Ship of Fools: Protestant Objectors at Walsingham

Thread: Protestant Objectors at Walsingham Board: Ecclesiantics / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=008488

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

On another thread, the National Walsingham Pilgrimage for 2017 is being discussed and the question is asked, “Who are these protestant objectors?”

Well, this persuasion belongs to the umbrella organisation of Walsingham Witness, who were originally low church conservative evangelical members of the Church of England, who took a literal and fundamentalist interpretation of the 39 Articles of Religion in the Book of Common Prayer 1662. They made the National Pilgrimage at Walsingham the occasion to do their protesting, in the belief that many bishops by being present, were being disloyal to their reformed heritage of what is contained in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 39 Articles of Religion. In July 1988, the protesters were present “doing their stuff” when worldwide Anglican bishops were on pilgrimage at Walsingham as part of the Lambeth Conference that year. But today, followers of that persuasion do not belong the Church of England as we know it, for they formed the breakaway C of E (continuing) over such developments as women’s ordination. But not all protesters belong to C of E (continuing); some come from Free Churches, such as Strict and Particular Baptist churches and other extreme protestant evangelical churches like that.

People of that persuasion are living in the 16th century and it does not suit them to admit that the Church has moved on since those days long past. Nor does it suit them to admit that the Roman Catholic Church has changed radically since Vatican2. The 39 Articles are not articles of faith; they are statements dealing with the controversies of a period in history, now long past. To give two examples, “The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England” - but in modern times, two reigning popes have visited the UK and were received very warmly. Another article refers to the right of the State to carry out capital punishment, but in those days, capital punishment was carried out not only for murder. A banner displays that (sic) “The Mass is a dangerous fable and a blasphemous deceit” – quoted not quite correctly.

One banner displays, “No Popery”, but what is that supposed to mean, referring to Anglicans and not Roman Catholics. They mistakenly consider that carrying the image (statue) of Our Lady of Walsingham in procession is idolatrous.

To sum up – adherents and opponents at the Walsingham National, all claim allegiance to Jesus Christ, which is ludicrous!

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Well, perhaps they are concerned that Our Lord is somehow being overlooked, given all the attention being paid to Mary. They forget the times she's mentioned in Scripture, usually in relation to her Son, and/or the early Church.

I must admit that some of the more extreme doctrines (e.g. The Immaculate Conception) or devotions stick in my craw rather, despite the fact that I'm a paid-up member of Our Place's Walsingham Cell. Our little book of readings and propers for OLW Masses (made up of Anglican and RCC material), however, only contains Scripture-based stuff, which fact I doubt the protesters would appreciate.

Maybe they're also jealous of the continued attractiveness of Walsingham to so many people, compared with the tiny numbers supporting their churches? The Church of England (Continuing), for example, boasts only four congregations:

http://cofec.org/

IJ

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

I instanced the Church of England (continuing), but a much older church with similar aims and objectives, is that of the Free Church of England, which broke away from the "official" Church of England in the 19th century. They have two dioceses (Northern & Southern, respectively). They wanted to disassociate themselves from the high church beliefs and practices prevalent at that time, to continue a low church ethos. They have churches and congregations few and far between up and down the country.

Overseas is the Church of England in South Africa, which is similar and is a breakaway from the Church of the Province of Southern Africa, in that part of the Anglican Communion, which has high church leanings.

There may be in existence, other small breakaway churches from "official" Anglicanism.

A further thought about the Walsingham protesters, is that they are making passages of scripture and the 39 Articles, to mean what they would like them to mean, rather than what they are really saying to us.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

The Free Church of England has a fairly long and respectable history, and I can't imagine them trying to disrupt and heckle at Walsingham, however much they might disapprove of Marian devotions.

What do the protesters hope to achieve by their actions? It seems unlikely that any of those taking part in the Procession etc. will suddenly throw down their rosary, tear off their chasuble, and join the C of E (C) or whatever.

IJ

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Does it strike anyone else as curious about that youtube that the protester is proclaiming his message against a backdrop of 'massed' robed Anglo-Catholic clergy all singing Blessed Assurance? That's a famous and popular hymn, one we probably all know well. All the same, I'd put it well down the candle, at the revivalist evangelical end of the spectrum.

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
... A further thought about the Walsingham protesters, is that they are making passages of scripture and the 39 Articles, to mean what they would like them to mean, rather than what they are really saying to us.

As regards both the 39 Articles and the traditions of the CofE, that's the one charge in this argument which I don't really think it's open to the Guardians of the Shrine et al to put. People may have tried. They may even think they have persuaded themselves. But it really is impossible to argue that the 39 Articles are anything other than a fundamentally Protestant document, or that the whole recreation of Walsingham is compatible with the traditions of the CofE as it was from 1558 until at least two generations after 1833.

One can argue that the movement in the C19 out of which Walsingham derived was a good innovation or a travesty. What one can't argue is that it is compatible with either what the post-Reformation CofE stood for, or the 39 Articles.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

You can see here one of the protesters describing the day from their perspective.

The protesters' account of the day

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:

Overseas is the Church of England in South Africa, which is similar and is a breakaway from the Church of the Province of Southern Africa, in that part of the Anglican Communion, which has high church leanings.

There is a strong argument that CESA is the continuing church while CPSA is the breakaway. That argument matters for little though, as it is the CPSA which has the recognition of the rest of the Communion.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
... A further thought about the Walsingham protesters, is that they are making passages of scripture and the 39 Articles, to mean what they would like them to mean, rather than what they are really saying to us.
As regards both the 39 Articles and the traditions of the CofE, that's the one charge in this argument which I don't really think it's open to the Guardians of the Shrine et al to put. People may have tried. They may even think they have persuaded themselves. But it really is impossible to argue that the 39 Articles are anything other than a fundamentally Protestant document, or that the whole recreation of Walsingham is compatible with the traditions of the CofE as it was from 1558 until at least two generations after 1833.

One can argue that the movement in the C19 out of which Walsingham derived was a good innovation or a travesty. What one can't argue is that it is compatible with either what the post-Reformation CofE stood for, or the 39 Articles.

Thanks Enoch

Far more temperate at putting that than I would have been.

By the way from my perspective, and I suspect a fair few 16th Century extreme Protestants, the protestors are straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel.

Jengie

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Enoch:

quote:

As regards both the 39 Articles and the traditions of the CofE, that's the one charge in this argument which I don't really think it's open to the Guardians of the Shrine et al to put. People may have tried. They may even think they have persuaded themselves. But it really is impossible to argue that the 39 Articles are anything other than a fundamentally Protestant document, or that the whole recreation of Walsingham is compatible with the traditions of the CofE as it was from 1558 until at least two generations after 1833.

One can argue that the movement in the C19 out of which Walsingham derived was a good innovation or a travesty. What one can't argue is that it is compatible with either what the post-Reformation CofE stood for, or the 39 Articles.

It;s strange though, that despite the 39 Articles being profoundly anti-Presbyterian/Reformed, nobody protests outside of these churches or their conferences/shrines. Many have argued in the past and still do today, that the 39 Articles are much more vociferous in their denunciation of Presbyterianism/Reformed than they are of Roman Catholicism. Being a former Presbyterian I can say it does tend to slap you up the face when you read it from this perspective.

Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Enoch:

quote:

As regards both the 39 Articles and the traditions of the CofE, that's the one charge in this argument which I don't really think it's open to the Guardians of the Shrine et al to put. People may have tried. They may even think they have persuaded themselves. But it really is impossible to argue that the 39 Articles are anything other than a fundamentally Protestant document, or that the whole recreation of Walsingham is compatible with the traditions of the CofE as it was from 1558 until at least two generations after 1833.

One can argue that the movement in the C19 out of which Walsingham derived was a good innovation or a travesty. What one can't argue is that it is compatible with either what the post-Reformation CofE stood for, or the 39 Articles.

It;s strange though, that despite the 39 Articles being profoundly anti-Presbyterian/Reformed, nobody protests outside of these churches or their conferences/shrines. Many have argued in the past and still do today, that the 39 Articles are much more vociferous in their denunciation of Presbyterianism/Reformed than they are of Roman Catholicism. Being a former Presbyterian I can say it does tend to slap you up the face when you read it from this perspective.

I knew a priest once who saw the 39 Articles as representing the true Via Media of Anglicanism - the middle way, not between Protestant and Catholic, but between Lutheranism and Calvinism.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

I was all set to say as others have said, that the 39 Articles steer a middle course between Roman Catholicism on the one hand, and Calvinism on the other. One word in any part of the BCP you will not find is PROTESTANT. But CATHOLIC (not Roman Catholic) - yes!

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
You can see here one of the protesters describing the day from their perspective.

The protesters' account of the day

The writer is Pastor David Carson, Pastor of Zion Tabernacle, Chester and he is also Chairman of the United Protestant Council. He may well be in overall charge of the Walsingham protesters, as he is seen to be the most dominant amongst them.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Interesting to see how the Fr Jack style priests (think 'Father Ted') reinforce his stereotype by drinking gin and telling him to fuck off ...

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Interesting to see how the Fr Jack style priests (think 'Father Ted') reinforce his stereotype by drinking gin and telling him to fuck off ...

Why do I think that it's a rather dubious paraphrase to say that the priest "complained about us disturbing his gin drinking every year?"

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Ha ha ...

Of course, the priest will only imbibe once a year during his annual pilgrimage to Walsingham ...

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

I went into the shrine grounds before it started and there were quite a lot of priests drinking coffee, but none who reminded me of Father Jack. The ones I saw were full of bonhomie, very effusive in greeting each other.

I think it is perhaps a bit of a clergy day out as the proportion of the total attendance who are priests seemed quite high.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Yes, it is something of a clergy day out. Bear in mind that many of the 'traditionalist' A-C clergy know each other, but their parishes are spread rather thinly across the country, so they don't often get much of a chance to meet n'greet. Same goes for the faithful laity too, of course.

BTW, the correct term for the favoured beverage is GIN.

[Big Grin]

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

The 39 Articles are only anti-reformed in that they state rule by Bishops.

Jengie

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
The 39 Articles are only anti-reformed in that they state rule by Bishops.

Right. They're anti-presbyterian polity. But when it comes to things like sacramental theology, they're pretty consistent with Reformed positions.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

It's also a bit odd that the protesters aren't themselves CofE. Pastor David Carson appears to be the pastor of an independent chapel in Chester. So presumably he thinks there shouldn't be a CofE at all, not even a fiercely proddy one at which all services are 1662, the Quicunque Vult said when it should be said, and the only hymns sung are metrical psalms from Sternhold and Hopkins.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It's also a bit odd that the protesters aren't themselves CofE. Pastor David Carson appears to be the pastor of an independent chapel in Chester. So presumably he thinks there shouldn't be a CofE at all, not even a fiercely proddy one at which all services are 1662, the Quicunque Vult said when it should be said, and the only hymns sung are metrical psalms from Sternhold and Hopkins.

Or to be fair to him, maybe he wouldn't need to belong to an independent chapel if the whole C of E was like that.

But of course I am so glad it isn't.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

Not all independent evangelical churches are anti-Catholic, and my nearest place of worship round the corner from my home is one such church and not a bit anti-Catholic. For the pastor who has just retired, negotiated on friendly terms, with a local Roman Catholic Church about a total-immersion font, for his new church building.

Not to be overlooked, is the existence of The Westminster Confessions of Faith similar to the 39 Articles and I believe these were devised for the Presbyterians. I have taken a cursory glance, and one of these contains red-hot words condemning the pope in no uncertain terms!

As I indicated, Walsingham Witness started for low church evangelical protestant members of the C of E. But others, including Pastor David Carson, have jumped the bandwagon, if you like!

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:

Not to be overlooked, is the existence of The Westminster Confessions of Faith similar to the 39 Articles and I believe these were devised for the Presbyterians. I have taken a cursory glance, and one of these contains red-hot words condemning the pope in no uncertain terms!

Well, you should learn what the anti-Christ language means in 16th Century theological language. It is terminology used of those institutions that usurp the power of Christ. So it is the claim that the Pope is head of the Church Universal and all Christians owe him obedience. In other words if you want to reject that you really should be arguing that the CofE should rejoin the Roman Catholic Church. I somehow do not think the 16th Century divines who wrote the 39 articles meant that. It is a difference in the language not in understanding.

Jengie

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by JJ:

quote:

The 39 Articles are only anti-reformed in that they state rule by Bishops.

I think it would be possible to say that if you didn't see the puritatnism of the age feeding in in any way into Presbyterianism. I believe it does, and in this light the 39 Articles when written had a lot more to say to that sphere than simply, 'let's have bishops'. In fact the debates raged to such an extent that even towards the end of Henry's reign and consistently throughout Elizabeth's reign the 39 Articles were continuously appealed to as a form of tract almost, in opposition to puritanism. Many tracts and apologies were produced during this period to this effect and many still survive. It didn't end with Elizabeth though; it continued (albeit to a lesser extent) into the period of the Restoration. These ones are quite crucial to understanding the anti-Presbyterian sentiment as they appealed to the 39 Articles as a kind of tract of defines for the restoration itself linked to a/the church and as a rejection of the Presbyterian concept of the equality of all people before God, which rightly or wrongly would have probably been considered a threat to the crown at the time.......but I digress.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Puritanism divides in the 17th Century. Half of it remains within the Church of England and half of it goes with the Separatists into Non-Conformity. The Westminster Confession in 1646. Presbyterianism already had the Scots Confession of 1560.

Alright, some political history and why I see Presbyterianism feeding into Puritanism and not the other way around. The Westminster Assembly which is responsible for the Westminster Confession and many other Westminster documents was brought about at the behest of the Scots who Oliver Cromwell had made peace with. One of the conditions was that the English should choose their own church and this was the mechanism by which Oliver Cromwell sought to bring it about. The Westminster Assembly was a mixture of Divines from a variety of persuasions. Some would be low church Anglicans, some would be Puritans (or those who wanted to purify the C of E more towards the lines of the Continental Magisterial Reformation), Some would be Scots Presbyterians (as Scottish Presbyterianism is already a highly codified take on the Continental Reformation and some would be Separatist (who are about as theologically diverse a group of Protestants you can possibly get and largely Congregationalist in polity).

What needs to be remembered is the dominant group in the Westminster Assembly was eventually not the Puritans and the Scots but the Separatists. When they withdrew and put out instead the Savoy Declaration the Westminster Assembly was basically dead in the water. So the only time the English were given the choice of church polity they chose Congregationalism. Some may argue it just took 400 years for the CofE to catch up with what was instituted under Cromwell. Let me quote you from Christ Church Purely Reformed by Philip Benedict which is an examination of Weber's thesis that the Reformation made possible a new type of human:

quote:
While it lasted the Cromwellian church order conferred a uniquely broad, decentralised and antihierarchical disposition on both England and Scotland.

That is a problem to any group who think that polity is divinely inspired whether Presbyterian or Episcopalian. This meant the Puritans were somewhere in between at the Restoration.

When the return of Charles II the Puritan party split. There are several recognised Puritans in the Church of England after that date, most famously Lewis Bayly and J C Ryle.

Jengie

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
You can see here one of the protesters describing the day from their perspective.

The protesters' account of the day

Their pastoral skills seem to be amazing:

quote:
The police sergeant in charge of the policing over thirty years ago and who was always very fair to us came up to renew acquaintance. He retired twenty nine years ago but he often comes specifically to speak to us. We had a long conversation with him about his spiritual condition. He wanted to know where God was when the Manchester bombing took place. He was informed of what Christ said to the disciples said when they informed Him of two tragic events. We told him that the wonder is how God withholds His judgement His judgement in view of the wicked laws that have been passed and the murderous activities of the abortionists.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Let's hope the Walsingham Pilgrimage isn't banned as part of the negotiations between the Prime Minister and the DUP.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

It'll still be allowed, but it'll move to the 12th of July and the banners will be rather different.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Let's hope the Walsingham Pilgrimage isn't banned as part of the negotiations between the Prime Minister and the DUP.

That would be ironic.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Let's hope the Walsingham Pilgrimage isn't banned as part of the negotiations between the Prime Minister and the DUP.
That would be ironic.

I am sure it won't be banned for the reason you give. It was banned in 2001 due to foot-and-mouth. Otherwise, it was banned by Hitler during the WW2 years, about which I am too young to remember.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Don't you mean it was banned (or perhaps temporarily suspended) because of Hitler and his shenanigans?

I wasn't aware that the Fuehrer ever actually had any jurisdiction within this realm of England...

[Paranoid]

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

I've learned that there are ordinands at Ridley Hall who made a point of refusing communion at Little St Mary's (what were they doing there at all, I ask? Some kind of school trip?) calling upon the 39 Articles as their justification.

This same bunch of 39 Articles fanatics, operating in their own chapel, have refused to allow the ordinand who's been looking after the babies in the creche to have a portion of the consecrated Host reserved, on the grounds that that is a violation of said Articles.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Don't you mean it was banned (or perhaps temporarily suspended) because of Hitler and his shenanigans?

I wasn't aware that the Fuehrer ever actually had any jurisdiction within this realm of England...

IJ

I stuck to the word banned as set by the previous poster, perhaps unwisely.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
I've learned that there are ordinands at Ridley Hall who made a point of refusing communion at Little St Mary's (what were they doing there at all, I ask? Some kind of school trip?) calling upon the 39 Articles as their justification.

This same bunch of 39 Articles fanatics, operating in their own chapel, have refused to allow the ordinand who's been looking after the babies in the creche to have a portion of the consecrated Host reserved, on the grounds that that is a violation of said Articles.

I am unclear, exactly what it is you are saying. I presume you mean Little St. Mary's Cambridge, rather than St. Mary's Little Walsingham and both are anglo-catholic. How long ago did this incident occur? Were the victims refused to give communion, or refused to receive communion? Which of the 39 Articles was supposedly violated?

Posted by David Goode (# 9224) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
I've learned that there are ordinands at Ridley Hall who made a point of refusing communion at Little St Mary's (what were they doing there at all, I ask? Some kind of school trip?) calling upon the 39 Articles as their justification.

This same bunch of 39 Articles fanatics, operating in their own chapel, have refused to allow the ordinand who's been looking after the babies in the creche to have a portion of the consecrated Host reserved, on the grounds that that is a violation of said Articles.

Ordinands from Ridley often do a placement at Little St Mary, to give them a taste of that to which they are probably not used. The tale sounds like a bunch of bollocks.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

How could ordinands determine who could have access to the reserved host? Presumably all of them would have had to have had the reserved host, no?

Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on :

I would like to send these Ridley ordinands to Westminster Abbey or to St.Paul;s where they can learn how the Eucharist should be celebrated.
Both churches have the Reservation of the Sacrament.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
I would like to send these Ridley ordinands to Westminster Abbey or to St.Paul's where they can learn how the Eucharist should be celebrated.
Both churches have the Reservation of the Sacrament.

If you don't mind my saying this UC, you are being as dogmatic as they are. There are as much right ways and wrong ways of celebrating the Eucharist as a traditional north end BCP Holy Communion or as a low church Common Worship Order 1 celebration or in a village church, without all the things you might like to see there as there are right and wrong ways of doing so in a cathedral, abbey or minster.

If, though, you were to say that it is a pity if these ordinands cannot use their training as an opportunity to see what might be right or wrong that's outside the comfort zone of the churches they came from before they started their training, and why, then I would agree with you.

[ 13. June 2017, 09:30: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

That being said, I'd still like an explanation of exactly how ordinands can refuse to offer the reserved host to another ordinand. Under what authority can they make that decision?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Yes, I was puzzled by that. If that's really true, rather than that one person criticised another person for doing that, it would be good to know what the context was, and what line the college authorities took.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

The ordinands in question, visiting LSM (Cambridge, not Walsingham), made a point of not receiving the sacrament.
I was told this by a Ridley ordinand who was there, and who did receive. They're a little group within RH right now who are very keen to uphold a Protestantism more conservative than that of the rest of the ordinands, or the current ethos of the Hall. Hence also making the point that nobody who is not present for the distribution of communion in the Ridley Chapel may have it reserved to receive later. This I heard from the ordinand who was in charge of the creche, who would have liked to have been able to receive communion as well as look after babies.

It is possible, David Goode, that despite being in town and at the Faculty, you don't know everything that goes on in Cambridge.

[ 13. June 2017, 13:29: Message edited by: Amos ]

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

The Host at the Lord's Supper at Ridley would only be 'reserved' in the sense that a bit would--or would not-- be saved for the person looking after the creche to have when they came in at the end of the service.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
I've learned that there are ordinands at Ridley Hall who made a point of refusing communion at Little St Mary's (what were they doing there at all, I ask? Some kind of school trip?) calling upon the 39 Articles as their justification.

This same bunch of 39 Articles fanatics, operating in their own chapel, have refused to allow the ordinand who's been looking after the babies in the creche to have a portion of the consecrated Host reserved, on the grounds that that is a violation of said Articles.

Neither the Pope nor Hitler have jurisdiction within this realm of England, but it looks rather like the DUP are claiming to exercise it.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
The Host at the Lord's Supper at Ridley would only be 'reserved' in the sense that a bit would--or would not-- be saved for the person looking after the creche to have when they came in at the end of the service.

So there was a priest officiating who had no opinions as to whether the host could or should be reserved?

Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on :

Are those Evangelical ordinands at Ridley Hall not just as fundamentalistic as their bretheren of the Society of Peter and Paul ?
As if Christ/the Apostles have drawn up the 1662 Communion service or the Tridentine Mass ?
Both liturgies have their merits,however let us be glad and grateful that we are now using rites which are richer and far more in line with the faith of the Undivided Church.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
The Host at the Lord's Supper at Ridley would only be 'reserved' in the sense that a bit would--or would not-- be saved for the person looking after the creche to have when they came in at the end of the service.
So there was a priest officiating who had no opinions as to whether the host could or should be reserved?

Apparently: or one who was opposed to reservation.
I can think of at least one Cambridge Dean of Chapel who would not permit the host to be reserved.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Apparently: or one who was opposed to reservation.
I can think of at least one Cambridge Dean of Chapel who would not permit the host to be reserved.

So, just to get the story straight; you claim that there is a chapel at an Anglican theological college that is exclusively used by a subset of ordinands - who happen to believe that they cannot reserve the sacrament, even to the extent of refusing to give it to someone who is in the creche.

If there was a priest in attendance, why did the host need reserving?

I don't believe this story.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
I've learned that there are ordinands at Ridley Hall who made a point of refusing communion at Little St Mary's (what were they doing there at all, I ask? Some kind of school trip?) calling upon the 39 Articles as their justification.

This same bunch of 39 Articles fanatics, operating in their own chapel, have refused to allow the ordinand who's been looking after the babies in the creche to have a portion of the consecrated Host reserved, on the grounds that that is a violation of said Articles.
Neither the Pope nor Hitler have jurisdiction within this realm of England, but it looks rather like the DUP are claiming to exercise it.

Hitler is no more, but the pope (papacy) is alive and well! "No jurisdiction in this realm of England" - (quotation marks needed, in my opinion) - so says one of the 39 Articles. As I have posted elsewhere, these Articles are not of faith, but statements about how Anglicans felt about the religious state of affairs in one period of history, now long passed.

Firstly, how can a deceased Hitler "have jurisdiction"!? Secondly,in modern times, two popes have visited England and other parts of the UK and both popes were very welcome.

My reference to Hitler banning the pilgrimage, was a bit tongue-in-cheek, as I was sticking to the word banned as set by another poster.

Now I come to think of it, one of the 39 Articles refers to a ban (that word again!) of reservation of the MBS.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

DUP having jurisdiction - how ironic! - as I omitted to say above.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
... "No jurisdiction in this realm of England" - (quotation marks needed, in my opinion) - so says one of the 39 Articles. As I have posted elsewhere, these Articles are not of faith, but statements about how Anglicans felt about the religious state of affairs in one period of history, now long passed.
...in modern times, two popes have visited England and other parts of the UK and both popes were very welcome.

Well, yes, but various forign monarchs aand presidents have visited too, and nobody is suggesting that e.g. the President of Mexico has any jurisdiction here.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Neither the Pope nor Hitler have jurisdiction within this realm of England, but it looks rather like the DUP are claiming to exercise it. [/qb]

quote:

Now I come to think of it, one of the 39 Articles refers to a ban (that word again!) of reservation of the MBS.

Doesn't it just say 'the sacrament of the Lord's supper was not
by Christ's ordinance reserved...' (quoting from memory. There's a lot of things we do that Jesus didn't say anything about.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Neither the Pope nor Hitler have jurisdiction within this realm of England, but it looks rather like the DUP are claiming to exercise it.
Hitler is no more, but the pope (papacy) is alive and well! "No jurisdiction in this realm of England" - (quotation marks needed, in my opinion) - so says one of the 39 Articles. As I have posted elsewhere, these Articles are not of faith, but statements about how Anglicans felt about the religious state of affairs in one period of history, now long passed.

Irony meter need recalibrating?

quote:

Now I come to think of it, one of the 39 Articles refers to a ban (that word again!) of reservation of the MBS.

Doesn't it just say 'the sacrament of the Lord's supper was not
by Christ's ordinance reserved...' (quoting from memory. There's a lot of things we do that Jesus didn't say anything about. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Quite so Angloid. I was indulging in a bit of an anachronism, with a touch of humour.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
... "No jurisdiction in this realm of England" - (quotation marks needed, in my opinion) - so says one of the 39 Articles. As I have posted elsewhere, these Articles are not of faith, but statements about how Anglicans felt about the religious state of affairs in one period of history, now long passed.
...in modern times, two popes have visited England and other parts of the UK and both popes were very welcome.

Well, yes, but various forign monarchs aand presidents have visited too, and nobody is suggesting that e.g. the President of Mexico has any jurisdiction here.

OK the mention of two popes is an example and what you say is fair enough.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

EFF, Article XXVIII relevantly says:

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

At the most, the Article does not prohibit the practice but simply makes clear that there is in the ultimate no Biblical support for it. OTOH, none of the Articles says that Tradition is wrong but rather that Scripture has the ultimate primacy. So if Scripture says no, a practice is out. If Scripture is silent, then there is nothing contrary in this Article in following Tradition.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

And the tradition of the early church, it seems, was for some of the consecrated Sacrament to be 'reserved' in order to be taken, straight after the Eucharist, to those unable to be present.

Somehow, the Reformers in Cranmer's time lost sight of this godly custom. OK, sometimes people's personal circumstances make it necessary to defer taking the Sacrament to them until later in the week, but it's common practice now in the C of E.

IJ

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

That is to elide two things. The reserving of the sacrament often used as an intensifier of the sacred in time/space. The distribution of the sacrament to the sick/housebound can happens regardless of that. It is seen as no more than delivering a piece of wedding cake to those unable to attend a wedding celebration.

Jengie

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Yes, indeed, but I guess the use of the Sacrament as an intensifier of the sacred in time and space (and I do love the way you put that) came a little later in church history.

Point taken, though.

IJ

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Bishop's Finger:

quote:

Somehow, the Reformers in Cranmer's time lost sight of this godly custom.

Had they really? I was taught that the scruples to do with the physicality of the host were the problem, linked as that was to the concept of the 'mass runs'. So the idea that somehow seeing three elevations (and presumably being suitably adoring) was somehow just as efficacious (if not more so) than taking part in one full service of the Eucharist and partaking of the Eucharist itself (having made the required preparation). It's easy to understand how such a superstition around the physicality of 'seeing' the host arose, especially if you didn't understand the language of the liturgy. In some sense there was always going to be a significant element of the people who would 'see' the activity of the Eucharist in a superstitious and almost magical sense.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
EFF, Article XXVIII relevantly says:

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

At the most, the Article does not prohibit the practice but simply makes clear that there is in the ultimate no Biblical support for it. OTOH, none of the Articles says that Tradition is wrong but rather that Scripture has the ultimate primacy. So if Scripture says no, a practice is out. If Scripture is silent, then there is nothing contrary in this Article in following Tradition.

Thanks Gee D. I had some idea of the wording of the relevant Article and I could have looked this up in BCP 1662 if I wanted to. But normally, what I post as a shipmate is off the top of my head. Obviously, all of this pre-dates the Oxford Movement from 1833 onwards.

I don't altogether agree with your logic that if Scripture says no, then a practice is out. To give just one example, Scripture says no to a woman going bareheaded in the assemblies (or whatever is the exact wording). But nowadays, in most places, the majority of women are bareheaded with no compulsion to wear a hat, except in a minority of fundamentalist churches.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

I love everything about Walsingham. My last visit, two years ago started at the Roman Catholic Shrine and the Slipper Chapel, which has been made a Minor Basilica by Pope Francis. I then went to Mass at the National Shrive and stayed for sprinkling from the Holy Well. It tick all the right boxes for me. But to members of the Church of England (Continuing) who see themselves as a remnant of the C of E's most Protestant times, most of what goes on there is Popish hocus pocus. That doesn't, in my opinion, give them the right to obstruct how others choose to worship, but the Shrine's Marian devotions are a long way removed from the Book of Common Prayer and its 39 Articles of Religion.

In fact it's a long way removed from most of what the real Church of England does, a place where female clergy can't celebrate Mass. Given the furore over the prospective appointment of Bishop Philip North, once Priest Administrator at Walsingham, as Bishop of Sheffield, I'm surprised there isn't more protest. But Holy Shrines and Marian devotions are really a Catholic thing, quite at odds with the C of E as we now find it. Anglo-Catholicism is shrinking within the C of E due to several factors. In terms of shrines I've visited, I would put Walsingham on a par with Czestochowa in Poland, and far above Knock in Ireland for beauty and holy atmosphere, but I know of no other such place which isn't part of the Catholic Church. Which is what the Church of England (Continuing) is aggrieved by.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:

I don't altogether agree with your logic that if Scripture says no, then a practice is out. To give just one example, Scripture says no to a woman going bareheaded in the assemblies (or whatever is the exact wording). But nowadays, in most places, the majority of women are bareheaded with no compulsion to wear a hat, except in a minority of fundamentalist churches.

Not my logic, nor quite the logic of the Articles in general. The Articles rest on the primacy of Scripture over Tradition.

[ 14. June 2017, 20:40: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

As the shipmate who wrote the OP, I wrote at some length about a persuasion of which I am not an adherent, but which I have made a study of, as a curiosity of mine.

It would seem that my contributions to this thread, have become a mixture of my own outlook, as it really is and of the protestant, low church, and evangelical C of E, believing in the fundamentalist and literal interpretation of the XXXIX Articles and of Scripture alone.

Perhaps that was the stance that Gee D was adopting.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Not really Gee D is taking a very Reformed attitude to the 39 Articles. That is that they are basically a cairn set up on our journey of faith at specific times in specific places. They should be read as those. Thus he is looking to explain the understanding held by the people who wrote them.

It is not his opinion, nor that of anyone alive today but the guess of scholars at the attitude of the writers. It is important to remember that they also feared a Roman Catholic sponsored invasion. They also feared an overthrow of the crown from extreme Protestants.

Jengie

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

Not my logic, nor quite the logic of the Articles in general. The Articles rest on the primacy of Scripture over Tradition.

I'm still puzzling over this idea. It seems to me that there are many things that go on in Anglican churches which are not prescribed "in scripture" and there are many things which (one might think) are prescribed which don't go on in Anglican churches.

The Articles are obviously a reaction against very specific targets - in particular a side-swipe at some Roman Catholic practices and non-conformists (inaccurately labeled anabaptists) - but it is hard to see that this left an Anglican church with practices which were only derived from scripture.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Not really Gee D is taking a very Reformed attitude to the 39 Articles. That is that they are basically a cairn set up on our journey of faith at specific times in specific places. They should be read as those. Thus he is looking to explain the understanding held by the people who wrote them.

It is not his opinion, nor that of anyone alive today but the guess of scholars at the attitude of the writers. It is important to remember that they also feared a Roman Catholic sponsored invasion. They also feared an overthrow of the crown from extreme Protestants.

Jengie

All that I was doing was to quote Article XXVIII to cover ground half-referred to by EFF; I then went back to Article VI which I then paraphrased. I was not expressing an opinion on either of these Articles as good, bad or indifferent. Nor was I saying that if a course of action was not derived from Scripture, then it was out (to use EFF's phrase). I would not allow that Scriptural derivation is necessary for a belief to be permitted teaching (eg the Assumption of Our Lady appears nowhere in scripture, is derived from ancient Tradition, and is a feast that I consider is properly observed).

For what it's worth, I don't consider that XXVIII prohibits reservation or benediction. The opinion in the Sydney clique is that it certainly prohibits benediction, and some allow that the sacrament may be reserved for such purposes as taking to those unable to attend church.

[ 16. June 2017, 11:36: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Not really Gee D is taking a very Reformed attitude to the 39 Articles. That is that they are basically a cairn set up on our journey of faith at specific times in specific places. They should be read as those. Thus he is looking to explain the understanding held by the people who wrote them.

It is not his opinion, nor that of anyone alive today but the guess of scholars at the attitude of the writers. It is important to remember that they also feared a Roman Catholic sponsored invasion. They also feared an overthrow of the crown from extreme Protestants.

Jengie

I thought I had made my position quite clear, but obviously, I haven't. Jengie Jon, I have no quarrel with what you are saying and I wholeheartedly agree with your above remarks. I stand to be corrected in suggesting what Gee D says, is his opinion and I fully understand he is writng from the 39 Article perspective.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I was not writing from a 39 Article perspective, or any other one for that matter - I was simply quoting the relevant one, which you had paraphrased, and paraphrasing VI. Please read what I have written.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I was not writing from a 39 Article perspective, or any other one for that matter - I was simply quoting the relevant one, which you had paraphrased, and paraphrasing VI. Please read what I have written.

I thought I did read what you had written, but perhaps I could have phrased it better.

Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :

I went to the Walsingham National Pilgrimage nearly 30 years ago and happened to be standing near the protesters. They launched into a rousing rendition of "Onward Christian Soldiers" as the official procession approached. As the procession drew nearer the protesters realised they happened to be singing the same hymn...
I'm not sure whether Jesus laughed or wept. Both groups tried to pretend it wasn't happening.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
I went to the Walsingham National Pilgrimage nearly 30 years ago and happened to be standing near the protesters. They launched into a rousing rendition of "Onward Christian Soldiers" as the official procession approached. As the procession drew nearer the protesters realised they happened to be singing the same hymn...
I'm not sure whether Jesus laughed or wept. Both groups tried to pretend it wasn't happening.

This happened much more recently (but not this year) over the use of the hymn, "There is Power in the Blood". This was intentionally included in the service booklet, knowing it to be a favourite hymn of the objectors and was sung as the procession passed close by this group.

I did not go last year, but I was there the year before, when I think this hymn was used.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

You could have some fun with some alternative words, couldn't you? Not a hymn, I know, but off the top of my head, here's one for the Ulstermen:

It was old but it was beautiful and the colours they were fine
It was worn at Benediction when we packed into the Shrine
It was worn by Blessed Father Tooth in the glorious days of yore
And at Walsingham I love to wear the tat that Father wore

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:

quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
I went to the Walsingham National Pilgrimage nearly 30 years ago and happened to be standing near the protesters. They launched into a rousing rendition of "Onward Christian Soldiers" as the official procession approached. As the procession drew nearer the protesters realised they happened to be singing the same hymn...
I'm not sure whether Jesus laughed or wept. Both groups tried to pretend it wasn't happening.
This happened much more recently (but not this year) over the use of the hymn, "There is Power in the Blood". This was intentionally included in the service booklet, knowing it to be a favourite hymn of the objectors and was sung as the procession passed close by this group.

I did not go last year, but I was there the year before, when I think this hymn was used.

I love it! [Axe murder]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Chorus (to Albertus' verse, above):

Glory, glory, Hallelujah!
Glory, glory, Hallelujah!
Glory, glory, Hallelujah!
And the leading Thurifer jumped right over the Protesters' Pastor's head....

The tune is, of course, that commonly used for that cheerful ditty John Brown's Body.

IJ

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0