|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Church of England (and therefore Anglicans) are Protestants??
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But what does it matter? If you truely believe your baptisms to be pukka then what does it matter if others sometimes doubt that? It doesn't affect what you believe or practice.
I tend to think that the truth is important, and that fellow Christians practising something that implies that other Christians are being dishonest is a problem. I would go so far to say that it is a practical bearing of false witness, and as such should be challenged and repented of.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But what does it matter? If you truely believe your baptisms to be pukka then what does it matter if others sometimes doubt that? It doesn't affect what you believe or practice.
I tend to think that the truth is important, and that fellow Christians practising something that implies that other Christians are being dishonest is a problem. I would go so far to say that it is a practical bearing of false witness, and as such should be challenged and repented of.
But now you're assuming ill will. If you think the truth is important then so do others who might happen to disagree. At the end of the day it's only a problem for the one who is offended.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The standard Cof E baptism from Common Worship is
quote:
... in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit.
Not only would it be beyond the pale to use a different formula but I also suspect that the official CofE view is that a person who has been baptised with some other formula, has not been baptised.
And yet the Early Church's formula seems to have been "Jesus is Lord."
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Eucharist is a sign of unity, that is why holy communion is a "members only" thing.
I am a member of the Church.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The standard Cof E baptism from Common Worship is
quote:
... in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit.
Not only would it be beyond the pale to use a different formula but I also suspect that the official CofE view is that a person who has been baptised with some other formula, has not been baptised.
And yet the Early Church's formula seems to have been "Jesus is Lord."
Well, yes, but we didn't stop the clock at AD100 or whatever, did we? Is your understanding of the world and of who you are and of what you relate to, the same as it was when you were, say, 12?
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
My point is simply that with formulas being so different, can we say with any certainty that baptism x is invalid because formula y wasn't used?
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The banner I would recognise as the sign of that unity is the cross, which is certainly not copyrighted by anyone. Not even, alas, by the Church of England.
Unlike, presumably, the URC version. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) (Other denominations are available).
I agree with your basic sentiment, by the way.
And The Salvation Army cross...
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Eucharist is a sign of unity, that is why holy communion is a "members only" thing.
I am a member of the Church.
And that is your prerogative to believe that. Yet others might disagree and if on that basis they regulate who is and who is not able to receive holy communion then that should be respected. Discuss your objections by all means, but I see very little point in getting offended by it.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Eucharist is a sign of unity, that is why holy communion is a "members only" thing.
I am a member of the Church.
And that is your prerogative to believe that. Yet others might disagree and if on that basis they regulate who is and who is not able to receive holy communion then that should be respected. Discuss your objections by all means, but I see very little point in getting offended by it.
Hmmm... there are, of course, those who believe, following as they do the 39 Articles, that the Mass is a 'blasphemous fable' and a 'dangerous deceit.'
I hope most Roman Catholics would not offended by that.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Hmmm... there are, of course, those who believe, following as they do the 39 Articles, that the Mass is a 'blasphemous fable' and a 'dangerous deceit.'
I hope most Roman Catholics would not offended by that.
I'm not a Roman Catholic, of course, but even where they to think of the Divine Liturgy in such a way I really take no offence. I simply think they're wrong. The "validity" or otherwise of our rites and sacraments do not depend upon Anglican acceptance of them.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The banner I would recognise as the sign of that unity is the cross, which is certainly not copyrighted by anyone. Not even, alas, by the Church of England.
Unlike, presumably, the URC version. (Other denominations are available).
I agree with your basic sentiment, by the way.
And The Salvation Army cross...
I find it genuinely fascinating that you would describe that as the SA cross. There is so much overlaid on it that I would not describe it as a cross - more as a denominational badge in which the cross is incorporated.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
All human beings share the same beginning and the same ending - birth and death.
We are all one and yet we are all different.
Our brothers and sisters who hold the Moslem,Hindu
faith and Buddhist tradition are our brothers and sisters one hundred percent but most Christians would not admit these brothers and sisters to the Christian sacraments or mysteries until they have shown evidence of faith in Christ and have been properly instructed and fully accepted the Christian faith. They are however our honoured guests if they wish to be present at the liturgy.
It is the same for Catholics as far as the attendance of non Catholic Christians at the celebration of the sacraments.Even if they were to receive the eucharist the divisions in understanding would not be eradicated thereby.
We have to live with these differences at the moment until we can reconcile our differences.
It does not mean God loves Catholics more,but it reminds us more forcefully that we must work for visible unity as God wills.
If Mudfrog can live without the eucharist at his own place of worship,why should he wish to receive in a place of worship where he doesn't agree with the teachings ?
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Even Judas Iscariot received bread and wine from the Lord Jesus...
...you cannot equate non-Catholic Christians with non-Christian Buddhists, etc. We still go to Calvary for our salvation: it seems very wrong that the meal of 'communion' and fellowship around the cross should exclude half of Christendom.
What would Jesus do? It seems to me that if we share the one bread and have been baptised by the one Spirit into the one Body, then we should all be welcome.
And why should I want it even though we don't have it at our Citadels? Ecumenical fellowship, Christian unity, shared worship, a witness to the one Body...
As it stands, by banning non-RCs from the eucharist the Roman Church is revealing a desire to fragment the Body.
[ 04. May 2015, 12:04: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
As it stands, by banning non-RCs from the eucharist the Roman Church is revealing a desire to fragment the Body.
Not at all. The RC believes that it is the body.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Of course, there are those of us who both insist on the integrity of the Eucharist (no grape juice, no Ribena, no cake, no general meal) but also feel that the RCC are misguided on their Eucharistic stance. I can affirm everything about RC Eucharistic theology, so why can I not say as much to a priest and therefore be able to receive the Host at Mass?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
To pick up an earlier point about Anglican Calvinists, the ACNA ones listed are mostly associated with the small (but loud) group of Anglican Calvinists in the CoE, most CoE Anglicans would not be familiar with them. CoE Calvinists have a similar link to Sydney Anglicanism.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Of course, there are those of us who both insist on the integrity of the Eucharist (no grape juice, no Ribena, no cake, no general meal).
Let me ask why this external markers keep the integrity of the meal while others do not?
For instance I am pretty sure Jesus instituted the Eucharist as a post-meal observance, why do we not keep that and yet insist on wine and bread?
I would suggest that to be biblical about integrity that these are all externals, things on the outside and that it is the things that come from the inside that matter. In this the seeking of genuine table fellowship is more important than these externals.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I can affirm everything about RC Eucharistic theology, so why can I not say as much to a priest and therefore be able to receive the Host at Mass?
Because from an RC perspective one must not only confess the same faith but also fully initiated into the RC. It seems only reasonable that unity in faith precedes sacramental unity, with the sacraments in the right order too: baptism, then confirmation, then holy communion.
[ 04. May 2015, 14:03: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Were I to go to a Salvation Army citadel and say'Hello,I'm a Christian,can I join with you in praise of the Lord ?'I feel certain that the Salvationists would say 'Welcome,brother'.
Were I to say 'Now I just love the uniform that everyone is wearing.Can I have one ? would the Salvationists say 'All right,but we need to initiate you properly before you can wear the uniform.'
It's the same with Communion.We need to know that you share fully the Catholic faith,but you are most welcome to be at the liturgy.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rev per Minute
Shipmate
# 69
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I can affirm everything about RC Eucharistic theology, so why can I not say as much to a priest and therefore be able to receive the Host at Mass?
Because from an RC perspective one must not only confess the same faith but also fully initiated into the RC. It seems only reasonable that unity in faith precedes sacramental unity, with the sacraments in the right order too: baptism, then confirmation, then holy communion.
Except that, for most Western/European Catholics, the order is baptism as an infant, holy communion from the age of 7 or 8 and confirmation at some point in their teens. This has been the case since at least the early 1900s, IIRC, and seems to be replicated in the more recent practices of the Anglican churches of these isles.
PS As a former RC, I still see the church in the binary terms I learned as a child - (Roman) Catholic and Protestant. The Orthodoxen had a sort of acceptance to the Catholic side (sorry) but all else were Protestant by the single fact of not being RC. Even though I'm now an Anglican priest, I don't question the basic premise of this definition.
--------------------
"Allons-y!" "Geronimo!" "Oh, for God's sake!" The Day of the Doctor
At the end of the day, we face our Maker alongside Jesus. RIP ken
Posts: 2696 | From: my desk (if I can find the keyboard under this mess) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
Except that, for most Western/European Catholics, the order is baptism as an infant, holy communion from the age of 7 or 8 and confirmation at some point in their teens. This has been the case since at least the early 1900s, IIRC, and seems to be replicated in the more recent practices of the Anglican churches of these isles.
Yes, it was Pius X who changed the order. Another ultramontane act of his. Now the Roman Catholic Church has millions of people receiving holy communion who haven't been fully initiated and who as a result are inclined to confirmation has an unnecessary sacrament. Baptism and confirmation were never meant to be separated.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
In my view, Believers' Baptism = Baptism conjoined with Confirmation.
But, of course, we only dedicate/bless/give thanks for children.
In "open table" Baptist churches, anyone can take Communion. "Closed table" Communion is only open to those who have been baptised by immersion on profession of faith (which, yes, does imply strongly that infant baptism as practised by other churches isn't proper baptism).
[ 04. May 2015, 17:44: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Of course, there are those of us who both insist on the integrity of the Eucharist (no grape juice, no Ribena, no cake, no general meal).
Let me ask why this external markers keep the integrity of the meal while others do not?
For instance I am pretty sure Jesus instituted the Eucharist as a post-meal observance, why do we not keep that and yet insist on wine and bread?
I would suggest that to be biblical about integrity that these are all externals, things on the outside and that it is the things that come from the inside that matter. In this the seeking of genuine table fellowship is more important than these externals.
Jengie
But you can have both, surely? I don't see how using bread and wine prevents genuine table fellowship. This is the whole point of the Peace.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
I think the Peace is meant to actualize being "in love and charity with [our] neighbors"--see also Mt 5:23-24.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Yes - but that seems integral to table fellowship. You can't have it without being at peace with your table neighbours.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda in the South Bay
Apprentice
# 18185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Eucharist is a sign of unity, that is why holy communion is a "members only" thing.
This demonstrates complete lack of understanding of the difference between unity and uniformity. It presupposes that unity in diversity is impossible, and that we cannot come together by doing anything other than assembling under one particular banner, whichever that might be. The banner I would recognise as the sign of that unity is the cross, which is certainly not copyrighted by anyone. Not even, alas, by the Church of England.
Sure, if you're into the lowest common denominator approach. I'm not sure "unity in diversity" means very much except that many real differences get swept under the carpet. Unity requires that we confess the same faith. That is the prerequisite from which eveything else follows.
Easy to say when you belong to a Church that considers itself to be the True Church.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The question of baptism and rebaptism is rather more extreme in baptist circles. Since baptism is understood to have a specific action as well as a specific (word) formula [Trinitarian and identical to CofE/RC wording], then rebaptism used to be quite common.
It was particularly linked to those churches who have/had a "closed" membership. That is, membership was restricted to those who had been baptised by immersion. These days we tend not to rebaptise as the number of closed membership churches is declining year on year. We rather take the view that it is the public declaration of faith which is important.
It is, of course, also an issue ecumenically: a Baptist church is not viewed in a good light by its (say) Anglican neighbours if it insists on baptising by immersion people who have - according to other church polities - been properly baptised already.
Where things get tricky is where someone joins a Baptist church and says (as did I, many moons ago), "I was christened as a child but I don't regard that as proper baptism since I didn't know what was happening and I had no personal faith at that time - so now I want 'real' baptism". In this case the Minister is damned if they do (because of the ecumenical implications) and damned if they do[n't] (because of the pastoral ones). And the candidate will not accept doing a "reaffirmation of baptismal vows": real water, and total immersion, are essential!
The candidate might wonder what the point of joining a Baptist church is if adult baptism isn't all that important. They might as well simply start (or continue) attending their local CofE or Methodist, etc. church.
Interestingly, I know of one CofE lady who went to the local Baptist church to be re-baptised, but continued to attend her CofE church as normal. I only have her side of the story, but it didn't sound to me as if this caused the respective churches much of a problem.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Were I to go to a Salvation Army citadel and say'Hello,I'm a Christian,can I join with you in praise of the Lord ?'I feel certain that the Salvationists would say 'Welcome,brother'.
Were I to say 'Now I just love the uniform that everyone is wearing.Can I have one ? would the Salvationists say 'All right,but we need to initiate you properly before you can wear the uniform.'
It's the same with Communion.We need to know that you share fully the Catholic faith,but you are most welcome to be at the liturgy.
Not at all, because uniform isn't a sign of belonging - there are 'initiated' Salvation Army soldiers who out of choice do not wear the uniform. The uniform is a sign of witness and service.
There are no aspects of Salvation Army worship that are given to, experienced by, or available to, only those who wear the uniform.
If you came into my hall on Sunday you would be able to sing, pray openly if opportunity is given, testify publicly, be allowed to read the Bible lesson, and kneel at the Mercy Seat (our place of prayer).
No aspect of grace is available only to those who have been initiated into covenanted membership.
By the way, The Salvation Army subscribes to the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed; by the Holy Spirit we proclaim Christ crucified, risen and coming again and confess Jesus as Lord to the glory of God the father. On what divine authority do you say I am not a part of the Body of Christ?
[ 04. May 2015, 19:27: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Sorry, that final question was really directed to Ad Orientem
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Again, why the touchiness? If you don't believe that the Orthodox Churches are the one true Church that Christ founded, or any other Church that happens to make the same claim, then why get upset about it? That we only allow our members to receive holy communion and that authority comes from a coherent ecclesiology but ultimately the authority comes from Christ himself. Feel free to disagree, of course. No one is forcing you to believe that. All we ask is to respect our practice enough not to break it.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
By the way, The Salvation Army subscribes to the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed; by the Holy Spirit we proclaim Christ crucified, risen and coming again and confess Jesus as Lord to the glory of God the father. On what divine authority do you say I am not a part of the Body of Christ?
Just out of curiosity, how do you square not Baptising with "acknowledge[ing] one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins"?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Sorry,Mudfrog I am asking if you would allow me to come to the Citadel and wear the uniform of the Salvation Army - just because I liked it and a good number of others were wearing it.
I'm sure you would welcome me to the citadel.
you might even accept that I was a follower of Christ,but would you let me dress up in the uniform and march around with the corps if I told you that I had some beliefs about Christianity which you probably didn't share. ?
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
By the way, The Salvation Army subscribes to the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed; by the Holy Spirit we proclaim Christ crucified, risen and coming again and confess Jesus as Lord to the glory of God the father. On what divine authority do you say I am not a part of the Body of Christ?
Just out of curiosity, how do you square not Baptising with "acknowledge[ing] one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins"?
Basically, four verses:
quote:
Ephesians 4:4-5
4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
and
quote:
1 Corinthians 12: 13
For we were all baptised by one Spirit so as to form one body whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
We do not deny the blessing of water baptism - and we have no preference one against another in the context of infant or adult baptism - indeed if any Salvationist feels that they are called personally to be baptised then we support them in that.
In our history we baptised infants and never adults and yet we always emphasised that more important to the conversion experience was the Spirit's inward baptism. And there is another text:
quote:
Matthew 3:11
11 I baptise you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptise you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
So for us, the one baptism, the baptism that Christ brings, the baptism that brings us into the Body of Christ, is the baptism with the Holy Spirit. That is not to say that water baptism is not a sacrament - it plainly can be - but we believe that it is not the water that is the effective part of baptism but the operation of the Spirit; and that operation does not require water.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Sorry,Mudfrog I am asking if you would allow me to come to the Citadel and wear the uniform of the Salvation Army - just because I liked it and a good number of others were wearing it.
I'm sure you would welcome me to the citadel.
you might even accept that I was a follower of Christ,but would you let me dress up in the uniform and march around with the corps if I told you that I had some beliefs about Christianity which you probably didn't share. ?
No, but then uniform wearing is not a sacrament - and neither is it something anyone would wear 'just because they liked it.' If it were I should worry about your clothing fetish, to be honest!
The point you are missing is that the uniform is not something that is offered and received. It is something that is worn as a witness or in service. It is not therefore a means of grace that can be withheld and therefore depriving someone of that grace. In worship the grace of God is fully available to all whether they are uniformed soldiers or visiting friends.
...and we don't 'dress up' and 'march around'. Please don't imply that the uniform is trivial and to be mocked.
[ 04. May 2015, 21:44: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Ah, thank you for clearing things up for me re Salvationists and baptism. I understand that Pentecostals view baptism similarly, that water baptism is simply an addition to spiritual baptism but not compulsory. That and the common charismatic idea that being baptised in the spirit is a separate event is a bit hard for me to grasp from the NT and from my own position of baptism, but it does help to see the SA stance as being along those lines. It makes the common Methodist heritage for Salvationists and Pentecostals very interesting indeed!
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
Back to the OP: is it a question of this ..
If you're an Anglican and see the Pope as simply another Christian in the sense of the priesthood of all believers (albeit with a title) then you're a Protestant. If you see him as someone rather more important than that, you're a Catholic (almost certainly Roman).
If you don't see the Pope as a Christian then perhaps you are a Strict Baptist or Brethren!
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Back to the OP: is it a question of this ..
If you're an Anglican and see the Pope as simply another Christian in the sense of the priesthood of all believers (albeit with a title) then you're a Protestant. If you see him as someone rather more important than that, you're a Catholic (almost certainly Roman).
With you up to the second pair of brackets. The Bishop of Rome is Patriarch of the western church, and could reasonably be regarded as first among equals among the Patriarchs. What he is not is infallible (no matter how narrowly defined), nor does he have the right to dictate doctrine to the church - those decisions rightly belong to the ecumenical councils, which haven't occurred for some considerable time. As the Roman Catholic Church requires me to assent to doctrines that are not held by the universal church, and has excommunicated my forbears (and officially continues to deny me communion) on those grounds, I am Catholic but not Roman Catholic.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Mudfrog many thanks for your reply.
First of all let me assure you that I mean no disrespect to the uniform of the Salvation Army.
I see it (of course this is just my opinion !) as an outward and visible sign of full acceptance of the teachings of the Salvation Army and an indication of one's determination to live within the disciplines of the Salvation Army
I fully agree with you that if I were to come up along to the Citadel,'dress up' in the uniform
and 'march around' with the corps that could be construed as mocking the Salvation Army.
Can you see that sometimes Catholics feel that there are people who come to a Catholic eucharist,as fellow Christians,as honoured guests,but who say ,'well the Mass is a blasphemous fable and a dangerous deceit,we don't accept what the Catholics teach about the eucharist, we don't think you need to 'dress up'
and 'march around' in processions ?'
Can you see that sometimes Catholics feel that they also are being mocked and derided when people who do not share the intimacy of the faith,want to take part fully in that most intimate of rites,without sharing fully in the beliefs ?
It's the same with those who mock the Catholic church for claiming to be the 'one,true church'
Don't we all believe that our particular denomination is part of the 'one true church' If not,why be a member of the particular church ?
All the churches which have their origins in the Protestant Reformation have either split from the Catholic church or split from a church which had already split from the Catholic church.
So it is not illogical to claim that the 'one,true church' finds its visible presence in the body generally known as the Catholic church.
60 years ago few Christians attended the services of other denominations.Now it is relatively commonplace. I applaud that and continue to work for unity.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
... Don't we all believe that our particular denomination is part of the 'one true church'. If not, why be a member of the particular church?
All the churches which have their origins in the Protestant Reformation have either split from the Catholic church or split from a church which had already split from the Catholic church.
So it is not illogical to claim that the 'one,true church' finds its visible presence in the body generally known as the Catholic church. ...
There is a fundamental and important difference between believing one's own ecclesial community is part of 'the one true church' and believing/proclaiming/insisting that it is the whole of 'the one true church'.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Back to the OP: is it a question of this ..
If you're an Anglican and see the Pope as simply another Christian in the sense of the priesthood of all believers (albeit with a title) then you're a Protestant. If you see him as someone rather more important than that, you're a Catholic (almost certainly Roman).
If you don't see the Pope as a Christian then perhaps you are a Strict Baptist or Brethren!
In which case I am 'catholic' - I see the Pope as one of the 4 partriarchs of the universal church, I accept him as the successor of Peter.
My church (Anglican) has no holy orders or other sacraments apart from what we received from Rome and kept when we left.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
My point is simply that with formulas being so different, can we say with any certainty that baptism x is invalid because formula y wasn't used?
No, which is why we conditionally baptize such people.
I see no reason why Baptists can't do the same with adult converts, either. Do a conditional baptism by full immersion complete with adult profession if faith.
Yes, it still carries the implication that they don't think infant baptism is real, but if they're wrong about they, they don't fall into the error of attempting to baptize twice.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
In our church very often the babies are baptised but also children teenagers and adults. It's an English church very different from Baptist churches when they have a lots to put them in water.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Enoch - I agree with your statement which would carry even more weight were it to be true,with regard to what is commonly called the 'Catholic church'.
I quote from the authoritive Catechism of the Catholic Church.
(I know it has often been quoted before but people like to maintain their traditional beliefs about the Catholic church,particularly those who are not linked in full communion with what is commonly called the 'Catholic church')
Catechism question Who belongs to the Catholic church ?
Catechism Answer 836
All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. And to it,in different ways,belong or are ordered :the Catholic faithful,others who believe in Christ,and finally all mankind,called by God's grace to salvation.
838 The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honoured by the name of Christian,but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.
Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptised are put in CERTAIN,although imperfect, COMMUNION with the Catholic church.
839 ,840 and 841 speak about relations with Jews and Muslims
842 speaks about the Church's bond with non-Christian religions
All nations form but one community.This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the earth.All share a common destiny,namely God.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In Kerygmania the question was raised as to the Protestantism of the Church of England; with one or two expressing surprise. I was going to post this there as a response but the hosting decision says I'm not allowed.
Is the following from the Coronation oath enough to settle the matter?:
quote:
Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
Queen. All this I promise to do.
The problem is that when 'Protestant' meant something else when it first came into use. It was basically given to those who protested the Holy Roman Empire's enforcement of the Edict of Worms, which constituted religion through force. Of course that means that the word 'Protestant' became rather ironic in England or Norway (where I live), as they both became protestant through governmental force.
Now, on the other hand, it has become a term for 'everything that happens not to be Roman Catholic, Old Catholic and Orthodox,' and it is often assumed, mostly by Roman Catholics, Old Catholics and Orthodox, that all 'Protestants' are the same. I, for instance, have much more in common with Roman Catholics than I will ever have with Anabaptists or a Pentecostals.
quote:
Originally posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic:
I once heard it put that Anglicans are Reformed but not Protestant, while Lutherans are Protestant but not Reformed. I think that is about right.
If you use the historic definition of 'Protestant,' yes. Not by the modern one.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Lutherans do not claim to be Catholic that is your oddity not theirs!
Clearly you haven't met many Lutherans. We do claim to be Catholic. Confessio Augustana is basically a defence of why we do.
I know that there are some 'Lutherans' around the world, esoecially in the US, who say they aren't Catholics, but that is just because they have forgotten that they are Lutherans.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Tradition shows that we have ordained priests since at least the 2nd Century.
I would say that Tradition (and Scripture and history) show that the church has ordained presbyters since the earliest days of the church. It wasn't until centuries later that the Greek or Latin words for "priest" in the sacrificial or intermediary sense (ἱερεύς/hiereus or sacerdos) began to be applied to the presbyterate.
That is not entirely true. When St. Paul describes his mission, in Romans 15:16, he doesnt use the noun ἱερεύς, but he does use the verb ἱερουργέω (in participle form). That means to act as a priest, to minister in the manner of a priest, to minister in priestly service. And to act as a priest is to act in sacrificial or intermediary manner.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
<snip>For the longest time Lutherans have resisted being called Protestant.<snip>
Which is a bit odd since the term appears to have originated with Lutherans.
Well, yes, but the word has now gotten a whole different meaning. It wasn't a doctrinal term historically. It didn't necessarily say anything about theology. And as a matter of fact; no historical Lutheran would - given the historic definition of 'Protestant' - be OK with Anabaptists or Pentecostals being labelled as 'Protestants.'
But now that would seems weird. That is the reason I do not self-identify as Protestant. I am a Catholic Christian, a priest in the historical Church of Norway, dating back to, roughly 995.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The standard Cof E baptism from Common Worship is
quote:
... in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit.
Not only would it be beyond the pale to use a different formula but I also suspect that the official CofE view is that a person who has been baptised with some other formula, has not been baptised.
And yet the Early Church's formula seems to have been "Jesus is Lord."
The seemingly you should be able to substantiate that.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Of course, there are those of us who both insist on the integrity of the Eucharist (no grape juice, no Ribena, no cake, no general meal) but also feel that the RCC are misguided on their Eucharistic stance. I can affirm everything about RC Eucharistic theology, so why can I not say as much to a priest and therefore be able to receive the Host at Mass?
Because the unity is corporal, not an intellectual idea.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
'Protestant' is not a very useful term. Once (if ever) you agree that the Church of England is or is not Protestant you still haven't said anything much about it.
For most English speakers 'Catholic' is the name of a church - the Pope's church. 'Protestant' is a designation for a number of churches that separated from Rome at or after the Reformation - imcluding Anglicans - but differ in many respects from each other.
It's a bit like British politics. 'Conservative' is the name of a party (whatever else it might mean). The 'Left' isn't a party but a disparate group of non-Conservatives.
And the right wing of 'the Left' includes some who could have been in the left wing of the Conservative Party, and the Conservative Party includes some who could have been on the right wing of the Left. And of course the right and the left wings of 'the Left' have little in common with each other.
As soon as you agree the Church of England is or is not 'Protestant' you have to start explaining what it is all over again.
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
