Ship of Fools: Does the CofE really think it's THE Church of God?

Thread: Does the CofE really think it's THE Church of God? 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=008507

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

OK the title is a bit perjorative, but a piece of Anglican liturgy is really starting to get up my nose right now.

I currently go to a CofE church which is now in an interregnum (that's a whole other unpleasant smell).
Consequently we have to have 'Holy Communion by extension'.

Basically this means that an ordained priest somewhere else has administered over the wafers and wine and waved 'magic' hands over it so that those who believe such stuff can 'in some mysterious way' eat and drink the body and blood of Christ. All well and good if you believe in the ordained priesthood, I suppose.

But here comes the rub. The liturgy for this HC by extension includes the words:

"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." liturgy here

This seems to me to be rather an exclusive use of the term 'The Church of God' and should more correctly say 'The Anglican Church' or other suitable specific title. I guess it is a historic remnant going back to Cranmer, when the Church of England saw itself as the unique Church of God, but surely we have moved on from that?

As I say, this is causing me some nasal irritation. I wonder what other shipmates think? I also wonder if any Anglicans out there feel it should be changed, and if so, how does one go about re-wording liturgy?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I think you're misunderstanding - Anglicans consider themselves to be an integral part of the whole Church. When we say that "we believe in one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" we are not saying that the one church is the Church of England, or the Anglican Communion, by the whole of the Church, both here on earth and gone to their rest. As part of that church, the Bishops of the various Anglican churches (there is no one Anglican Church) have authority to ordain Priests, whom they license to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments. When they do so, they do so on behalf of the whole Church.

One Church. One Faith. One Lord. (I think I might have sung that somewhere)

Incidentally, and with no snark intended, why attend an Anglican church if you don't believe in ordained priesthood or in the sacrament of Holy Communion?

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

No. It would be very unAnglican for an anglican church to appropriate that view of itself to itself.

The business of using only ordained ministers to wave magic hands over the bread and wine is indicative of its institutional church ordering and use of authority within those structures.

Still, I guess we all have those little phrases which while apparently innocent or at least ambiguously gnostic in themselves somehow rankle with us as individuals.

I've always understood the phrase 'as the Church of God' to mean basically just that. 'As that part of God's kingdom on earth lived out through what we do in our part of the Anglican communion'. It's a phrase which includes us in, rather than excludes others out, if you see what I mean!

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

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. 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.

But to say that this universal transtemporal Church of God has blessed these elements is not correct. The CofE has done so. (I think you'll agree that the independent evangelical church down the road is also a part of the Church of God, but I'm sure they would not be identified as being involved in the HC by extension.)

BTW I attend a CofE church for many reasons, but not because I am an Anglican - I am not. I attend because it is a broad church and for all it's foibles I have found welcome and healing, nurture and challenge, worship. prayer and ministry, grace and love in community.

I have moved through many traditions, starting in the pentecostal church, and been a pastor and teacher in baptistic evangelical churches (I hate labels). For the last seven years of my working ministry I taught and directed studies for CofE ordinands. I guess that might be why I am a bit sensitive to meaning in liturgy - indeed the CofE holds its theology in its liturgy, which is why I find the phrase unsettling.

I'm sorry but I still think it needs re-wording.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
This seems to me to be rather an exclusive use of the term 'The Church of God' and should more correctly say 'The Anglican Church' or other suitable specific title.

Like others who have responded, I think you have it backwards. I think saying "The Anglican Church" is what would be exclusive, as though the Eucharist belongs to the CofE. That you happen to be celebrating the Eucharist in an Anglican parish church doesn't change the fact that it is the Church Universal that celebrates the Eucharist.

And yes, I understand the challenges of that statement, given different understandings of where the True Church is found. But the liturgical statement you complain of is predicated on the idea that the CofE is part of the Church Universal.

ETA: Sorry; cross-posted with your response.

[ 07. August 2017, 11:47: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

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.

No, the Church of England is a church that is part of the Anglican Communion. It is not seen as a "part" of the universal church. It is, by its own understanding, fully and perfectly "the Church of God", just as the Roman Catholic Church is fully and perfectly "the Church of God".

Somewhat analogously, the Father is fully and perfectly God and the Son is fully and perfectly God.

quote:
But to say that this universal transtemporal Church of God has blessed these elements is not correct. The CofE has done so. (I think you'll agree that the independent evangelical church down the road is also a part of the Church of God, but I'm sure they would not be identified as being involved in the HC by extension.)

On the contrary, as outlined above, the Church of England would say that it is the universal transtemporal Church, although not exclusively so in the way that the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic Church would have claimed to be. It is not claiming that the independent evangelical church is not the Church of God, merely that the Church of England is.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I do prefer the beginning of the phrase as 'The Body of Christ, of which we are part, has already taken bread and wine....'

On saying that, in terms of meaning; surely there is little to no difference between the two? It seems like you are reading an offence into it that isn't there. Both assert the universal aspect of the church. To say that it is only the CofE (or whatever) that has blessed these elements is technically correct of course, but is it not also part pot the wider universal church of God, or indeed the body of Christ? I can;t see what is so problematic about asserting that.

[ 07. August 2017, 12:35: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I agree. I can't imagine there exists any church that doesn't believe it is a part of the Church of God, irrespective of what it thinks about who else makes the grade or doesn't. Nor do I think the phrase is ambiguous unless one is looking for something that is not there. I don't think we're entitled individually to expect the church we attend to change the wording of our services just because particular phrases jar us personally, rather than because something is actually wrong.

The bit I don't agree with in the responses is Arethosemyfeet's comment

quote:
Why attend an Anglican church if you don't believe in ordained priesthood or in the sacrament of Holy Communion?

That's the difference between being CofE and being a piskie in Scotland. The Episcopalian church in Scotland stands specifically for an episcopalian postion as distinct from the CofS. A person presumably chooses to be a piskie rather than CofS or Catholic because they wish to be Protestant but with bishops and apostolic succession. The CofE though, for all the things it stands for, is also the 'mop-up' church in much the same way as I suspect the CofS is.

It's not a requirement for attending a CofE church or be involved in parish life to support every detail of the CofE tradition, though I would personally regard it as a bit much for a person who doesn't really think of himself or herself as CofE to attend, but to expect the rest of the parish to change everything to fit in with their preferences.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Not sure how you can disagree with a question, Enoch. It wasn't intended as a disguised "you shouldn't be there if you don't like it", just genuine curiosity about the choice being made, which Felafool kindly satisfied (BTW Felafool, I'm glad you've found a welcome there).

I'm well aware that people end up in the Church of England (and as you say the Church of Scotland) for all sorts of reasons. I worship in the Church of Scotland because there isn't a piskie church to which I could get there and back on a Sunday without a speedboat or private plane (and then only is summer).

[Though my local Church of Scotland is likewise in a vacancy and some of the words used by some of the visiting preachers are more than a little trying. Yesterday we were treated to 20 minutes on why the country and the world are going to hell in a handcart, of which the main signs were Muslims and "sexual immorality" which rapidly turned out to mean "they gays". I was grateful my 1 year old daughter raised objections on my behalf and I was able to avoid half of it.]

[ 07. August 2017, 13:14: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
For the last seven years of my working ministry I taught and directed studies for CofE ordinands. I guess that might be why I am a bit sensitive to meaning in liturgy - indeed the CofE holds its theology in its liturgy, which is why I find the phrase unsettling.

I'm sorry but I still think it needs re-wording.

And of course you're right to be sensitive to how liturgy might be understood. It would be foolish not to put considerable thought into the words we use to express our relationship with God. However, we can't allow for every possible aspect of experience, language and interpretation that may render the same phrase one way for one person and another way for another person.

'we are not worthy so much as to receive the crumbs....' is much hated by many, many Christians who refuse to use the words. There are people who genuinely think this is their warning not to receive communion because they're not 'holy' enough. And yet in another perhaps more scriptural context, these words may speak powerfully of being lifted up to the grace of God who never turns away anyone who approaches.

'The Church of God of which we are members' or '... of which we are a part' I think makes it clear that the Anglican congregation claims for itself its own authority over its own use and distribution of the sacrament, but not over the entirety of Christendom.

Anglican theology may be held in its liturgy. But it isn't, in my view, comprehensively circumscribed by it. Thus, two Anglicans at the same communion rail; one believing 'simply' in the spiritual food of the body and blood of Christ; another in the thorough ontological transignification of the elements.

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

FletcherChristian wrote

quote:
To say that it is only the CofE (or whatever) that has blessed these elements is technically correct of course, but is it not also part pot the wider universal church of God, or indeed the body of Christ? I can;t see what is so problematic about asserting that.

I'm glad that you suggest that my understanding is 'technically' correct. I also agree that the CofE is part of the wider universal church of God, indeed part of the body of Christ.

I guess the problem I have is that the phrase implies (IMHO) that 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). However, I'm not sure that this would be deemed to be acceptable by the CofE Canonistas.

This in turn would imply that the fellowship down the road is not viewed as part of the universal Church of God?

(I realise there is a contrast here between Legality and Validity, which is why I wonder if the phrase in question is unhelpful)

The CofE is a sacramental. episcopal church, and for Holy Communion to be Canonically legal it must have a recognised ordained priest administering the sacraments.

Other churches in the universal Church of God may have different understandings of the sacraments, priesthood, and ordained ministry. 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?

Again, I suggest the liturgy is a historic piece, but even the CofE recognises there are other Christians these days, with different practices!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

So they should, you and your heretickal conventicles ...
[Biased]

I think the mileage varies on this one. I've come across some otherwise very Nose-bleed High Anglo-Catholic clergy who are very happy to acknowledge, not only the existence, but the effectiveness and 'validity' if you like, of their non-conformist colleagues.

Others, as you say, can be very sniff in their attitudes to anyone below a certain latitude, let alone anyone outwith their own church.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

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]

[ 07. August 2017, 14:27: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

It so happens that I presided at Holy Communion by Extension yesterday morning (was it Our Place you were at, Felafool? [Paranoid]

), 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

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

'We'll have no language in this house ...'

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

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.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

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?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

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 ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
'We'll have no language in this house ...'

It'll be very quiet then!
[Devil]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

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!)

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

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.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

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.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

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.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

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.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

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]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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?

Posted by Roman Cataholic (# 18736) on :

What's wrong with Anglican Church in England?

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

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.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

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]

Which of course would be a silly way to read that phrase; the CoG and COGIC churches are memorialists.)

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

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 ]

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

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.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

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.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

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.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

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.'

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

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.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

"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.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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 ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

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.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

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.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

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.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

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.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

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.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

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.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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?

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

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." [Devil]

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

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.

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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 ...

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

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?

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Re: The question of right intention, let's continue the discussion in another thread:

http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=008508

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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?

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

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.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@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.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0