|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Does the CofE really think it's THE Church of God?
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So they should, you and your heretickal conventicles ...
'Ere, mind your bleedin' langwidge ... Some of uz can get touchy, y'knows. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
[ 07. August 2017, 14:27: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
It so happens that I presided at Holy Communion by Extension yesterday morning (was it Our Place you were at, Felafool? ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) ), as we are in interregnum, and no priest was available.
I used those very words, but, as I said them, I wasn't really aware of the meaning Felafool picked up. On the contrary, ISTM that we are simply being reminded that, as Anglicans, we are part of the Church of God Militant here on earth.
However, maybe the phrase should be altered to read 'The Church of God, of which the Church of England is part,has taken bread etc.'.
FWIW. Would that clarify things a bit?
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Thing is, however we qualify this then it's going to cause some problems for someone or other.
If I went to a Baptist church and they were 'breaking bread' I wouldn't think, 'Look at these Baptists, do they really think they are entitled to do this when they are an heretickal conventicle ...' * or 'What are they doing? Are they implying that they're the only people entitled to do this? What about the Anglican church round the corner or the Methodists down the road ...?'
Ok, so the Baptists wouldn't have a form of words that implied that but then, I wouldn't have taken the Anglican form of words in the way Felafool interpreted them either ... for the reasons others have listed already.
* Needless to say, I don't think of Baptist churches as 'heretickal conventicles'. I think of them as Baptist churches ie congregations of Christians with a particular baptistic and congregational polity.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
While I agree with the broad sweep of the discussion, I must say have come across Anglican clergy (especially High Church) who seem to behave as if they are the only "real" clergy around town (and their churches the only "genuine" ones), relegating Nonconformists such as myself to very much an also-an or "below the salt" position.
I would expect a typical Anglo-Catholic priest to believe that he was a priest, to believe that Fr. Bob from the Roman Catholic place down the street was a priest, and to believe that Fr. Basil from the Orthodox place across town was a priest. I would not expect him to think that a Baptist minister was a priest.
His position is somewhat complicated by the fact that he must count as a brother priest Rev. Dave from the evo-wing of the C of E, who doesn't think that priests exist.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Felafool:
quote:
....the phrase implies (IMHO)...
I think this might be the heart of the problem. Either you are completely misunderstanding it, possibly reading something into it that isn't there or you are looking to be offended at something inoffensive and inclusive.
quote:
...we could just as well be using bits of the supermarket loaf and wee cuppies of Ribena (other red liquids are available) which are left over from the communion table at the free church down the road (also a part of the universal Church of God, despite having different leadership structures and approaches to ministry, ordained or otherwise).
...well, yes, you could I guess. They might not appreciate that. However, would it not be a little odd, being that communion by extension is linked to the community you know and are an intimate part of and that know you (and presumably might be holding you in prayer)?
quote:
This in turn would imply that the fellowship down the road is not viewed as part of the universal Church of God?
How would it imply that? If anything, the phrase implies the exact opposite of what you suggest here.
quote:
It seems odd to be using a term which purports to describe the practice of a universal Church, but really means how we do it in the CofE. Therefore why not say so?
I cannot follow your thinking here at all. It almost sounds like your saying that the CofE might be a leg while some other denomination might be a finger or a hand. The difference in liturgy and practice is historical and geographical to this planet, therefore pretty immaterial to the body of Christ. No?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
However, maybe the phrase should be altered to read 'The Church of God, of which the Church of England is part,has taken bread etc.'.
FWIW. Would that clarify things a bit?
Yes. And it would help the CofE to stop thinking that it is "THE Church", not of God but of England.
(Mind you, Henry VIII has a lot to answer for, in that respect).
[ 07. August 2017, 15:12: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
Thanks for those 2 graceful replies, Arethosemyfeet and Anselmina. You both say that it is a misunderstanding on my part and suggest what the phrase means to you.
Surely this is the point - it is an ambiguous phrase, and I hear it as an exclusive one.
But once you're told how they're really using it, isn't it incumbent upon you to stop insisting that they mean something else, and should stop? Why do you insist on continuing to give it an import which it does not have? It's rather presumptuous.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
'We'll have no language in this house ...'
It'll be very quiet then!
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Needless to say, I don't think of Baptist churches as 'heretickal conventicles'. I think of them as Baptist churches ie congregations of Christians with a particular baptistic and congregational polity.
You also think of them as Proper Christians who are properly, correctly and - dare I say - efficaciously celebrating their Lord without recourse to Canterbury, Constantinople or Rome (or Didcot, but that's another story!)
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Poste by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
You also think of them as Proper Christians who are properly, correctly and - dare I say - efficaciously celebrating their Lord without recourse to Canterbury, Constantinople or Rome (or Didcot, but that's another story!)
Presumably they don't have to be priests/clergy before they are considered to be a part of the body of Christ/Church of God.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
While I agree with the broad sweep of the discussion, I must say have come across Anglican clergy (especially High Church) who seem to behave as if they are the only "real" clergy around town (and their churches the only "genuine" ones), relegating Nonconformists such as myself to very much an also-an or "below the salt" position.
As an Anglican who you might consider to be 'high church', can I offer sincere apologies on behalf of such people. It's a deeply ingrained attitude in some Anglicans, mostly clergy, and as you say can insensitively write off most other Christians (who in world terms, and increasingly in our country) are very much the majority.
But in my experience it is more often found amongst the more 'establishment minded' clergy, not particularly high church or anglo-catholic. I had a colleague once who would not have questioned the legitimacy of the ministry of others, but whose attitude to them was patronising in the extreme. No Anglican that I know of would question the validity of Roman Catholic priests' ordination, but this person, like many others, treated them with a sort of amused contempt.
My guess is that most anglo-catholic priests deeply respect the ministry of 'nonconformist' clergy of all traditions. They might not formally accept their orders; they might be reluctant to receive communion from them, but they would never deny that they had a valid ministry and that their sacraments were effective in their own communities. In the same way, few priests of this ilk would treat women clergy as mere laypeople.
Snotty attitudes are more to do with snobbery than theology.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
It isn't only a certain type of CofE clergy person who thinks like that. I've met plenty of people from various varieties of heretickal conventicles who believe much the same about their little corner of the revelation. If they are a bit more ecumenical, they might stretch the tent pegs a bit to include other signed up members of the Evangelical Alliance. But they don't really believe anyone in the CofE or the RCC can be saved.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
You don't have to go that far out into independent evangelical land to find those sort of attitudes either, Enoch.
I knew of a Baptist minister who invited an RC priest he'd heard speak at a conference to come and lead some Lenten reflections at his church.
Ok, it wouldn't be customary, traditionally, for Baptists to mark Lent in any particular way but this bloke and some of the congregation were up for that.
In the event, several families and individuals left the church even before the RC priest arrived to give his series of presentations and without even hearing him out.
For them, it was sufficient grounds for taking their bats and balls elsewhere ...
These things cut both ways.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You don't have to go that far out into independent evangelical land to find those sort of attitudes either, Enoch.
I knew of a Baptist minister who invited an RC priest he'd heard speak at a conference to come and lead some Lenten reflections at his church.
Ok, it wouldn't be customary, traditionally, for Baptists to mark Lent in any particular way but this bloke and some of the congregation were up for that.
In the event, several families and individuals left the church even before the RC priest arrived to give his series of presentations and without even hearing him out.
For them, it was sufficient grounds for taking their bats and balls elsewhere ...
These things cut both ways.
Oh indeed, yes. There's at least one elder here who won't darken the door of the church if a piskie has been invited to preach.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You don't have to go that far out into independent evangelical land to find those sort of attitudes either, Enoch.
It's probably a stronger attitude. In a lot of places in evo-land, "Christian" and "Catholic" are mutually exclusive terms.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
I know that the CofE is only a part of the Anglican church, which is only a part of the Church of God which spans all denominations on earth, present and past and future.
Oh dear, this has grated since I read it this morning.
There is no "Anglican Church". That's right, there is no Anglican Church.
There is the Church of England -- the province of York and most of the province of Canterbury, unhappily detached from the rest of the Western Church. There are umpteen daughter churches, and indeed grand-daughter ones, mostly illegitimate. There's also the Church in Wales, the rest of the province of Canterbury, a sort of daughter by caesarean section. And there are the half-sisters the Church of Ireland, perhaps best thought of as a disjoined Siamese twin; and the Episcopal Church of Scotland, whose relationship with the C of E has been - well, shall we say? - incestuous.
But there is no Anglican Church. Honestly. Truly.
There, I feel better now.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Anglican Church or Anglican Communion?
Incidentally, of the Church of England accepts that it is not THE Church of England, what should it call itself instead?
The Episcopal Church of England?
The English Episcopalian Church?
If the CofE were ever to be Disestablished, what should it call itself then?
By calling themselves The Church in Wales,are Welsh Anglicans suggesting that the non-conformist churches in Wales or the RCC in Wales aren't proper churches?
Should it call itself The Welsh Episcopal Church?
How about ACNA in the US, The Anglican Church in North America? Are they saying that the US Episcopalians aren't proper Anglicans?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Anglican Church or Anglican Communion?
Incidentally, of the Church of England accepts that it is not THE Church of England, what should it call itself instead?
The Episcopal Church of England?
The English Episcopalian Church?
If the CofE were ever to be Disestablished, what should it call itself then?
By calling themselves The Church in Wales,are Welsh Anglicans suggesting that the non-conformist churches in Wales or the RCC in Wales aren't proper churches?
Should it call itself The Welsh Episcopal Church?
How about ACNA in the US, The Anglican Church in North America? Are they saying that the US Episcopalians aren't proper Anglicans?
Ecclesiastical nomenclature is nightmaresville. A distestablished CoE would likely remain the same as so many measures and laws refer to the CoE and to change them would be a nightmare. This would likely suit the English karma of radical change through no visible change.
The CiW was so named so as to make it clear that it was not the CoW. I suppose one could call it A Church in Wales. To call it the Welsh Episcopal Church might arouse dissent from structurally-focussed RCs. Who knows?
ACNA has long held the position that they are the true Anglicans, and TEC is not. There are two serious arguments that TEC is not an Anglican church, but is part of the Anglican Communion. *alcohol and tangent alert* Last year I managed to annoy a prominent official of ACNA by noting that Mexico is part of North America and ACNA seems to ignore it and, as well (as I was in a devilish mood, fuelled by a few glasses of an nice Duckhorn Three Palms Cabernet-- look up the price and realize dear Shipmates that I was not paying for lunch), that it was important that the US dioceses understand that they were equal partners with the Canadian element in North America. How he ever thought I was important enough to try to influence is still beyond me, but it was a nice lunch. Ottawa shipmates will mourn with me the closing of Hy's.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Incidentally, of the Church of England accepts that it is not THE Church of England, what should it call itself instead?
As long as it doesn't call itself the Church of England, because that confuses people who have misplaced their third brain cell. Just like Americans calling themselves Americans.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
I don't know about the C of E, but in the Episcopal Church here in the US, that phrase pops up in ordinations. The sponsors of ordinands present them to the bishop by saying, "Bishop's name, Bishop in the Church of God, we present so-and-so..."
The theology behind the phrasing in the OP is not only that we believe we're part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, but also that it is in virtue of being part of that one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church that we can do the sacramental things we do. So to say "The Church of England" has consecrated bread and wine would imply that we hold the power and authority to do that independent of being a member of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Similarly, we ordain priests and deacons to "God's Church," even though we know that their orders will not be fully recognized by many fellow members of that Church. They're not ordained into the C of E or Episcopal Church, though.
You could also work backwards to the meaning intended in the OP by noting that we don't restrict Communion to members of our denomination only, nor do we forbid our members to receive Communion in other churches.
(BTW, here in the US, there is also a denomination called the Church of God - not to be confused with the Church of God in Christ, of course. So maybe they meant that they ordered the elements from a church in the US and had them shipped across the Atlantic! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) Which of course would be a silly way to read that phrase; the CoG and COGIC churches are memorialists.)
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
In light of the Tractarian Branch theory, perhaps "The English Catholic Church" might be a nice alternative name for the CofE.
[ 08. August 2017, 01:14: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
His position is somewhat complicated by the fact that he must count as a brother priest Rev. Dave from the evo-wing of the C of E, who doesn't think that priests exist.
Not that complicated - most taking the view you hold would say that *any* validly ordained CofE priest using the right words is consecrating a valid mass *regardless* of what it is they think they're doing....
When at home with parents in my more nosebleed days I went to the *very* low parish church down the road and as far as I was concerned the vicar was causing transubstantiation to occur regardless of the fact he'd have been horrified by the thought.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
When at home with parents in my more nosebleed days I went to the *very* low parish church down the road and as far as I was concerned the vicar was causing transubstantiation to occur regardless of the fact he'd have been horrified by the thought.
In the case of the Church of Scotland I've (mostly, though occasionally with doubts) worked from the belief that God can ordain any minister He chooses by any means he chooses, and that the celebration of Holy Communion is the celebration of Holy Communion, regardless of what the celebrant understands by that. Happy to hide behind the Elizabethan formula in that regard.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
However, maybe the phrase should be altered to read 'The Church of God, of which the Church of England is part,has taken bread etc.'.
FWIW. Would that clarify things a bit?
IJ
It might. But, imo, only in the sense of an unnecessary tautology.
The congregation/communicants have gathered in a CofE setting to receive the sacrament from a CofE accredited minister performing a canonical act of CofE worship. If it really needs to be stated liturgically at such a time, that the CofE considers itself part of the Church of God, it rather looks as if one is going backwards, or has had a crisis of confidence in God's ability to bless bread and wine.
As it happens those words, 'the Church of God of which we are members' or something similar, are always used as part of home communions with our Scottish Episcopal people, and until recently with our Church of Ireland folk. Not even the liturgical formula is exclusively CofE, let alone the appropriation of ecclesiastical authority behind it.
My understanding is that I am addressing the communicant, rather than offering a churchy explanation for what I'm doing; reminding them that although they may be in hospital or at home, they are still members of Christ's Body on earth, and that their fellow brothers and sisters are now sharing this communion with them. The context for communion by extension in church is different, I know. But effectively it's the same message, I'd say.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I've always been embarrassed by pedantic fellow-Anglicans referring to RCs as 'Romans', rather than what most of them prefer to be called, Catholics. Conceding that description as a matter of courtesy would only match what they already do in describing us as 'the Church of England.' After all, if by our understanding we are Catholics, by theirs, they are 'the Church of England.'
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I've always been embarrassed by pedantic fellow-Anglicans referring to RCs as 'Romans', rather than what most of them prefer to be called, Catholics. Conceding that description as a matter of courtesy would only match what they already do in describing us as 'the Church of England.' After all, if by our understanding we are Catholics, by theirs, they are 'the Church of England.'
Hmmm, not convinced. The sort of pedantic fellow-Anglican who refers to "Romans" is matched by those on the other side of the Tiber who refer to the CofE as "your ecclesial community." One side is calling the other Romans to make the point that they see both as Catholics, the other is using "ecclesial community" to say "of course we don't actually think you're a church at all."
Hang around Oxford long enough and you'll meet enough of both groups to put you off for a lifetime.
The overarching point is that neither of those groups is speaking for (or indeed like) the majority.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
"Roman Catholic" was the standard usage that I learnt in a secular context.
It is used by academic Roman Catholics when discussing liturgy in my experience.
I now realise that it is tactless in some contexts.
Just saying "Romans" is critical rather than descriptive.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
There is no "Anglican Church". That's right, there is no Anglican Church.
What about the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand, and Polynesia, of Canada, of Australia, to start with? Daughter churches no doubt but still called by the name Anglican. Unless by "no" you meant "no one church and one only".
[ 08. August 2017, 12:01: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Hang around Oxford long enough and you'll meet enough of both groups to put you off for a lifetime.
I'm sure. But I don't hang around Oxford and most Catholics and Anglicans I know are perfectly normal.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Hang around Oxford long enough and you'll meet enough of both groups to put you off for a lifetime.
I'm sure. But I don't hang around Oxford and most Catholics and Anglicans I know are perfectly normal.
which was my point - people who refer to "Romans" are the twins of people who refer to ecclesial communities. Neither is mainstream behaviour.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Just saying "Romans" is critical rather than descriptive.
I'd argue it's more defensive than critical - it's usually used by those who are very keen to remind people that they're catholics too. Hence "we are both catholics, you are Roman, I am Anglo." It's nothing if not descriptive.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
When at home with parents in my more nosebleed days I went to the *very* low parish church down the road and as far as I was concerned the vicar was causing transubstantiation to occur regardless of the fact he'd have been horrified by the thought.
In the case of the Church of Scotland I've (mostly, though occasionally with doubts) worked from the belief that God can ordain any minister He chooses by any means he chooses, and that the celebration of Holy Communion is the celebration of Holy Communion, regardless of what the celebrant understands by that. Happy to hide behind the Elizabethan formula in that regard.
What?
I was taught in seminary that the intention of the Celebrant matters in the validity of the Sacrament. If the Celebrant does not believe in the Real Presence, then she is not consecrating anything, and without proper intention, it is not a valid Mass.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
When at home with parents in my more nosebleed days I went to the *very* low parish church down the road and as far as I was concerned the vicar was causing transubstantiation to occur regardless of the fact he'd have been horrified by the thought.
In the case of the Church of Scotland I've (mostly, though occasionally with doubts) worked from the belief that God can ordain any minister He chooses by any means he chooses, and that the celebration of Holy Communion is the celebration of Holy Communion, regardless of what the celebrant understands by that. Happy to hide behind the Elizabethan formula in that regard.
What?
I was taught in seminary that the intention of the Celebrant matters in the validity of the Sacrament. If the Celebrant does not believe in the Real Presence, then she is not consecrating anything, and without proper intention, it is not a valid Mass.
A Tractarian might dance on the pinhead of Article XXVI for this one.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
What?
I was taught in seminary that the intention of the Celebrant matters in the validity of the Sacrament. If the Celebrant does not believe in the Real Presence, then she is not consecrating anything, and without proper intention, it is not a valid Mass.
I would say that so long as the intention is to "do what the church does", both in the ordination of the minister concerned and their celebration of communion then the intention is valid. Even the RCC accepts that as valid intent in the case of Baptism, which can be carried out by even a non-believing lay person so long as they intend to do what the church does.
Do I have doubts? Yes, of course. Do I place them in God's hands to deal with? Likewise, yes of course.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I was taught in seminary that the intention of the Celebrant matters in the validity of the Sacrament. If the Celebrant does not believe in the Real Presence, then she is not consecrating anything, and without proper intention, it is not a valid Mass.
Which seminary and who was running it? As far as I know, and I hope this is true, none of the various factions in the CofE would hold any such thing.
Is that view widely held in Canada? As Betjemaniac tactfully hints, such a take is incompatible with Article XXVI. It's also spectacularly incompatible with any sense of sacramental assurance.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
"Roman Catholic" was the standard usage that I learnt in a secular context.
It is used by academic Roman Catholics when discussing liturgy in my experience.
I now realise that it is tactless in some contexts.
Just saying "Romans" is critical rather than descriptive.
I use Roman Catholic, but most RC scholars (in Canada, at any rate) will say Catholic. In discussing liturgical matters, I will use Roman as that pertains to the rite, rather than Byzantine or Coptic or etc. In jurisdictional matters, I use Latin to distinguish between Slovak Byzantine, Melkite, Maronite, Ukrainian, etc. In all cases, I explain why, as otherwise some folk get offended.
In my youth, I knew a CoI ordinand from Armagh who would refer to "Popish Dissenters," and I hoped that this was an affectation of sorts.
Anglican_Brat was likely taught at one of major Anglican seminaries where this point of view is widely held, although I suspect that the position is repressed by clergy serving in the field. The Articles do not have a disciplinary role in Canada and, if I am correctly informed, clerics are not required to subscribe to them on ordination.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
All of which begs the question what 'Anglican' actually means ...
There are probably as many definitions of that as there are Anglicans. And then some.
I've only ever met one ACNA ordinand, a pleasant chap from Tennessee who was visiting the UK for a conference. He was delighted to have been invited to the pub and stood a few pints of real ale by the CofE clergy he met after a service at Christ Church Cathedral in Oxford.
Whatever else we might say on the other issues it convinces me of one thing.
Cask ale should be compulsory.
Can that be the 40th Article?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
(BTW, here in the US, there is also a denomination called the Church of God - not to be confused with the Church of God in Christ, of course....)
My grandparents knew a woman who was a member of the Church of God. She referred to all other denominations as "nickname churches."
She also reported on attending an Episcopal church once. She claimed she'd never go back. People were very friendly, she said, "but there just wasn't nothing to it but stand up, sit down and mumble."
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Felafool:
quote:
"The Church of God, of which we are members, has taken bread and wine and given thanks over them according to our Lord's command. These holy gifts are now offered to us that, with faith and thanksgiving, we may share in the communion of the body and blood of Christ."
I used these very words at a home communion this morning.
It's fairly obvious from context that it doesn't imply that the Church of God is coterminous with the Church of England because I can tell you exactly who gave thanks the holy gifts in question and it was yours truly and the congregation of St. Agatha by the Gasworks. Who happened to be acting as members of the Church of God. I defer to no-one in my admiration for yours truly and the congo of St. Agatha, but even I would hesitate to suggest that we are coterminous with the Church of God (heck of a field promotion, though). So by definition the Church of God is not coterminous with the congregation who gave thanks for any given holy gifts. They are merely a part of the Church of God. So if there isn't a necessary identification between the people giving thanks over bread and wine and the Church of God, it hardly follows that there is a necessary identification between the Christian Confession to which they belong and the Church of God.
All that is asserted is that the people giving thanks over bread and wine are members of the Church of God, the extent and boundaries of which are left up to God, whose Church it is. Which doesn't seem unreasonable.
--------------------
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
|
|
Felafool
Shipmate
# 270
|
Posted
Thanks for an interesting discussion so far, taking us places I didn't expect.
As a committed non-denominational and non-religious follower of Jesus I quite happily refer to myself a catholic - meaning I identify with 'one holy apostolic catholic church' - the universal transtemporal multi-denominational (and non-denom) Church of God.
As many of you have kindly pointed out, the problem lies in my own ignorance/ stubbornness /faultfinding/ misunderstanding. I plead guilty to 2 of those, the first and the last.
I am grateful for those of you who have explained their own understanding of the phrase, yet remain unconvinced that it says what some of you (or I) take it to mean. I am content that the CofE does NOT think it is exclusively THE Church of God, and am sorry for making that inference in the OP.
I now think I understand that the liturgy I questioned is intended to inform us that the bread and wine have been pre-prepared within the Church of God, and that's OK with me. The setting and the liturgy implies that the bread and wine have been prepared by the CofE, a member of the Church of God. That's also OK with me.
But I also understand that other churches not in the CofE, but equally members of the Church of God, may prepare the elements in other ways, and that's also OK with me (and also OK with most CofE people).
I like Arethosemyfeet's comment which echoes my own understanding:
quote:
...God can ordain any minister He chooses by any means he chooses, and that the celebration of Holy Communion is the celebration of Holy Communion, regardless of what the celebrant understands by that...
Which is why, with all my non-Anglican hang-ups, I currently worship at a CofE church and am content to celebrate cummunion however it is done, despite my difficulty in understanding of the words used.
I still think the phrase in question could be more explicit, but as many have said, the liturgy isn't written just for me.
May the Lord have mercy on me.
--------------------
I don't care if the glass is half full or half empty - I ordered a cheeseburger.
Posts: 265 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
And may he have mercy upon us all ...
At the risk of being awkward and contrary, I am tempted to take issue with your claim to be 'non-religious'. I don't believe that any of us are 'non-religious.'
Even apparent non-religiosity is a form of religiosity.
Some of the most 'religious' people I've met, in the pejorative sense of the term (and it's not used pejoratively across the board, of course) have been those who have made the biggest song and dance about being 'non-religious.'
Just as some of the most 'denominational' people I've met in terms of mindset have been those who've crowed loudest about being 'non-denominational.'
I hasten to add that I am not laying either of these charges at your door, but I suspect most - if not all of us - are much more 'religious' than we think we are ...
At least, those of us for whom the term 'religious' is one of suspicion rather than simply something descriptive.
I'm often tempted to say to such people, 'Christianity is a religion, get over it already ...'
Plus to point out that James wasn't averse to using the term in his epistle ...
James 1:27 http://biblehub.com/james/1-27.htm
But that's by the by ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Felafool
Shipmate
# 270
|
Posted
As often happens, I'm caught out with no appeal by Gamaliel's piercing intellect. I confess to my inverted pride at trying to be non-religious.
I'll go with James' definition of true religion - is there / could there be a whole other thread on what it means to be religious or non-religious as a Christian?
--------------------
I don't care if the glass is half full or half empty - I ordered a cheeseburger.
Posts: 265 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
As often happens, I'm caught out with no appeal by Gamaliel's piercing intellect. I confess to my inverted pride at trying to be non-religious.
I'll go with James' definition of true religion - is there / could there be a whole other thread on what it means to be religious or non-religious as a Christian?
Flattery will get you everywhere ...
I think it's a really good question, Felafool and excellent material for a new thread.
I suspect it boils down though to that indefinable quality we call 'authenticity'. We can't put our finger on it but we recognise it when we see it.
Fancy starting that new thread and seeing where it takes us?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Thing is, however we qualify this then it's going to cause some problems for someone or other.
If I went to a Baptist church and they were 'breaking bread' I wouldn't think, 'Look at these Baptists, do they really think they are entitled to do this when they are an heretickal conventicle ...' * or 'What are they doing? Are they implying that they're the only people entitled to do this? What about the Anglican church round the corner or the Methodists down the road ...?'
Ok, so the Baptists wouldn't have a form of words that implied that but then, I wouldn't have taken the Anglican form of words in the way Felafool interpreted them either ... for the reasons others have listed already.
* Needless to say, I don't think of Baptist churches as 'heretickal conventicles'. I think of them as Baptist churches ie congregations of Christians with a particular baptistic and congregational polity.
Whatever form of words we use, it's always going to bear the possibility of upsetting/confusing/misleading someone.
For example, on the (rare) occasions when I get to recite the creed I'll substitute the word "universal" for "catholic." The latter is just too confusing as very few people understand it's secondary meaning. Sitting in a CofE church and doing just this I find myself in a minority of one (usually), drawing strange looks. The point is this - do we really think about what we are reciting/praying/singing? If we do and disagree, what happens next?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
There is no "Anglican Church". That's right, there is no Anglican Church.
What about the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand, and Polynesia, of Canada, of Australia, to start with? Daughter churches no doubt but still called by the name Anglican. Unless by "no" you meant "no one church and one only".
Context. The original statement was to the effect that the CofE was part of the Anglican Church which was part of the Church Universal. I was disputing the implicit idea there that there is an Anglican Church of which the CofE (and the other Anglican churches) are a part. They are free-standing, but with complicated mutual relationships. Some are members of something called the Anglican Communion, some are not. But the grand project of "The Anglican Church" is dead in the water.
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Thank you for your explanation. I don't understand what "grand project" you refer to in your last sentence, but let's leave that to pass.
[ 09. August 2017, 07:15: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Exclamation Mark, well I have a similar problem reciting '... and the Son' - the controversial 'filioque clause'. I incline towards the Orthodox view on that issue, so far as I understand it - and I'm not sure I do ...
So I tend not to say it. That doesn't draw bewildered looks as I'm simply going quiet there rather than substituting an alternative phrase or qualifier.
On the term 'catholic', yes, I can understand you concern about the secondary meaning but I very much doubt that the regulars at Anglican services would be taking it in that secondary sense anyway.
Sure, there might be people there who haven't even thought about it or who are simply repeating it by rote but that's their look-out not yours. Besides, even in the least catechetical of settings there's still opportunity for people to find out what they are saying and singing if they are so inclined.
Our mileages may vary, but I don't have any difficulty with the word 'catholic' in that context as I know that most of those using it would understand it in the 'universal' sense. Although, I must admit it used to puzzle me as a kid, 'But we aren't Catholics ...'
Fr Gregory, the Orthodox priest who used to post here, once observed to me that the term 'catholic' should be understood in an active and 'now and not yet' sense - insofar as we should all be striving towards 'catholicity' - rather than understanding it as something already attained and achieved.
If that makes sense ...
Just a few thoughts.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
