|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Eccles: Getting to grips with Anglo-Catholicism
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
I guess this displays my ignorance as much as anything else....
There aren't many ACs around here, and I don't know many personally, but there seem to be hordes of you on the Ship.
I was wondering what makes you tick.
How do you find the balance between the emphasis on tradition and developing and improving that tradition?
What is the emphasis of the life of the church?(obviously sharing the bread and the wine is a huge part)
Why Canterbury rather than Rome?
How do you see the role of the ordained person? Why do you call them "Father"?
Are there typical doctrinal stances on e.g. women's ordination, homosexuality? I'd thought that ACs were pretty conservative on those things, but I've got the impression that's not always the case here....
[ 14. May 2007, 14:21: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sacristan
Shipmate
# 3548
|
Posted
Improving the tradition?
--------------------
More abomination, more abomination
Posts: 1008 | From: West of Gotham | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
I guess this displays my ignorance as much as anything else....
There aren't many ACs around here, and I don't know many personally, but there seem to be hordes of you on the Ship.
I was wondering what makes you tick.
How do you find the balance between the emphasis on tradition and developing and improving that tradition?
Tradition? - There are certain things in the church that you could call "Tradition" some of them I really don't like, but other people do, I find that tradition can actually stop change and mean that any change in the church either doesn't ever get changed or a very poor comprimise has to be made.
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
What is the emphasis of the life of the church?(obviously sharing the bread and the wine is a huge part)
The "bread and the wine" is called the Eucharist/Mass and we don't believe that it's "bread and wine" it is the body and blood of Jesus Christ - I think the emphasis of the life of the church is the life within the church. Anglo Catholic Churches tend to have a big outreach to both the rich and the poor, most AC churches that I know will be in use most of the week with both Sacred and Secular activities, Weekday Mass is practised in most AC churches, soup run (in my parish), pilgramages, luncheon clubs.
The Church is there for people, it is there from the beginning (Baptism), through the teenage years (First Communion and Confirmation), When you get married (Marrage), when you do something wrong (Reconciliation) and every other festival and sunday when you go to Mass, right to the end (Funeral)
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
Why Canterbury rather than Rome?
Ah - for me I have no choice, and when I am older I probably will convert to Roman Catholicism!
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
How do you see the role of the ordained person? Why do you call them "Father"?
To me, priests are pretty normal people, they swear when they do something stupid, they know good jokes and they are good friendly people.
But they have been called by God to be priests, I have always understood calling a priest "Father" because we belong to a church family and the leader of the family is the father, and because a priest is the leader of the church family, we should call him father - I'm not sure if that is entirely accurate, I was just told that when I used to go to Sunday School!
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
Are there typical doctrinal stances on e.g. women's ordination, homosexuality? I'd thought that ACs were pretty conservative on those things, but I've got the impression that's not always the case here....
My Anglo Catholic church doesn't allow women priests, some do though, although my Anglo Catholic priest is liberal when it comes to Homosexual Clergy - as we feel that it is rather cruel to outcast Homosexuals from the priesthood just because of who they fancy!
I do know another Anglo Catholic Church which takes the complete opposite on Homosexual Priests as the priest of that parish believes that Homosexual priests don't take the bible seriously, so therefore he doesn't approve.
To my knowledge there are some Anglo Catholic Churches that do allow women priests and they refer to their priestesses as "Mother" which confuses me because we call senior nuns "Mother"!
It would be interesting to know about those churches.
-103
[ 05. July 2004, 18:41: Message edited by: The103rd ]
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sacristan:
Improving the tradition?
Well, I very much doubt that Anglo-Catholicism emerged in AD33ish complete with bells in all the right places, correct numbers of candles and scents of incense, etc.
Hence at some point the tradition must have been "improved" from what was previously the case.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
May I be so bold as to say that I think that what Sacristan was perhaps getting at, is not so much the idea that you were trying to convey, but the manner in which you expressed it.
Tradition may develop. It may guide and be guided. 'Improved' implies a deficiency to begin with. The Tradition that has been handed down in the Church traces back to the Apostles and to Christ. The starting point, therefore, cannot have been defective.
I generally have little time for Affirming Catholcism, as I don't see how they can reasonably claim to affirm Catholicism, but they convey this idea quite well in their 'Guidelines for Christian Living today'.
quote:
Catholic tradition is like an organic growth, which remains rooted and fed by the inheritance of the past, but also evolves and adapts to new knowledge and experience, testing the compatibility of the new in the light of the old.
The full text may be found here.
I hope this helps.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
May I be so bold as to say that I think that what Sacristan was perhaps getting at, is not so much the idea that you were trying to convey, but the manner in which you expressed it.
In that case I wholeheartedly apologise for any offence caused. "Developed" or "grown" is a much better way of putting it.
[ 05. July 2004, 21:06: Message edited by: Custard123 ]
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
I guess this displays my ignorance as much as anything else....
There aren't many ACs around here, and I don't know many personally, but there seem to be hordes of you on the Ship.
I was wondering what makes you tick.
How do you find the balance between the emphasis on tradition and developing and improving that tradition?
Tradition is important but it is also living. Thus I don't think that there should be a conflict between tradition and its development.
quote:
What is the emphasis of the life of the church?(obviously sharing the bread and the wine is a huge part)
The Eucharist is very definitely at the heart of (Anglo-)Catholicism. It is where we receive the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.
quote:
Why Canterbury rather than Rome?
In my case, because of various Marian Dogmas, the infallibility of the Pope and the admission of women to the priesthood.
quote:
How do you see the role of the ordained person?
Interesting question, I'm not quite sure whether I can put my thoughts into words on this one. The priest isn't exactly a Leader because that gets the dynamics wrong. Nor is evangelism their primary concern -- they nurture us in our mission. Worship and prayer is important which is why I think the duty of the clergy to say the office is important (although one in which the laity should be encouraged to join).
I see Ordination as a sacrament where the one ordained receives the Spirit to enable them to fulfil this task (and TBH I think those who don't see it as a sacrament but follow the call are very brave or strong because it's such a major responsibility I don't know how they can contemplate it without a sacramental understanding).
quote:
Why do you call them "Father"?
Tradition! TBH, I'm not entirely sure about this one. I know arguments against it better than for it, but I find it works. Calling the vicar Fr X is a good level of formality.
quote:
Are there typical doctrinal stances on e.g. women's ordination, homosexuality? I'd thought that ACs were pretty conservative on those things, but I've got the impression that's not always the case here....
There is a strong grouping within Anglo-Catholicism which opposes the ordination of women. Some are 'impossiblists' (ie women cannot be ordaind) others take the line that the CofE does not have the authority to change Tradition (and personally I do find the Tradition argument the strongest against it) unilaterally (ie without Rome and Constaniople). There are others (and I would include myself in this group) who are strongly in favour of it. At the A-C church I attend, there is an agreement that a woman won't celebrate but women from the congregation have been supported to ordination and we've had female ordinands on attachment (who have functioned as sub-deacons although there are those who have to be warned when this is going to occur). There are those who are strongly against and those strongly for and we muddle along together.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leonato
Shipmate
# 5124
|
Posted
quote:
How do you find the balance between the emphasis on tradition and developing and improving that tradition?
Tradition is important to ACs generally. Consistent worship practice provides a link between worshippers past, present and future which I see as vital. Development comes as part of the development of the church as a whole, both Anglican and universal. To me local novelty and experimentation is not important, long-term universal growth in the church is.
quote:
What is the emphasis of the life of the church?
Much like any church: community, fellowship, worship. Liturgy is central, particularly regular mass and the daily office. Not that I attend them much ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) , but to know they are there.
quote:
Why Canterbury rather than Rome?
Because I'm an Anglican not a Roman Catholic! I don't beleive in transubstantiation, preistly celibacy or male-only preisthood for a start.
quote:
How do you see the role of the ordained person? Why do you call them "Father"?
I'm quite low chuch on this, to me the priest is the person called and trained to do that job. In theory anyone could give communion, but I think it ought to be someone who really understands what they are doing. "Father" is an honourific, and less impersonal that calling someone vicar or pastor.
quote:
Are there typical doctrinal stances on e.g. women's ordination, homosexuality?
No. Anglo-Catholicism is a movement based primarily around worship style and has no single doctrine. Some ACs don't want women as priests, many are liberal on sexuality.
I think ACs are often more liberal because the focus is on worship and tradition. There is little biblicism involved, so anyone who comes to worship God is welcome. Anyone can be an AC - as long as you drink GIN ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
leonato... Much Ado
Posts: 892 | From: Stage left | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
Thanks folks for your responses so far - they've been helpful.
FWIW Carys, I guess it depends what you mean by "sacramental". I'd agree that God equips those he has called by his Spirit, and therefor that those who have been called to be ordained should be doing it in God's strength.
I wouldn't, however, describe ordination as a sacrament (Article 25). I don't think that the ceremony of ordination better equips the person to fulfil the role, but that God does, sometimes doubtless through the ceremony and sometimes not.
Still a bit puzzled on the whole "Father" front (that was one of the reasons I notionally rejected AC as a child).
Also interested as to how traditions come to develop if there is such an emphasis on maintaining them (as there often seems to be in AC).
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fooferan
Shipmate
# 6830
|
Posted
quote:
I see Ordination as a sacrament where the one ordained receives the Spirit to enable them to fulfil this task (and TBH I think those who don't see it as a sacrament but follow the call are very brave or strong because it's such a major responsibility I don't know how they can contemplate it without a sacramental understanding).
We Lutherans have only two sacraments, Baptism and Holy Communion. That is because we use a fairly strict definition of sacrament. It is something
1) instituted by Christ, 2) has earthly elements, 3) the Word of God, and 4) conveys grace in the narrow sense--that is, faith unto eternal life.
Word and Sacrament together are known as the Means of Grace (again, conveying forgiveness, life, and salvation). Fairly traditional or "high" Lutherans tend to think of confession/absolution as a sort of mini-Sacrament, but not a full sacrament as there is no essential earthly element; they sort of fold it in as a continuation of the baptized life lived in the Word.
Ordination is not seen as a Sacrament as it is not salvific. There is no promise from God to bring the priest to salvation via being a priest. Nor are there necessary earthly elements (except the laying on of hands, if you want to see that as an "element".) We do believe that ordination is a solemn and blessed occasion in which the Holy Spirit is poured out or stirred up in a special way to bless and strengthen ministry--but most Lutherans would see even this as an extension of the baptismal blessing and vocation to Christian life.
We also do not believe that the pastor gets "magic fingers" to confect the sacrament. We believe that the validity of the sacrament resides in the proclamation of the Word of promise together with the earthly elements, and it is effective when it is received in faith. It doesn't depend on the presider being ordained--that's just a matter of good order. (I myself have presided at Holy Communion by special permission of the bishop and the parish pastor.)
--------------------
"Who is most true and pleasing to thee then
When she is embraced and open to most men." John Donne
Posts: 186 | From: Guadalajara, Mexico | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
Wow - I think that from those other responses I'm probably the most "Romish" Anglo-Catholic who has just posted!
We have prayers for the Pope (and the Patriarch in Constantinoble) at our masses and we have LOADS of Marian stuff.
As for transubstatiation - I believe in that and I think you'll find that most people who go to my church would believe that! I was taught that at first communion classes and I will always hold onto that (prehaps that's one of the reasons that I might leave)
-103
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
+Chad
Staffordshire Lad
# 5645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
There aren't many ACs around here, and I don't know many personally
You state your location as Manchester, I would have thought there were more than a few A-Cs there! Try looking here, you should be able to find an A-C parish nearby.
Also have a look here. You might find some if you go to the meet!
--------------------
Chad (The + is silent)
Where there is tea there is hope.
Posts: 2698 | From: The Backbone of England | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saviour Tortoise
Shipmate
# 4660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
I wouldn't, however, describe ordination as a sacrament (Article 25). I don't think that the ceremony of ordination better equips the person to fulfil the role, but that God does, sometimes doubtless through the ceremony and sometimes not.
Interestingly, the CofE website section on "what it means to be an Anglican" appears to be in contradiction with the 39 articles on this:
quote:
The two sacraments ordained by Christ himself - Baptism and the Supper of the Lord - are administered with unfailing use of Christ's words of institution, and the elements are ordained by him
Okay. No problem there.
But then we get:
quote:
Central to worship for Anglicans is the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, also called the Holy Communion, the Lord's Supper or the Mass. In this offering of prayer and praise, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ are recalled through the proclamation of the word and the celebration of the sacrament. Other important rites, commonly called sacraments, include confirmation, holy orders, reconciliation, marriage and anointing of the sick.
(Emphasis mine)
I don't have any problem with this statement at all. But it is interesting to see something on the CofE website which (at least very nearly) contradicts the 39 articles!
--------------------
Baptised not Lobotomised
Posts: 745 | From: Bath, UK | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
+Chad
Staffordshire Lad
# 5645
|
Posted
That statement doesn't contradict Article XXV, it explains it.
--------------------
Chad (The + is silent)
Where there is tea there is hope.
Posts: 2698 | From: The Backbone of England | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
I was always taught that there are 7 Sacraments - since when have there only been 2 in the anglican church? Why wasn't I told about it and why do we still practise all 7 sacraments?
-103
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd:
I was always taught that there are 7 Sacraments - since when have there only been 2 in the anglican church? Why wasn't I told about it and why do we still practise all 7 sacraments?
We practice many many rites. Two of them are sacraments instituted by the Lord. Seven of them are, according to Cranmer, "commonly called" sacraments - but aren't really. That's the traditional Anglican position.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
quote:
Why do you call them "Father"?
Tradition! TBH, I'm not entirely sure about this one. I know arguments against it better than for it, but I find it works. Calling the vicar Fr X is a good level of formality.
To be honest I think its's little more than a badge of membership.
Protestants stopped calling priests "Father" as a way of marking themselves off from Roman Catholics. Later on, that part of the CofE that thought of itself as "not really Protestant" started using "Father" because of its Roman associations, as a way of marking themselves as distinct from the majority of Anglicans.
But that's about it. It's more a fashion or a habit or a badge than anything with much doctrinal significance.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
My twopenn'orth:
quote:
How do you find the balance between the emphasis on tradition and developing and improving that tradition?
Tradition is a living thing, and therefore not static. Tradition develops as the Church faces new challenges and grows in the knowledge of God. We are formed and nurtured by the past but not imprisoned by it.
quote:
What is the emphasis of the life of the church?(obviously sharing the bread and the wine is a huge part)
The Eucharist is absolutely central to the life of the Church, as is the daily rhythm of morning and evening prayer and as are the other sacraments. Then, of course, there are the other things that churches do - teaching, pastoral work, outreach, evangelism.
quote:
Why Canterbury rather than Rome?
Papal infallibility would be the short answer. The longer answer would be to say that I believe that the Church is divided not, as I understand Rome's position, that Rome is the Church and the rest of us, at least in some sense, are not.
quote:
How do you see the role of the ordained person? Why do you call them "Father"?
The primary role of bishops, priests and deacons is sacramental, although each of them have important leadership, teaching and pastoral roles. The term Father is a traditional term which reminds us that a good clergy person has a similar relationship with his flock to that of a good Father. (The same applies mutatis mutandis to Mother, for female clergy).
quote:
Are there typical doctrinal stances on e.g. women's ordination, homosexuality? I'd thought that ACs were pretty conservative on those things, but I've got the impression that's not always the case here....
Broadly speaking ACs tend to be less 'liberal' about the ordination of women than homosexuality although that is, of course, a massive generalisation as you will find ACs in the 'pro' and 'anti' camp on both issues. (I am 'pro' on both, as it happens). The unifying issues for ACs tend to be a high view of the Church and of the sacraments (of which, for ACs, there are seven). ACs tend to be doctrinally orthodox - ACism (IMV) makes no sense at all without the doctrines of the incarnation and the trinity.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
Thanks all for your continuing enlightenment of my understanding of AC.
There are large parts of the conurbation of Manchester that are not in the diocese of Manchester. As it happens, I'm in the diocese of Chester.
My problem with calling people "Father" is Matthew 23:8-12....
quote:
"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you will be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted."
And yes, I realise that my occupational title is therefore quite ironic. I assume the ACs have all spotted something I have missed on this. After all, I am frequently a little slow on these things and haven't really thought about this in detail since childhood...
[ 06. July 2004, 12:43: Message edited by: Custard123 ]
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I've yet to meet anyone who insists on addressing his biological father by his given name as it is unscriptural to call him father. Which would be the obvious literal meaning of the passage. Prescient as our Lord was, I find it implausible that he was warning his disciples about the wiles of the Catholic clergy.
Patriarchal authority in antiquity was rather stronger than the authority of a modern father - Roman fathers only lost the right to kill their disobedient children in (IIRC)the reign of the Emperor Constantine. Jesus is using hyperbole to demonstrate that the obedience due to ones Father, which was emphatically that of an inferior to a superior, was therefore relativised by the obedience which is due to God.
[ 06. July 2004, 13:02: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
My problem with calling people "Father" is Matthew 23:8-12....
quote:
"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you will be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted."
And yes, I realise that my occupational title is therefore quite ironic. I assume the ACs have all spotted something I have missed on this. After all, I am frequently a little slow on these things and haven't really thought about this in detail since childhood...
I'm never quite sure what to make of this passage either. However, you notice the irony about the fact that you're profile tells us you are a teacher. Round here, there are quite a few professors -- should Christians not address them as Professor X? Also, I don't know about you but I call my father, father (or at least dad). Thus we don't take this passage literally on a number of fronts but it is frequently pulled out as a reason not to call priests 'father'; this seems somewhat inconsistent to me. I conclude rather tentatively that we're dealing with hyperbole here. The point is that God is our Father and our Teacher and our Rabbi beyond all human fathers, teachers and rabbis. I'm not sure we have to take the bit about not using the terms for humans literally -- at least I know of no part of the Church which has consistently.
As to sacraments, I regard all seven as sacraments but acknowledge a difference between the two dominical 'sacraments of the Gospels' and the five 'commonly-called sacraments'. The first two are directly salvific and normative for all Christians whilst the other five are helpful in the Christian life but not all Christians will experience all of them (indeed for the Romans all 7 is quite difficult -- one would have to enter the priesthood as a widower!).
On Rome or Canterbury, I have to admit that whilst being thoroughly committed to Canterbury myself, I do wonder why places which use the Roman Missal in its entirety (personally I like CW) and pray for 'our Pope' etc remain Anglican. If we use unauthorised liturgy, how can we complain about evangelicals who ditch liturgy entirely? Much as I love the diversity of Anglicanism there are times at which I wish for a bit more adherence to the centre.
Carys
[Cross posted with Callan who said something similar!]
[ 06. July 2004, 13:07: Message edited by: Carys ]
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crotalus
Shipmate
# 4959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ken:
Protestants stopped calling priests "Father" as a way of marking themselves off from Roman Catholics.
Priests (at least secular priests) were not called "Father" until long after the reformation; in mediaeval times they were called "Sir".
Among English recusants priests were addressed as "Mr" until the late nineteenth century. It seems that use of the title "Father" arose at the same time in RC and AC circles. I have indeed heard the opinion maintained that the first English (secular) priest to be called "Father" was Charles Lowder (an anglican - of St Peter's, London Docks)
Posts: 713 | From: near the knacker's yard | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
shareman
Shipmate
# 2871
|
Posted
Sticking in my paddle:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
How do you find the balance between the emphasis on tradition and developing and improving that tradition?
What is the emphasis of the life of the church?(obviously sharing the bread and the wine is a huge part)
I think the two are linked. Tradition, as opposed to traditions, is the faith that has been handed to us. We are not merely a group of people here and now, we are a part of the Communion of Saints, united across time, so our responsibility to each other goes across space and time too. We have received something, and as we grow and the Spirit leads us into all truth, we will add to, and sometimes subtract from, that which we will in our turn, pass on. This sense of connectedness across time and space is very important for me.
The Mass is a vital part of this. It is our spiritual food, as the BCP says. In it the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ once and for all offered on the Cross, as it has at every Mass since the beginning. We are not offering a new sacrifice, or even re-offering the sacrifice, it becomes the same sacrifice, and unites us to Christ's sacrifice and to all the others who have offered it in the last 2000 years, and they and the angels join with us to offer it.
I remember reading of a group of Christians captured in North Africa during one of the Roman persecutions. They were captured at Mass, and the soldiers asked them why they insisted on coming together to do this despite the risks. Their answer was: "We must do this. It is what we do. We cannot be Christians without it." Pretty powerful to think that when we offer the sacrifice we are uniting with such people.
quote:
Why Canterbury rather than Rome?
Same as most others, I'm not Roman Catholic. I don't think the Pope is anything more than a bishop, and while I respect him, he isn't my bishop, any more than the Archbishop of Nigeria is my bishop. Being bishop of the capital of the Old Western Roman Empire might give him some authority, though why we should base authority on the structure of an Earthly Empire that the ancient Church was quite at odds with is beyond me, but the Church has bishops, not kings. If I couldn't be Anglican, I'd be Orthodox, not Roman.
As to the other questions, I feel the same as others.
The sacramental life of the Church is vital to my practice of the Faith, and I really wouldn't be able to function fully in my faith if I had to attend a church where the Sacraments were not regularly celebrated, especially the Mass. I'm not dissing other ways of being Christian, but for me, this is a vital point. Our God gives us grace through the small things of His own creation: bread, wine, water, human touch. It's the way He works. He being God, one assumes that He could have redeemed us any way He wanted to, but He didn't. He put on creation, as the Orthodox say, and used the stuff He had created to redeem that creation. It gives me such a strong sense of the presence of God in everything. Very verbose, I'm sorry, but I can't put it any more succinctly, and even then I have the feeling I've left out a lot of what it means to me. I just can't find all the words.
[ 06. July 2004, 13:17: Message edited by: shareman ]
--------------------
Israel also came into Egypt, and Jacob was a stranger in the land of Ham.
Posts: 516 | From: on a rock AND a hard place | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Young fogey
Shipmate
# 5317
|
Posted
quote:
I guess this displays my ignorance as much as anything else....
There aren't many ACs around here, and I don't know many personally, but there seem to be hordes of you on the Ship.
I was wondering what makes you tick.
How do you find the balance between the emphasis on tradition and developing and improving that tradition?
Of course the Solemn (High) Mass wasn't around in A.D. 33 as has been pointed out! Dogma, kerygma, the basic stuff of the faith, doesn't change - and defined doctrines expressing that faith are irrevocable - but other expressions of it can and do, always at a glacial pace.
quote:
What is the emphasis of the life of the church?(obviously sharing the bread and the wine is a huge part)
That there is a body that is the church, not just an association of the like-minded. As the teaching (magisterial) voice of God, guided by the Holy Spirit, it is infallible and sinless, yet paradoxically made up of fallible, sinful people. The part about the Eucharist has been answered.
quote:
Why Canterbury rather than Rome?
I think the answer for most sincere ACs is simply that they were born Anglicans, from the Anglicans they first learnt the Catholic faith and as long as they can practise that faith where they are there's no reason to change, however important the Pope is in theory. As an AC friend (who believes the Pope is the Vicar of Christ) says, St Thomas Aquinas says the good of souls is the No. 1 priority and, owing to Vatican II etc., that's not always possible among the present-day RCs.
quote:
How do you see the role of the ordained person? Why do you call them "Father"?
This is one of the foundation stones of Catholicism, Anglo or otherwise: the apostolic ministry. In short, Jesus ordained the apostles to continue His presence: either they were bishops or something unique above and beyond bishops. Anyway, they ordained the first bishops who ran the local churches and celebrated the Eucharist ('the breaking of the bread') for them on Sundays. Then these ordained deacons to do charitable work, and when local churches (dioceses) grew too big for the bishop to celebrate the Eucharist for the whole community, the bishop ordained presbyters (elders)/priests to share in that aspect of his ministry, representing him at the local (parish) church.
The 'father of the family' analogy is a good one. The Book of Common Prayer calls the bishop 'reverend father in God'. To borrow an explanation from the Eastern Orthodox, he has that title in his own right as successor to the apostles - priests are given it as a courtesy because they represent him.
Just like strictly speaking there is only one Priest in Christianity, Christ, and bishops and priests share in that priesthood. When we talk about priests, plural, as in Frs Smith and Jones, we're using shorthand.
The history of calling priests 'Father' is varied. Getting back to the Orthodox, they not only call all priests that but also deacons and full-fledged monks not necessarily priests. In the Western Church for a long time only priests who were monks or members of religious orders were called that. In non-English-speaking countries it's still so, AFAIK - a French priest is Monsieur l'Abbé, right? Spanish and Italian ones are Don Antonio, for example. Padre Antonio would be a monk.
In English 'Father' wasn't unknown among Protestants. Back in penal times (when RCs were persecuted), RC priests went by 'Mister' while at the same time, in the northern American colonies, there were Congregational ministers who went by 'Father'.
What happened among RCs in the 1800s was the Irish called all priests 'Father' and, after RC emancipation, the usage spread, including among Anglo-Catholics for the reasons given in this thread. Party badge? Quite right but with loads of doctrine behind it.
quote:
Are there typical doctrinal stances on e.g. women's ordination, homosexuality? I'd thought that ACs were pretty conservative on those things, but I've got the impression that's not always the case here....
Putting on my asbestos suit and risking sliding into Dead Horses territory, let's talk about these.
As has been written here, because ACs identify primarily with RCs and also with the Orthodox as parts of the Church Catholic, and because the consensus among them officially is that the ordination of women is impossible, genuine ACs oppose it, either for impossibilist or authority reasons.
There are former ACs and mainstream Anglicans who are somewhat high-church in their worship style who accept it - churches where 'Mother Smith' might be the rector.
As for homosexuality, of course historically the AC movement has had many homosexual men in it, both for its ćsthetics and its erudition. Part of its charm and its worldly-wise sophistication - such has been around since the fall of humanity and all are loved and welcome in God's house.
That said, real ACs, a rare breed, don't make excuses for the practice by altering the liturgy, the preaching, the advice in the confessional or the catechetical instruction to say it's acceptable.
As for ACism being only a worship style, to paraphrase Flannery O'Connor, if that's all it is then I say to hell with it.
ACism's 19th-century founding fathers, the Oxford Movement divines, like their High Church forebears, were concerned first and foremost with doctrine and not much if at all with ceremonial! They worshipped much like other Anglicans, the only difference being perhaps they were more conscientious about wearing the surplice and other things called for in the Prayer Book. The adoption of Roman Catholic ceremonial (actually called for technically in the Ornaments Rubric of the Prayer Book) was by their followers later.
As for the numbering of the sacraments, it was fluid throughout much of the church's history until the reaction to the Protestants in the 1500s - there were medićval Catholics who thought there were as many as 20! I think with Trent the number and which ones were pinned down to seven and the ones all Catholics know today; the Orthodox, reacting to the RCs reacting to the Protestants, adopted the same reckoning, proving they are part of the great Catholic family.
--------------------
A conservative blog for peace
Posts: 961 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
Still thinking about the "Father" issue.
I think Matt 23 is talking about two (linked) things:
- we shouldn't aim to be in positions of leadership to make us feel better than others (with titles as a part of that). Leaders should serve.
- we shouldn't treat leaders as if they are qualitatively better than us - we should avoid giving them "guru" status
I guess that sets limits on what is meant, whatever we call ordained people.
quote:
Originally posted by shareman:
Sticking in my paddle:
The Mass is a vital part of this. It is our spiritual food, as the BCP says. In it the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ once and for all offered on the Cross, as it has at every Mass since the beginning. We are not offering a new sacrifice, or even re-offering the sacrifice, it becomes the same sacrifice, and unites us to Christ's sacrifice and to all the others who have offered it in the last 2000 years, and they and the angels join with us to offer it.
That's interesting, partly because it clashes with what I vaguely remember thinking about ACs and RCs. Though I think I'd want to say that we don't offer it - Christ does. Is that type of belief (that it's a participation in Christ's once for all sacrifice rather than a re-offering of it) common among ACs?
Note - I'm actually one of those who think that the breaking of the bread is a beneficial, efficacious and vital act of remembrance of what Jesus did, but that the only sacrifice we offer is our lives in response to the sacrifice that Jesus has already offered. I strongly suspect this is straying into Dead Horses though, so I'll stop.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crotalus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ken:
Protestants stopped calling priests "Father" as a way of marking themselves off from Roman Catholics.
Priests (at least secular priests) were not called "Father" until long after the reformation; in mediaeval times they were called "Sir".
If so, then the first part of my supposition could not be true. Though its hard to see why a fashion emerging amongst Anglo-Catholics would spread so quickly over the Roman church - were not priests called "Father" in French and Spanish and other languages? So English-speaking Roman Catholics might have loan-translated from those languages?
Even so, the the second part could be and I suspect is true. Most Anglicans & other Protestants feel uneasy about "Father" because it sounds Roman Catholic to them. And Anglo-Catholics keep it up for the same reason.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Young fogey:
Putting on my asbestos suit and risking sliding into Dead Horses territory, let's talk about these.
As has been written here, because ACs identify primarily with RCs and also with the Orthodox as parts of the Church Catholic, and because the consensus among them officially is that the ordination of women is impossible, genuine ACs oppose it, either for impossibilist or authority reasons.
There are former ACs and mainstream Anglicans who are somewhat high-church in their worship style who accept it - churches where 'Mother Smith' might be the rector.
That's not "risking sliding into". That's diving in from the high board. So I guess it will have to go unanswered here.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Young fogey:
Putting on my asbestos suit and risking sliding into Dead Horses territory, let's talk about these.
As has been written here, because ACs identify primarily with RCs and also with the Orthodox as parts of the Church Catholic, and because the consensus among them officially is that the ordination of women is impossible, genuine ACs oppose it, either for impossibilist or authority reasons.
There are former ACs and mainstream Anglicans who are somewhat high-church in their worship style who accept it - churches where 'Mother Smith' might be the rector.
So those who disagree with you on this issue are not 'genuine ACs'? Thank you very much. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) There is genuine disagreement amongst ACs on this matter.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
An issue on which tradition-believing ACs may differ? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
From the different posts and comments - there are many different strains of ACV (Anglo Catholic Virus )
I think that I probably have the ACTTRCAP strain of it.
ACTTRCAP stands for "As close to the Roman Catholics as possible"
-103
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Young fogey
Shipmate
# 5317
|
Posted
As you probably know behind your rhetoric, Carys, I agree with the Church Catholic - that's what matters, not me - and apparently you don't. I'm sure this has been covered in Dead Horses.
[ 06. July 2004, 15:28: Message edited by: Young fogey ]
--------------------
A conservative blog for peace
Posts: 961 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
As neither Rowan Williams, nor Pope John Paul II appear to be 'proper Catholics' in the eyes of Young Fogey, Carys, I suggest that we are in good company.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Do I hear the skirl of the bagpipes of a True Scotsman?
The traditional musical accompaniment of the Charge of the Dead Horse Brigade.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Young fogey:
As you probably know behind your rhetoric, Carys, I agree with the Church Catholic - that's what matters, not me - and apparently you don't.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Young fogey:
As you probably know behind your rhetoric, Carys, I agree with the Church Catholic - that's what matters, not me - and apparently you don't. I'm sure this has been covered in Dead Horses.
The branch of the Church Catholic of which I am a part ordains women to the priesthood.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leonato
Shipmate
# 5124
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Young Fogey:
As has been written here, because ACs identify primarily with RCs and also with the Orthodox as parts of the Church Catholic, and because the consensus among them officially is that the ordination of women is impossible, genuine ACs oppose it, either for impossibilist or authority reasons.
I'll try and skate around the obvious hellish/dead horse issues of claiming some of us aren't "genuine" ACs.
It seems that there are essentially two kinds of Anglo-Catholic:
The ANGLO-Catholics are definitely Anglicans, with all that entails. They will, thus, usually support women priests, prefer BCP / CW services and possibly be slightly uncomfortable with some of the more Marian activities of some ACs (I know I am).
They are Anglicans who happen to worship in a more catholic way.
Anglo-CATHOLICS are what Young Fogey describes. They see themselves as catholic first. They just happen to be Anglicans by chance or by birth. They are unlikely to support women priests as it isn't Catholic doctrine. They might prefer Roman Rite services etc.
Most AC churches probably have a mix of the two kinds. I think both are equally genuine forms of Anglo-Catholicism.
--------------------
leonato... Much Ado
Posts: 892 | From: Stage left | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by corpusdelicti:
quote:
Originally posted by Young Fogey:
As has been written here, because ACs identify primarily with RCs and also with the Orthodox as parts of the Church Catholic, and because the consensus among them officially is that the ordination of women is impossible, genuine ACs oppose it, either for impossibilist or authority reasons.
I'll try and skate around the obvious hellish/dead horse issues of claiming some of us aren't "genuine" ACs.
It seems that there are essentially two kinds of Anglo-Catholic:
The ANGLO-Catholics are definitely Anglicans, with all that entails. They will, thus, usually support women priests, prefer BCP / CW services and possibly be slightly uncomfortable with some of the more Marian activities of some ACs (I know I am).
They are Anglicans who happen to worship in a more catholic way.
Anglo-CATHOLICS are what Young Fogey describes. They see themselves as catholic first. They just happen to be Anglicans by chance or by birth. They are unlikely to support women priests as it isn't Catholic doctrine. They might prefer Roman Rite services etc.
Most AC churches probably have a mix of the two kinds. I think both are equally genuine forms of Anglo-Catholicism.
Hmm - I think I'm the second type of Anglo-Catholic. Prehaps we should be known as "Roman Rite Anglo-Catholics"
If one is uncomfortable with Marian Activities then they are not Catholic - Catholic's say the Rosary and say daily Hail Mary's - that's what Catholics do and that can't be changed. I think that the first lot of ACs that you have described are more "High Church" not Anglo Catholic (That's my opinion, please don't kill me)
One question for you all about Anglo Catholics - why are there Anglo Catholics who are so stubborn about change?
-103
[ 06. July 2004, 16:57: Message edited by: The103rd ]
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd:
One question for you all about Anglo Catholics - why are there Anglo Catholics who are so stubborn about change?
Human nature?
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
shareman
Shipmate
# 2871
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd:
One question for you all about Anglo Catholics - why are there Anglo Catholics who are so stubborn about change?
-103 [/QB]
Oh, you mean like letting priests marry, saying Mass in English, not being in allegiance to the Pope, and all that other difficult Reformation stuff? (The sarcasm isn't meant to be all that nasty, just a little.....frustrated). I guess for some people, change itself isn't felt to be very Catholic, that is to say, they use their "Catholicism" to wrap their Conservative nature in. Now that's probably more than a little simplistic, I guess, but certainly a factor. For me, the Refomation isn't just a little blip that we can hide under the rug. Many of the changes brought in by the Reformation were necessary, and I don't see why we should turn back the clock. I know, it's a fine line, and some would say that claiming the catholicity of the Anglican Church and returning to many Catholic practices, like the veneration of the Mother of God, for instance, is a similar turning back of the clock, but that's another argument.
Another question would be "Why are there so many, AC and otherwise, who seem so obsessed with change, often, apparently, change for the sake of it?
--------------------
Israel also came into Egypt, and Jacob was a stranger in the land of Ham.
Posts: 516 | From: on a rock AND a hard place | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Another question would be "Why are there so many, AC and otherwise, who seem so obsessed with change, often, apparently, change for the sake of it?
Change is good (Oh my gosh, I sound like a McDonald's advert - evil evil evil!)
-103
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote:
103 said:
that's what Catholics do and that can't be changed
So who decides what change is good and what isn't?
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
shareman
Shipmate
# 2871
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd:
quote:
Another question would be "Why are there so many, AC and otherwise, who seem so obsessed with change, often, apparently, change for the sake of it?
Change is good (Oh my gosh, I sound like a McDonald's advert - evil evil evil!)
-103
When liturgical reform was big in these parts, it used to be said that the biggest sin of the Anglican Church was "We've never done it that way before" implying "So we can't do that now." I'd suggest that that statement is still valid, just that it now implies "So let's do it that way, it's new." Fact is, not all change is good, not all conservatism is bad. If change is so good, why is it that Anglo-catholics with such a love for Rome seem to consider that the changes of the Reformation were bad?
Note to Custard123: See what you've started, one of those AC infighting things that are either intensely boring or staggeringly silly to everybody watching.
Note to Seasick: Well, Cosmo or Fiddleback come to mind.
--------------------
Israel also came into Egypt, and Jacob was a stranger in the land of Ham.
Posts: 516 | From: on a rock AND a hard place | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
Genuine development is good. Unwarranted change is not. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
But one man's genuine development is another man's unwarranted change, is it not? One might cite the example of the abomination, er, nave altar.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
Reformation has it's good points and it's bad points.
If it wasn't for the Reformation - the Catholic Church wouldn't have seen the need for Vatican II as it wouldn't have had any other churches to compete with.
Although - we are out of communion with the holy church of Rome - which is a bad thing.
Nave Altars are cool - don't try to annoy me!
-103
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
Geneva Gown ON
The Anglo-catholicism for beginners thread may be of interest to those reading this current thread.
Geneva Gown OFF
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
quote:
103 said:
that's what Catholics do and that can't be changed
So who decides what change is good and what isn't?
Why the Vicar of Christ™ is the only person in authority to change things!
-103
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
Sorry, but you asked for this:
The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
Sorry, but you asked for this:
The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.
Well - I'm a Romish Anglo Catholic and in my eyes, he does!
-103
[ 06. July 2004, 18:19: Message edited by: The103rd ]
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
