holy orders?

Also, I noticed a while ago in one of the ECUSA prayerbooks (19??) there's a version of Confession to be used if the person being confessed to is lay. How common is this, what's its status, and is there anything similar in England?

And another thing... ... where do the forms of sacramental confession in England come from - are they fully written up somewhere, like in the US?
 

quote:

---

I assume that what you mean is that the majority of the priests you know are evangelicals, not that the majority of CiW priests are evangelicals, which is very far from the truth.

---

I did indeed mean the majority of those I know, which isn't a very large sample I will admit! It's the effect of living in a very Evangelical parish with the C-i-W for the past 4 years, I suspect it's given me a slightly distorted view of yr Eglwys yng Nghymru!

Carys
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen:
Now does SacredThree make spelling mistakes or typos?
I have often wondered.....

---

I make "braino's" where my mind is moving ahead of my rather poor typing skills, but my spelling is in general below standard, and my reading / written vocab far exceeds the number of words I can actually pronounce. I think its something to do with the way I read.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
What's this I hear about the newly-ordained not being allowed to administer auricular confession for three years after ordination? Is that true? If so, why? How 'hard' a rule is it? Does that mean if s/he does then the absolution pronounced is not proper, even though it comes from one in holy orders?

Also, I noticed a while ago in one of the ECUSA prayerbooks (19??) there's a version of Confession to be used if the person being confessed to is lay. How common is this, what's its status, and is there anything similar in England?

---

Why not ask The Boy tomorrow Joan? I can't imagine he would let a little thing like that stand in his way.

Cosmo
 

Oddly enough, I have the same problem - but only on bulletin boards. (Plenty of pronunciation problems... but my writing tends to be impeccable, complete with Chancery Italic script.) Yet, when I type in this little message box, my most common error is in confusing words which sound the same - I often type "their" instead of "there," for example. I have more words mis-spelled on this board than I probably have in my life.

sigh: God's getting back at me for the days when I was an even bigger intellectual snob, and used to say that murdering the Queen's English should be a capital offense.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Newman's Own:
Oh, Edward and Stephen, look what you started! (Translation: I shall not be scolded by the moderator for taking a thread off track!..this time.)

---

[grin]

Any chance of this thread getting marginally back on track?

bb
----
MW Host
 

Oh, and bb:

quote:

---

Originally posted by babybear:
[grin]

Any chance of this thread getting marginally back on track?

bb
----
MW Host

---

...Nah
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:

What's this I hear about the newly-ordained not being allowed to administer auricular confession for three years after ordination? Is that true? If so, why? How 'hard' a rule is it? Does that mean if s/he does then the absolution pronounced is not proper, even though it comes from one in holy orders?

---

There's nothing in Canon B29 (Of the Ministry of Absolution) about this, except that those without a cure of souls in the technical sense need permission to exercise such a ministry in a regular way, and I think Bishops and Incumbents don't give such permission to novices for the obvious reasons. (The BCP and Canons both insist on the need for a Discreet Minister, and discretion is hard-won.) Irregularity, I imagine, won't affect validity unless it has been connived at. There is specific authority for death-bed absolutions.

Those with a cure of souls, of course, are bound by the Canons to "provide opportunities for their parishioners to resort to [them] for spiritual counsel and advice". A parish priest who doesn't offer the big "C" can't honestly take h-er/is stipend, no matter how ecstatic it makes the flock. It's not a negotiable part of the parochial ministry.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by american piskie:
Those with a cure of souls, of course, are bound by the Canons to "provide opportunities for their parishioners to resort to [them] for spiritual counsel and advice". A parish priest who doesn't offer the big "C" can't honestly take h-er/is stipend, no matter how ecstatic it makes the flock. It's not a negotiable part of the parochial ministry.

---

american piskie

"Spiritual counsel and advice" sounds to me like advice (said twice). Why does it have to include confession?

Canon B29 (2), as you have said, sugggests those wishing to confess to a priest should find a discreet one, it doesn't suggest that the parish priest is automatically to be the one confessed to.
 

Sorry to have been missing from thread for so long - I have been working far too hard and simultaneously going to too many parties, and hence haven't had time to post. You all seem to have found some lovely tangents to play with in my abscence however!

About confessionals:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:

I doubt I'd ever use auricular confession regularly but I like the BCP(1984)'s explanation of it's use, 'Those who fail by themselves to find peace of mind can, if penitnt, be assured of God's forgiveness through the exercise of this ministry. Here, too, is the opportunity to ask for informed counsel when in doubt or difficulty.'

Carys

---

If auricular confession is thought of in this way, I can't see that most of the evangelical churches at my end of the sprectrum would object. A fairly frequent use for the "time of ministry" in a service is for people to come and "speak out" things that they need to confess and then be prayed for by a trained person. This person will then also give advice if they feel prompted to do so. I can't see what the actual difference is between this and the practice you have dexcribed, except that in our case the trained person doesn
t have to be a vicar - it can be a lay worker at the church or an experienced member of the congregation. However, a minister is generally available if (a) the prayee would rather talk to them or (b) the prayer feel out of his/her depth.

So much for confessionals then.

May I remind you all that I still want to know about (a) processions, (b) alters and (c) rood screens?

Also, are there any churches which actually do combine the styles and theologies? For instance, I think it was Edward (S3) who talked somewhere about speaking in tongues, as something that had been done by Catholic people for centuries. I know this is true, and it is one of the (many) reasons why I don't like the cessationist viewpoint on the Charismata. The same is, I suspect, true about visions, prophecy, dreams etc. Are there any AC churches out there which actively encourage the use of these gifts whilst still maintainging their traditions? If so, how are the 2 kept in balance?

All the best,

Rachel.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

"Spiritual counsel and advice" sounds to me like advice (said twice). Why does it have to include confession?

Canon B29 (2), as you have said, sugggests those wishing to confess to a priest should find a discreet one, it doesn't suggest that the parish priest is automatically to be the one confessed to.

---

I had wondered about this, but concluded that one had to read the Canons together, specially when they use almost identical phrases.

B29(2) indicates that those who "cannot quiet their own conscience .... come to ... a .. minister.. that [they] may receive the benefit of absolution together with ghostly comfort and advice." Canon B29(4) restricts this ministry ordinarily to those with a cure of souls in the place.

So when C24(6) obliges those with a cure of souls to "provide opportunities ... for spiritual counsel and advice" I suppose it is speaking about the same sort of thing as Canon B29. Even if "confession" were not the dominant theme of such an interchange, it would, all the same, be what is casually called "Confession", and absolution would often be part of the package.

I don't think you'd want to argue that the incumbent should "offer opportunities for spiritual counsel and advice" while making it clear that absolution definitely wouldn't be on offer? If that were to be done, how would an ordinary parishioner know that there's a Club Class option for those in the know?

I agree about the freedom of choice enjoyed by the troubled and perplexed: though Canon B29 does seem to suppose that those with a cure of souls are the ordinary ministers or at least regulators of this ministry. But my point was really that those with a cure of souls have no choice: this is as normal and obligatory a part of their public ministry as marrying and burying parishioners; and to "offer opportunities" requires some positive effort on the incumbent's part. If a notice or announcement produces opposition, then it's got to be faced down: sorry guv, part of my job-description.
 

I think I follow your argument (a comment on my lack of brain power, not your argument).

Now I think that I don't entirely agree with your view, but I'm far from certain that I thinkyou're wrong either. Part of the problem is ascertaining exactly what is meant by terms like "offer opportunity" and "counsel" (ghostly or otherwise - and what a lovely phrase) and partly it's a result of the Canons talking about the same or similar things in two different places. Being our dearly-beloved CofE, I suppose a straightforward "this is the way it is" would be out of the question.

Thanks for the further explanation. I shall go away and think about it further.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rachel_o:

About confessionals:

except that in our case the trained person doesn
t have to be a vicar - it can be a lay worker at the church or an experienced member of the congregation.

---

All very well, but a priest of the Church of England, unlike a lay worker, has authority committed to him to absolve sins. Look at
the Visitation of the Sick in your Prayer Book.

A rood screen is necessary if the celebrant wants to comply properly with the "north side" rubric in the order for the administration of the Lord's Supper.
 

My parish barely rates "anglo-catholic" in some definitions here: only SR and C on offer... I wish we had D... But we are bells and smells to the ceiling and theologically we are catholic to the nth degree. *sigh* Let's just sit on the Anglican fence on this one, shall we, and not start picking apart the infinite gritty details about what makes one High or A-C...

*sigh* *sob sob* I would like to be anywhere where regular auricular confession and good spiritual directors are plentiful. Sydney is such a barren wilderness... And our *ahem* A-C community is so small and everyone knows each other... I mean, hell, we have shared parish retreats and joint pilgrimages to Santiago de Compostela. All 3 or so of us parishes in the inner suburbs (the most active and integrated).

*sigh* I am sooo ready to give up.
 

Hang in there, honey.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by laudian:
A rood screen is necessary if the celebrant wants to comply properly with the "north side" rubric in the order for the administration of the Lord's Supper.

---

You're probably waiting for someone to ask, "Why?" So I shall oblige.

Why?