Thread: The Church of England (and therefore Anglicans) are Protestants?? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030362
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
Before ordination, all candidates say the declaration of assent. The preface is first read by the bishop:
quote:
The Church of England is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church worshipping the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation. Led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. In the declaration you are about to make will you affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith as your inspiration and guidance under God in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making him known to those in your care?
The candidates then say
quote:
I, A B, do so affirm, and accordingly declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness; and in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, I will use only the forms of service which are authorized or allowed by Canon.
[ 26. April 2015, 13:08: Message edited by: Spike ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Remembering the story of ++Fisher meeting some Portuguese seminarians on his travels.
PSs: Who are you? (all this in Latin, by the way, as their only common tongue)
++F: The Archbishop of Canterbury.
PSs (never having heard of the office): Oh. Are you a Catholic?
++F: Not what you mean by a Catholic.
PSs: Oh. Are you then a Protestant?
++F: Not what you mean by a Protestant.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Bingo!
Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on
:
How about "Protestant-friendly"?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I'm Church of England, and I regard myself as Protestant.
I also regard myself as a member of the church of St Alban, St Augustine of Canterbury, St Cuthbert, and of this part of the world St Aldhelm and all saints then and since, including William Tyndale (also with local connections) and the Marian martyrs.
Posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic (# 12722) on
:
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.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
How about "Protestant-friendly"?
How about "catholic-Friendly"?
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Yes Lutherans are Protestant but not Reformed. Calvin never totally pulled off the merger with Melanchthon although he did manage it with Bullinger. The Reformed tradition therefore is that which goes through Calvin and Zwingli but not Luther. However, Anglican's have never got their heads around such continental niceties.
Therefore the first statement has a totally different meaning to the second one because Anglican's define "Reformed" differently and "Protestant" differently. In other words its gibberish unless you accept Anglican internal definitions.
All I am trying to argue is that it is not up to the Anglican Communion to decide whether it it Catholic, Protestant or Reformed but up to the whole Church. Just because you create a definition that suits you does not mean others need to accept it. If they do not accept the redefinition then you do not get the label or loose the label.
So Anglicanism is Protestant. I am willing to concede is partly Reformed in that the 39 articles are really a low Reformed statement with Bishops added. In other words if Anglicanism wants to associate itself with any of the other sub-streams of Protestantism then the Reformed one which is also the most ecumenical is perhaps the historically correct one.
However the claims to be Catholic are not accepted by the main denomination claiming that title. Basically if you are not in communion with the Pope you are not Catholic in their understanding. Equally, the way Anglican does it gives "we are, you aren't" basis which too many other Protestants sounds very "uncatholic" because catholic is usually seen as acknowledging Christ's body is bigger than our own chapel, denomination or communion. Which is why we sometimes use universal instead, though that is still to narrow a concept for the bounds of catholic. In other words it gives offense to all other Christians one way or another.
Jengie
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Presumably the Old Catholics, and the Porvoo signatories, accept Anglican identification as Catholic. Besides, I fail to see why Rome should get to decide who is and isn't Catholic. Catholic hasn't meant "in communion with the Pope" since at least the Great Schism.
[ 26. April 2015, 20:45: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Lutherans do not claim to be Catholic that is your oddity not theirs! They are recognizing you as part of the church Catholic in the Protestant term. So Porvoo is irrelevant, indeed it might be seen as a sign that you are not Catholic.
Old Catholics are an obscure sect that make the URC look mainstream. If you have to get your validation from them then...
If Catholicism means nothing more than in communion with the See of St Peter then I am quite happy for the Roman Catholic Church to determine that. It is not something I aspire to. If you want catholic to mean the Body of Christ through out eternity I would desire you to be a little less precious about it.
Jengie
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
I'll stick my neck out and submit that as a very broad generalization, the US Episcopal Church more closely resembles the Roman Catholic Church liturgically. Much of this is due, I think, to the Prayer Book revisions that emphasized the centrality of the Eucharist.
Also, as a personal aside, among my Protestant friends, many have opined that TEC is "like the Catholics" (or even "Too Catholic"). Almost all of my Catholic friends seem to feel that it is at least liturgically very similar to their church .
[ 26. April 2015, 21:28: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Ask four Anglicans and get five opinions, but I'd happily go with the idea that the Church of England believes itself to quote:
embody the essential notes of the Church catholic and reformed.
In saying that I recognise that the Roman Catholic Church would not accept it to be thoroughly catholic, and within the reformed tradition some do not accept it as fully reformed.
[ 26. April 2015, 21:51: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I'll stick my neck out and submit that as a very broad generalization, the US Episcopal Church more closely resembles the Roman Catholic Church liturgically. Much of this is due, I think, to the Prayer Book revisions that emphasized the centrality of the Eucharist.
Also, as a personal aside, among my Protestant friends, many have opined that TEC is "like the Catholics" (or even "Too Catholic"). Almost all of my Catholic friends seem to feel that it is at least liturgically very similar to their church .
I'd stick my neck out also. This is a particularly dangerous thing to do bearing in mind that I've never crossed the Atlantic and my entire awareness of the US Episcopal Church comes from what I have picked up since I embarked on the Ship.
Different provinces of the Anglican Communion differ a lot from each other. Although the CofE and the US Episcopal Church are in communion with each other, I get the impression that in culture and ethos they are actually quite a long way apart, and particularly since the introduction of Common Worship, moving in different directions, not so much directly away from one another but at right angles.
[ 26. April 2015, 22:16: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
Some C of E Anglicans are definitely NOT "catholic".
Some C of E Anglicans are definitely NOT "reformed".
Some C of E congregations (and ministers) are barely Anglican.
Increasingly, I have difficulties with adequate definitions of the terms "catholic", "protestant", and especially "Anglican".
For myself, I would term myself "Anglican" because I am part of the Anglican family of churches - even though I disagree considerably with a lot of the more con-evo forces within the family.
As a self-termed "Anglican", I think of myself as "catholic", because I see myself (as an Anglican) as part of the worldwide Christian Church, in fellowship with RCs, Orthodox and all other denominations.
I recognise that, because I am not "in communion" with Rome (although that's Rome's fault, not mine), I would be regarded by some as "protestant". This is, however, a term that I would never use for myself as I find it meaningless.
Posted by argona (# 14037) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
However the claims to be Catholic are not accepted by the main denomination claiming that title.
Well they wouldn't, would they?
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I'll stick my neck out and submit that as a very broad generalization, the US Episcopal Church more closely resembles the Roman Catholic Church liturgically. Much of this is due, I think, to the Prayer Book revisions that emphasized the centrality of the Eucharist.
Also, as a personal aside, among my Protestant friends, many have opined that TEC is "like the Catholics" (or even "Too Catholic"). Almost all of my Catholic friends seem to feel that it is at least liturgically very similar to their church .
I'd stick my neck out also. This is a particularly dangerous thing to do bearing in mind that I've never crossed the Atlantic and my entire awareness of the US Episcopal Church comes from what I have picked up since I embarked on the Ship.
Different provinces of the Anglican Communion differ a lot from each other. Although the CofE and the US Episcopal Church are in communion with each other, I get the impression that in culture and ethos they are actually quite a long way apart, and particularly since the introduction of Common Worship, moving in different directions, not so much directly away from one another but at right angles.
Hmmm......I don't feel this myself. I actually feel quite close to the TEC but then I'm not C-of-E but Welsh
The Welsh church actually has drawn closer to the English church with the introduction of the 2004 revision - there now seems little difference in the two liturgies and when I'm on holiday in England the CW liturgy seems very similar to what we use. The same with the TEC - just had a look at their Prayer Book and the three churches seem very close
I tend too to agree with Oscar the Grouch - I always describe myself as Anglican. 'Protestant' can mean a variety of things and the same could be said about Catholic particularly in an Anglican context! I don't to be honest really identify with either the Catholic or Reformed aspects of Anglicanism - or at least their extremes - but instead can see good things in both - and bad things in both! I can't call myself an Anglo-Catholic or an Evangelical....because I am neither. I wouldn't use 'Protestant' to describe myself although I don't object to it being used of myself either
If I were in the States I would certainly attend the TEC and I'm pretty sure I'd feel comfortable there too
The history of the C-of-E has resulted in an attempt to contain the Catholic and Reformed elements in one church. Whether it has been successful could be challenged and even maintained it's failed but it's not I think for lack of trying.....We have a 'Popish liturgy a Calvinistic set of articles and an Erastian clergy' I think has been said! More rhetoric than anything else? Maybe - but there is an element of truth in it! And if you're an Anglican that is what you have to deal with. It does create tensions I will grant you that. But do I want to change it? I don't think so,not really......
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
Those Anglicans who call the Church of England catholic, do they/you also consider the Church of Scotland catholic?
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Those Anglicans who call the Church of England catholic, do they/you also consider the Church of Scotland catholic?
Two of the three (university-educated) I polled on this question this afternoon seemed to think that the Church of Scotland was Anglican so that would answer your question, sort of. The Jew at the table knew that it was Presbyterian.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Those Anglicans who call the Church of England catholic, do they/you also consider the Church of Scotland catholic?
In the sense of it being part of the wider church, yes. More narrowly, the CofS does not maintain the historic episcopate, and relies (or at least claims to rely) solely on scripture rather than recognising the role of the ecumenical councils and the historic teaching of the church. Historically the denial that much of the rest of the church was Christian (including the claim that the Pope was the anti-Christ) suggests deliberate separation. The CofS does not believe that, when ordaining, they are ordaining priests to the same orders that Anglicans, Roman Catholics and the Orthodox do. I'm inclined to think, then, that the CofS is deliberately non-Catholic.
[ 27. April 2015, 05:23: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
relies (or at least claims to rely) solely on scripture rather than recognising the role of the ecumenical councils and the historic teaching of the church.
It is possible to do both, assessing the latter in terms of the former.
quote:
The CofS does not believe that, when ordaining, they are ordaining priests to the same orders that Anglicans, Roman Catholics and the Orthodox do. I'm inclined to think, then, that the CofS is deliberately non-Catholic.
The NT knows nothing of "ordination" or of "priests".
It is perfectly possible to subscribe to the church's Nicene catholicity - and unity, sanctity and apostolicity - without falling for either.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The NT knows nothing of "ordination" or of "priests".
Which sums up nicely exactly why the C of E is catholic, not protestant.
Protestants take the Bible as its sole authority.
Catholics balance scripture with tradition and reason.
Tradition shows that we have ordained priests since at least the 2nd Century.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The NT knows nothing of "ordination" or of "priests".
Which sums up nicely exactly why the C of E is catholic, not protestant.
Protestants take the Bible as its sole authority.
Catholics balance scripture with tradition and reason.
Time the Reformers rather than the Protestant Popular theologians. Calvin for instance seems to quote the church fathers every other line. Of course there is Augustine!
No the Protestants retold the tradition just as Anglicans do.
Jengie
[ 27. April 2015, 08:46: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on
:
quote:
posted by Demas: Those Anglicans who call the Church of England catholic, do they/you also consider the Church of Scotland catholic?
Nope. The Church of Scotland is Presbyterian.
Trying to describe the Scottish Episcopal church has its moments though. Certainly where I am in the west of Scotland when people ask if you're catholic or protestant they mean are you Roman Catholic or Kirk/Church of Scotland/Presbyterian (or any of its various offshoots).
Of course, urban myth around here also suggests that if you say neither, you are (for example Jewish) the question is whether you are a protestant Jew or a catholic Jew...
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
'Holy Protestant Church of Japan' just doesn't seem to have the same ring of truth about it.
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Presumably the Old Catholics, and the Porvoo signatories, accept Anglican identification as Catholic.
Yes, I am an Old Catholic by ecclesiology and (for the most part) theology. I belong to the Anglican Church of Canada because it is the church recognized by Utrecht for Old Catholics in Canada. I am not "protesting" Catholic doctrine, nor am I "pro testamente" as Protestants would understand it. I reject sola scriptura as a self-contradiction, and I believe that Christ's presence in the Eucharist is objective, local, and adorable. If I'm a Protestant, so were all Roman Catholics in 1869. On the other hand, I'm quite happy to be counted an Evangelical Christian.
This is a question I've been mulling over in quite another context: labels that apply well to collectives are inversely likely to be apt to the individuals who make them up. What makes a term useful as an umbrella term makes it equally contentious as a individual marker.
To give a more removed example, I know bishops of groups under the umbrella of the "Independent Sacramental Movement" who dislike the term: they would prefer to be called Old Roman Catholics, Liberal Catholics, or what have you. The elasticity of the term which makes it so convenient for sweeping, collective talk, makes it too anodyne to describe individuals. When discussing groups, a label that no one subset identifies especially closely with is an asset: when identifying individuals, it's obviously a handicap.
(For that matter, I have gay friends who chafe under the umbrella label "queer": it's a fairly established catch-all for the "LGBTQ..."etc. "communities" in aggregate. But the members of those communities may well just define themselves as members of those communities, rather than in terms of some perceived commonality across them. Academics like myself, however, can't really get around the need for the "meta" terms).
The Elizabethan settlement was by design aimed at "comprehending" the widest possible range of views, despite the efforts of some Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical authors to portray themselves as representing its intent, and the other as an anomaly. As a whole, the Church of England is an heir of the Protestant Reformation. As individuals, they vary. It would make sense to call John Stott or Michael Nazir-Ali a Protestant. It would be stretching the commonly understood meaning of the word to apply it to the Bishop of Ebbsfleet.
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Lutherans do not claim to be Catholic that is your oddity not theirs! They are recognizing you as part of the church Catholic in the Protestant term.
Not quite: many Lutherans, especially, of an Evangelical Catholic persuasion, would use the term in a way similar to the way it is used by Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Old and Anglo-Catholics, etc. In fact, in describing myself as an Evangelical but not a Protestant, I'm taking a lead from many of my Lutheran acquaintances.
Posted by gog (# 15615) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Protestants take the Bible as its sole authority.
Catholics balance scripture with tradition and reason.
Not all Protestants take the Bible as soul authority, some (ie Methodist) would take the same as the Catholics and add experience into the balance.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
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.
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on
:
Whenever I see an argument that (some) Anglicans aren't protestant, it tends to involve characteristics of the Anglican church which either are also true of the Scandinavian Lutheran church.
I think we can assume that the Lutherans are protestant by definition, since any history of protestantism would assert that Luther started it. Therefore Anglicans are protestant.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
... The Elizabethan settlement was by design aimed at "comprehending" the widest possible range of views, despite the efforts of some Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical authors to portray themselves as representing its intent, and the other as an anomaly. ...
It's curious that it takes a non-Anglican to say something that is so important. There are so many people who refuse to admit this or to recognise that they aren't entitled to insist that everyone should be like them.
It's one of the reasons why I make a point of describing myself as Church of England, rather than Anglican.
Posted by Amanda in the South Bay (# 18185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm Church of England, and I regard myself as Protestant.
I also regard myself as a member of the church of St Alban, St Augustine of Canterbury, St Cuthbert, and of this part of the world St Aldhelm and all saints then and since, including William Tyndale (also with local connections) and the Marian martyrs.
Ah, so you ask for the intercession of the saints, pray for the dead, venerate relics, go on pilgrimages, and are in communion with the Bishop of Rome?
I find it strange that even Anglicans who embrace their Protestant heritage (Tyndale and the Marian Prots) claim to have a continuity with the pre-Reformation Catholic Church in England.
Posted by Amanda in the South Bay (# 18185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
relies (or at least claims to rely) solely on scripture rather than recognising the role of the ecumenical councils and the historic teaching of the church.
It is possible to do both, assessing the latter in terms of the former.
quote:
The CofS does not believe that, when ordaining, they are ordaining priests to the same orders that Anglicans, Roman Catholics and the Orthodox do. I'm inclined to think, then, that the CofS is deliberately non-Catholic.
The NT knows nothing of "ordination" or of "priests".
It is perfectly possible to subscribe to the church's Nicene catholicity - and unity, sanctity and apostolicity - without falling for either.
I always thought it fascinating that Protestants who take such a dim view of the episcopate can subscribe to creeds that were created by members of said episcopate.
Posted by Amanda in the South Bay (# 18185) on
:
Especially amongst more confessional Lutherans (and amongst former Anglicans turned Catholic) there's a strong desire to bash Anglicanism as Calvinist, or Reformed (as if the 30 some years of Elizabethan Anglicanism defined Anglicanism FOREVER AND IN ALL PLACES).
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
It's only on the Ship that I've come across Anglicans who deny they are Protestants. We came into existence by breaking away from Rome, at a time when there was a widespread recognition that Rome needed to be reformed. Therefore I find it hard to see how we can be anything other than Protestant.
(However, I also affirm that we are Catholic, and that we contain the best of all worlds. In my own, bigoted, mind I believe that when Rome finally catches up with the Reformation it will want to rejoin us!)
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Some C of E Anglicans are definitely NOT "catholic".
Some C of E Anglicans are definitely NOT "reformed".
Some C of E congregations (and ministers) are barely Anglican.
Increasingly, I have difficulties with adequate definitions of the terms "catholic", "protestant", and especially "Anglican".
For myself, I would term myself "Anglican" because I am part of the Anglican family of churches - even though I disagree considerably with a lot of the more con-evo forces within the family.
As a self-termed "Anglican", I think of myself as "catholic", because I see myself (as an Anglican) as part of the worldwide Christian Church, in fellowship with RCs, Orthodox and all other denominations.
I recognise that, because I am not "in communion" with Rome (although that's Rome's fault, not mine), I would be regarded by some as "protestant". This is, however, a term that I would never use for myself as I find it meaningless.
This would be the mainstream approach in western Canada. Most people seem much more interested in what connects them and what they hold in common. While the RC denomination sometimes takes more trouble to differentiate themselves as unique, the diversity of all of the rest isn't generally lumped together as protestant here.
I also notice a tendency for people elsewhere to somehow use catholicity as some sort of benchmark against which all else would be measured. When I saw above the RC denomination, that is precisely all it is here. No more specially perceived as say, Mennonite or Doukabor.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda in the South Bay:
Ah, so you ask for the intercession of the saints, pray for the dead, venerate relics, go on pilgrimages, and are in communion with the Bishop of Rome?
I find it strange that even Anglicans who embrace their Protestant heritage (Tyndale and the Marian Prots) claim to have a continuity with the pre-Reformation Catholic Church in England.
The old (CofE) answer to the (RC) jibe 'where was your church before the reformation?' is 'where was your face before you washed it this morning?'
Of the practices that you list, the first two and the fourth are nowadays pretty unproblematic within the CofE although of course not univeralslly practiced, the third is a bit more problematic but I suspect not unknown, and as for the last, I think pretty much everyone in the CofE would say that it's not our fault that we aren't!
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
By the time I come to this thread, it has already accumulated a big response.
"Protestant" is one of those adjectives which means different things to different people and many Anglicans would not easily recognise themselves in that discription. To me, Anglicans are only protestant insofar as they are not Roman Catholics. As the posters have made clear above, "Catholic" rather than "Protestant" (the which word does not appear) is to be found in the formularies of most or all the branches of the Anglican Communion.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
My unease with the word 'protestant' is that it is so negative. It defines us by what we are against. The sort of Church the RCC was in the 16th century is very different from that of today, and even then the C of E only protested about certain aspects of it. The aspects of the RCC that I, and many if not most Anglicans, would still protest about are very few (albeit important); there are many more aspects of certain 'protestant' churches that I disagree with.
I don't disown the label 'protestant' but it's not very useful since it has to be redefined every time depending on who you are speaking to. 'Catholic' also needs explanation but at least it's a positive term and helps to give an idea of our general ethos - as the comments above about TEC indicate. It is interesting that in this city, which has a long history of sectarian 'catholic-protestant' rivalry, and two cathedrals to match, no-one every talks about the 'protestant' cathedral: it's always the 'Anglican' one.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
In the days of the Liverpool Protestant Party, would they have got votes from (even nominal) Anglicans?
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on
:
I had to look that one up! They seem to have been Orange Lodge members which broke away from the Conservative Party ( gosh, that sounds familiar!!!!)
Well I wouldn't have voted for them but of course it would have been a secret ballot and a secret only remains such if only one person knows about it......
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
It is interesting that in this city, which has a long history of sectarian 'catholic-protestant' rivalry, and two cathedrals to match, no-one every talks about the 'protestant' cathedral: it's always the 'Anglican' one.
Well - I didn't this year but I have in the past attended York Courses during Lent. The chief representatives other than ourselves have been Methodists and Roman Catholics, who are actually very active in ecumenical events. What surprised me initially at any rate was how much we actually agree on rather than disagree. The real disagreements seem to centre on church government
The other thing that strikes me is that divisions are a lot more acute within denominations than between them. These days you can have High church Presbyterians and Low Church Catholics.....
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
My unease with the word 'protestant' is that it is so negative. It defines us by what we are against.
It certainly has come to have that connotation, although in origin I think it had a rather different 'feel' - something more like testimony. The 'original' letter of protestation from which the term arose is, in fact, quite positive in tone - especially for the time.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
From what I have read there are just under 13 million Catholics in Canada and 200 thousand Mennonites in the same country.
This certainly does not mean that the majority group of these two is any more right than the minority group.
Nor does it mean that the majority grouping is any more Christian than the other .
But it does surely mean that with almost 40% of the Canadian population professing some sort of allegiance to Catholicism the Catholic Church has some sort of higher (not necessarily better )profile than the Mennonites.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
A bit over one and a half million Canadians identify as some sort of Anglican.
If we count the Anglicans as Catholic that might raise the profile (and possibly the quality) of Catholicism in Canada even higher.
It's good,however, if all Christians recognise the presence and the life of Christ in their Christian brothers and sisters who have different understandings of what is meant by the 'Church' as well as what is meant by the 'Catholic Church'.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
The identification as being of a particularly denomination in Canada is pretty insignificant as a country wide statistic. The country is huge, with the religious denomination being less and less significant as you move west. Most of the country doesn't attend any church at all, even though they suggest they are religious or, more commonly, spiritual. They may turn to their family's cultural heritage when someone dies. It used to be when getting married too, but that's changing dramatically. It's the venue that's more important these days. It is quite possible to book nearly church and just pay the rental fee.
The statement "Anglicans are not Roman Catholics" would be as apt, as much as "Roman Catholics are not Lutheran". Notwithstanding that nearly every religious undertaking outside of a specific church is joint with those three, the United Church of Canada (several denominations came together in 1925, congregationalists, presbyterians, methodists) plus anyone else who is available and willing. Our future is together. It's probably different that the ecumenism that many elsewhere think of, where the differences are the starting point, and people are at pains to adhere to their traditions while finding common cause. The common cause often is first, and there's a tendency to minimize the differences, and only to consider these later if they're mentioned at all. And if they are mentioned it is usually in the context of the denomination with a bossy hierarchy in the context of apologising for it.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
As the posters have made clear above, "Catholic" rather than "Protestant" (the which word does not appear) is to be found in the formularies of most or all the branches of the Anglican Communion.
For what its worth, the first sentence of the Church of Scotland constitution is "The Church of Scotland is part of the Holy Catholic or Universal Church".
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
For what its worth, the first sentence of the Church of Scotland constitution is "The Church of Scotland is part of the Holy Catholic or Universal Church".
Also fwiw, a quick search of an electronic version of the Book of Confessions of the Presbyterian Church (USA) turned up around 25 uses of the word "catholic," all referring to being part of the the catholic church or teaching the catholic faith. Aside from the Nicene and Apostles' creeds, these references appear in the Scots Confession, the Heidelburg Catechism, the second Helvetic Confession and the Westminster Confession.
On the other hand, the confessions contain no uses of the word "Protestant." ("Reformed," of course, is another matter.)
Meanwhile, the official name of the primary expression of Anglicanism in the U.S. remains "The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, otherwise known as the Episcopal Church (which name is hereby recognized as also designating the Church)." (Preamble to the Constitution of The Episcopal Church.)
[ 28. April 2015, 02:17: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda in the South Bay:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
relies (or at least claims to rely) solely on scripture rather than recognising the role of the ecumenical councils and the historic teaching of the church.
It is possible to do both, assessing the latter in terms of the former.
quote:
The CofS does not believe that, when ordaining, they are ordaining priests to the same orders that Anglicans, Roman Catholics and the Orthodox do. I'm inclined to think, then, that the CofS is deliberately non-Catholic.
The NT knows nothing of "ordination" or of "priests".
It is perfectly possible to subscribe to the church's Nicene catholicity - and unity, sanctity and apostolicity - without falling for either.
I always thought it fascinating that Protestants who take such a dim view of the episcopate can subscribe to creeds that were created by members of said episcopate.
Neither fascinating nor surprising.
Protestants are grateful for any providential gift of Tradition which is scriptural, as they are for other aspects of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, ie Reason and Experience, which are scripturally valid.
As for "dim view" of the episcopate, episcopacy is a valid and orthodox biblical concept, and I have served as an episcopos/presbyteros (the NT does not discriminate) myself.
Whether there is one, historically continuous, homogeneous episcopate which began in the NT, continued through the ecumenical councils, and is represented seamlessly today in the RC, Orthodox, Anglican and other traditions, and can therefore be described as "the" episcopate, is another matter entirely.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
It's only on the Ship that I've come across Anglicans who deny they are Protestants.
Really? I'd come across this a lot, long before I'd even heard of the Ship. You're obviously mixing with the wrong people ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on
:
'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 churches that separated from Rome at or after the Reformation - like 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). It is opposed (or balanced) by 'the Left'. But 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.
Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
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.
No. The first half of the oath is obviously referring only to the Church of Scotland, because that is the only Protestant Reformed Religion established by law in the United Kingdom. It's only the second half of the Oath that relates to the CofE. Clearly... ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
But it does surely mean that with almost 40% of the Canadian population professing some sort of allegiance to Catholicism the Catholic Church has some sort of higher (not necessarily better )profile than the Mennonites.
A lot of it is regional. The stats are boosted because virtually all French Canadians are nominally RC in terms of what they write on the census. Here in Québec, non-practicing Catholicism is the de facto state religion. Depending on where you go (say, parts of southwestern Ontario or the Prairies), "plain" Anabaptist groups have a very high profile indeed.
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I don't disown the label 'protestant' but it's not very useful since it has to be redefined every time depending on who you are speaking to.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
[ 28. April 2015, 11:27: Message edited by: Knopwood ]
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
It's only on the Ship that I've come across Anglicans who deny they are Protestants. We came into existence by breaking away from Rome, at a time when there was a widespread recognition that Rome needed to be reformed. Therefore I find it hard to see how we can be anything other than Protestant.
(However, I also affirm that we are Catholic, and that we contain the best of all worlds. In my own, bigoted, mind I believe that when Rome finally catches up with the Reformation it will want to rejoin us!)
But the Henrician Church was undoubtedly Catholic - for a start, the term Protestant hadn't even been invented yet! The Henrician Church broke away from Rome in a legal sense but was totally Catholic in practice, and persecuted Reformers/those who would be called Protestant now.
Reformation of Rome before the Henrician split was by and large a Catholic Humanist proposal, and not Protestant at all.
Posted by crunt (# 1321) on
:
Growing up in the Church in Wales, if any one mentioned anything about Catholics, you could guarantee one maiden aunt or other (who would have been baptised, and maybe confirmed, CofE before the disestablishment of the Welsh church) piping up with:
"You mean Roman Catholic".
I always thought that we were Catholic, and they were Roman Catholic. I never really valued the Protestant heritage of the Anglican church, and the Anglo-sphere in general, until I was much, much older.
A friend's dad from Presbyterian Paisley was often fond of telling me that Anglicans are half-baked Catholics. Last time I was home I hoped I would bump into him so I could come back with something like:
"No, Adam. Anglicans are half-baked PROTESTANTS!".
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
This is what Fowler- a grammarian rather than a theologian, and IIRC an agnostic although no doubt culturally an Anglican one- has to say on the subject of usage :
quote:
It is open to Roman-Catholics to use C. [Catholic] by itself in a sense that excludes all but themselves; but it is not open to a Protestant to use it instead of Roman-Catholic without implying that his own Church has no right to the name of C. Neither the desire of brevity (as in the C. countries ) nor the instinct of courtesy (as in I am not forgetting that you are a C.) should induce anyone who is not Roman-C. to omit the Roman-.
That, I think, is correct.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
That is where pedantry becomes rudeness. I might (I don't, but some people do) regret the current meaning of the word 'gay', but if someone defines their sexuality thus it would be rude for me to insist on a clinical term such as homosexual. If a member of one of the Orthodox churches described themself as thus, it would be rude (and irrelevant) for me to say, 'well, I'm orthodox too you know.' It seems to me it is an exact parallel to concede 'Catholic' as a brand name without denying its application to oneself.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
It's only on the Ship that I've come across Anglicans who deny they are Protestants.
Really? I'd come across this a lot, long before I'd even heard of the Ship. You're obviously mixing with the wrong people
Almost certainly - but the wrong people are a lot more fun!
As for Pomona's point, please remember the CoE was established by Elizabeth. There was a mild Reformation under Henry, a drastic one under Edward, a turning back under Mary, and finally the establishment of a via media under Elizabeth. By which time the term almost certainly did exist, and we were able to get the best of both worlds.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
As for Pomona's point, please remember the CoE was established by Elizabeth.
That is, to put it mildly, a matter of some debate. Most Anglicans would date the founding of the CofE to the arrival of St. Augustine.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Isn't there a difference between 'being founded' and 'being established' (as in the sense of 'the Established Church')?
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
As for Pomona's point, please remember the CoE was established by Elizabeth.
That is, to put it mildly, a matter of some debate. Most Anglicans would date the founding of the CofE to the arrival of St. Augustine.
Depends on what you mean by the Church of England. St Augustine of Canterbury may have founded the Church in England, but the Church of England as a body with distinctive theological emphases and liturgical practices was established later.
And I'd say it was established by Edward VI (or his proxies), not Elizabeth. But that's nitpicking.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
That is where pedantry becomes rudeness. I might (I don't, but some people do) regret the current meaning of the word 'gay', but if someone defines their sexuality thus it would be rude for me to insist on a clinical term such as homosexual. If a member of one of the Orthodox churches described themself as thus, it would be rude (and irrelevant) for me to say, 'well, I'm orthodox too you know.' It seems to me it is an exact parallel to concede 'Catholic' as a brand name without denying its application to oneself.
No, not at all. Roman Catholic is not at all a derogatory term and is indeed arguably a more specific and accurate description of those who are in communion with the Pope and follow the Roman (as opposed to, say, the Greek) rite. But the point here is that AFAIK no Roman Catholic objects to it as a description.I might use the simple term Catholic in contexts where the point to be distinguished is not the Roman-ness but the Catholicity of the RCC (as against, say, the Orthodox) but not where the point is the distinctiveness of the RCC from my own church. So in fact, if in that latter case,as a member of the CofE/ CinW/CofS (if I were one) or whatever, I use the term Roman Catholic I am meeting my RC interlocutor on the common ground between us. I and s/he agree that his/her Church is both Roman and Catholic. I do not agree that tha church has an exclusive claim to the term 'Catholic' so by sticking to that point I do not allow the question that divides us to arise. I would not 'correct' her/his usage (because to do so would be to press a claim which s/he might not be able to accept) but neither would I follow it.
[ 28. April 2015, 17:35: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Actually I know a number of 'Roman' Catholics who are unhappy with the first part of that term; they will say 'I am an English Catholic' or 'a Dutch Catholic' or whatever... 'if I was Italian and lived in Rome I would be a Roman Catholic.' I know that is pedantry too. But I still don't see why we should have to be equally pedantic when the meaning is normally quite clear from the context. In a theological debate it might be different, but in ordinary conversation... After all, there are plenty of methodical non-Methodists, and most Christians practise baptism without being Baptists.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
No no. Those aren't parallels.
In fairness, it must be said that the RCC's understanding of other 'ecclesial communities', and ceratinly the terms in which they are prepared to talk to/ about them, have come quite a long way since Fowler wrote that piece in 1926. But (when referring to those in communion with Rome) they say 'Catholic'; we say 'Roman Catholic'; and we all know where we stand.
[ 28. April 2015, 18:14: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
It's only on the Ship that I've come across Anglicans who deny they are Protestants.
Really? I'd come across this a lot, long before I'd even heard of the Ship. You're obviously mixing with the wrong people
Almost certainly - but the wrong people are a lot more fun!
As for Pomona's point, please remember the CoE was established by Elizabeth. There was a mild Reformation under Henry, a drastic one under Edward, a turning back under Mary, and finally the establishment of a via media under Elizabeth. By which time the term almost certainly did exist, and we were able to get the best of both worlds.
Well, the breaking away happened under Henry which is what you mentioned. I'm aware of the various Tudor reforms but Henry started the legal break. That was exactly my point, that the process was a long and uneven one that allowed for confusion to set in.
Funnily enough that reminds me of the Anglicans I've encountered that thought Elizabeth compromised too much and that Edward was the hero there! You won't be at all surprised to hear that these were Oak Hill graduates in East Sussex when +Benn was bishop of Lewes...
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Plus the RCC itself uses the term Roman Catholic, even in prominent places like diocesan websites. There can't really be any dispute that it is the appropriate term.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
As for Pomona's point, please remember the CoE was established by Elizabeth.
That is, to put it mildly, a matter of some debate. Most Anglicans would date the founding of the CofE to the arrival of St. Augustine.
Actually, it's earlier than that. Western Britain has been officially Christian since the Edict of Theodosius in 380. This includes a substantial slice of the west side of England which the Anglo-Saxons did not acquire until after they were converted.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
Ah, but can Britain be said to be "England" before the arrival of the Angles?
I know, I know, pedantry abounds. Sorry.
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on
:
Well of course it was all Christian before those Anglo-Saxons came over and messed up entire works.......
I think we should annex England and call it 'Lloegr'
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Actually, it's earlier than that. Western Britain has been officially Christian since the Edict of Theodosius in 380. This includes a substantial slice of the west side of England which the Anglo-Saxons did not acquire until after they were converted.
Probably, but I think Augustine gives a date from which institutional continuity can be established.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
That the term 'catholic' is used as a short hand sometimes by the Roman Catholics will sometimes require an additional question to clarify, but only when the person's meant meaning is not clear. So we don't end up like Humpty Dumpty: "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
In Belfast, people know perfectly well what these two words mean.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Well yes. And in fairness, if I were to go and visit Angloid in Liverpool and he said 'I'll meet you outside the Catholic cathedral', I'd have to be a bloody fool (which I may be) or an extreme pedant (and I hope I'm not that kind of bloody fool) to pretend not to know which end of Hope St he'd be waiting for me at. But still, those of us who are not RC shouldn't do anything to give the impression that we think that the RCC has any exclusive claim to the name 'Catholic'. It does grieve me to hear the BBC radio news almost uniformly using the unadorned word to refer specifically to Roman Catholics.
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
In Belfast, people know perfectly well what these two words mean.
And you can't get away with it by telling them you're an Anglican either
'Are you a Protestant Anglican or a Catholic Anglican?'
( Well actually I'm a bit of both....)
By the way where is Gamaliel? I'd have thought he'd have dived into this particular thread.....
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
In Belfast, people know perfectly well what these two words mean.
And you can't get away with it by telling them you're an Anglican either
'Are you a Protestant Anglican or a Catholic Anglican?'
I'm reminded of the old joke about the Englishman on holiday in Glasgow, who decides to go to an Old Firm derby (Rangers v Celtic, for those not in the know).
After 10 minutes, Celtic score. The Englishman jumps up and applauds loudly. 5 minutes later, Rangers equalise. Again, the Englishman jumps up and applauds. At this point, the man sitting next to him turns and says "What are you? A f***ing athiest?"
Posted by Wm Dewy (# 16712) on
:
There seems to be some misunderstanding that “Protestant” and “Catholic “are polar opposites. I am an Anglican and therefore protestant by definition.
A priest very dear to me said, “Catholic is as Catholic does.” If a sinner is baptized, confirmed by a Bishop in Apostolic Succession, attends Mass on Sundays and other days of obligation, avails himself of the sacraments including confession and unction, attends public and private adoration of the Most Blessed Sacrament, abstains from meat on Fridays, and regularly prays the Rosary, it seems uncharitable to declare that he’s not Catholic.
Father, we pray for your holy Catholic Church;
That we all may be one.
- page 387 in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Ah, but can Britain be said to be "England" before the arrival of the Angles?
I know, I know, pedantry abounds. Sorry.
Non Angli, sed Angeli - not angels, but Anglicans.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
So the CofE traces its origins (in the view of some people )to St Augustine,an Italian emissary of the pope.What about the ecclesial community in England,which has a separate hierarchy,separate cathedrals and parishes and still has in the Papal Nuncio to the Court of St James an Italian emissary of the pope resident in England ? Can it trace its foundation also to the time of St Augustine of Canterbury ?
Do Anglicans describe themselves also as Orthodox ? Surely they are orthodox in belief ?
It's easiest to say that Anglicans are Anglicans and leave it as that,though I am quite happy for Christians to call themselves whatever they wish.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
So the CofE traces its origins (in the view of some people )to St Augustine,an Italian emissary of the pope.What about the ecclesial community in England,which has a separate hierarchy,separate cathedrals and parishes and still has in the Papal Nuncio to the Court of St James an Italian emissary of the pope resident in England ? Can it trace its foundation also to the time of St Augustine of Canterbury ?
I would have thought so, since that ecclesial community never quite died out before it was reinvigorated in the C19. But the lines have diverged and thickened and thinned at different times.
I suppose that one would trace the CinW in one sense back to Roman times; in another to the Tudor reformation; and in yet another to its becoming an independent province in 1920. Just goes to show that when you're talking about origins, the context of what you're defining yourself as is important.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Forthview:
quote:
So the CofE traces its origins (in the view of some people )to St Augustine,an Italian emissary of the pope
I'd like to think it would trace a line of origin to Christ, who I'm sure could be said to be in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.
It seems to me that the concept of 'catholic' in relation to Anglicans and Episcopalians comes from the confused history of the time - a mixture of politics, power and reform; not divorced from the European reformation, but stemming from it while at the same time wishing to retain apostolic succession, rejecting the idea of one sole head of the church, retaining the sacraments and much of the apostolic faith etc, etc. In this sense then, the term 'Protestant' fits, but not necessarily comfortably so. 'Catholic, but reformed' was the understanding imparted to me; 'catholic' in the sense of being universal, so yes, that covers Orthodoxy too. I guess it's about trying to put something into a box in which it almost fits, but not quite.
[ 29. April 2015, 11:14: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
I should know the answer to this, but it has gone from me. When did the name "Roman Catholic Church" come into existence? I'd have thought well after 1600 AD, and that until then, it was simply "the church", usually with some such adjective as "Our Holy Mother" as a prefix.
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Forthview:
quote:
So the CofE traces its origins (in the view of some people )to St Augustine,an Italian emissary of the pope
I'd like to think it would trace a line of origin to Christ, who I'm sure could be said to be in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.
It seems to me that the concept of 'catholic' in relation to Anglicans and Episcopalians comes from the confused history of the time - a mixture of politics, power and reform; not divorced from the European reformation, but stemming from it while at the same time wishing to retain apostolic succession, rejecting the idea of one sole head of the church, retaining the sacraments and much of the apostolic faith etc, etc. In this sense then, the term 'Protestant' fits, but not necessarily comfortably so. 'Catholic, but reformed' was the understanding imparted to me; 'catholic' in the sense of being universal, so yes, that covers Orthodoxy too. I guess it's about trying to put something into a box in which it almost fits, but not quite.
History makes this a very complex situation and far from straightforward.
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I should know the answer to this, but it has gone from me. When did the name "Roman Catholic Church" come into existence? I'd have thought well after 1600 AD, and that until then, it was simply "the church", usually with some such adjective as "Our Holy Mother" as a prefix.
"One, Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church", is the ful title, mentioning all the "marks" of the Church. Catholic or Roman Catholic would seem to be a kind of abbreviation for the full title.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
As in so many areas the use of words can vary in meaning.
As far as the 'Roman' in Roman Catholic is concerned
it can mean Catholics who use the Roman rite as opposed to Catholics who use an other rite such as the Byzantine rite or the Maronite rite.
It can also mean Catholics who are united in full communion with the successor of Peter,the bishop of Rome.
Thirdly it can mean Catholics who reside or were born in the Eternal City.
I liked what fletcher christian had to say that the best link is of course the link with Christ.
He spoiled his words just a little by saying that Christ would have been in communion with the bishop of Rome.True,of course,but better to say that the bishop of Rome is in communion with Christ.After all according to (Roman) Catholic teaching the pope is the Vicar of Christ,not Christ the Vicar of Peter.
We can all be linked with Christ by our reading of his Word and by our baptism into the family of Christ,the Church.Even the unbaptized members of the Salvation army are members by baptism of desire.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
As far as the 'Roman' in Roman Catholic is concerned
it can mean Catholics who use the Roman rite as opposed to Catholics who use an other rite such as the Byzantine rite or the Maronite rite.
I think that that is an incorrect use of "Roman," however. It is properly called the "Latin rite," not the "Roman rite." Those belong to that rite are Latin rite Catholics.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
It's not incorrect. The Latin rite today is dominated by the Roman rite, which Trent (I think) made the norm for Western Catholicism.
Other Latin rites still exist, but are usually confined to small locales (e.g. the Mozarabic in Toledo and the Ambrosian in Milan); and then there are the rites proper to certain religious orders as well.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
It's not incorrect. The Latin rite today is dominated by the Roman rite, which Trent (I think) made the norm for Western Catholicism.
And that was a great, great shame. Many venerable rites of much more than 300 hundred years old (Trent abbrogated all rites under that age) were killed off because of that. A good example of that would be the Sarum Rite and other local rites. When Roman Catholics were once again allowed to worship freely in England they chose to show their allegence to Rome by using the Roman Rite instead of their local rites.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
With regard to monikers--I find "protestant" unsatisfactory because the only thing it communicates is that my church community's origins lie with the reformation that began in the 16th century. The word covers such a vast range of polities and theologies--from free-church congregational to formal episcopal--that it's nearly useless except to signify that the person isn't Roman Catholic. And used in this way, it covers communities like the Jehovah's Witnesses and LDS, which aren't (in the technical sense of the term) protestant at all.
The use of the term by Catholics is illustrative. I have a friend in a sister jurisdiction who's a priest, and when he was attending our seminary he invited his future wife (a Vietnamese Catholic) to Evensong. She was surprised to find that we used the Lord's Prayer! The vast majority of RCs seem to think that all Protestantism is a vaguely evangelical kind of Anabaptism (Catholic shipmates are much better informed).
So although it's technically true that I'm protestant, the word is really inadequate to communicate anything useful--unless all you want to know is that I'm going to Hell because I've separated myself from one of the Two True Churches.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Indeed with the importance of Rome and the centralisation of the liturgy after the invention of printing and the period of the Counter Reformation the Roman rite became the rite par excellence for Latin rite Catholics.
The virtual disappearance of the Sarum rite was because of its use in areas which in general abandoned Catholicism.The Ambrosian rite is another Latin rite used in the territory of the archdiocese of Milan.The Dominican rite was used in churches of the Dominican order.It may still be used though most Dominican churches though most Dominicans will now use the modern Roman rite.
Throughout Europe ,however, principally in France and Spain , certain dioceses clung to certain minor deviations from the standard Roman rite.
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by argona:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
However the claims to be Catholic are not accepted by the main denomination claiming that title.
Well they wouldn't, would they?
Tough t---ies.
I like to say (as an Episcopalian in the US) that we're sort of Protestant and sort of Catholic. And then some of us embrace the term "Catholic Lite."
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
It's not incorrect. The Latin rite today is dominated by the Roman rite, which Trent (I think) made the norm for Western Catholicism.
Other Latin rites still exist, but are usually confined to small locales (e.g. the Mozarabic in Toledo and the Ambrosian in Milan); and then there are the rites proper to certain religious orders as well.
Understood, and I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. My understanding has been that despite the post-Tridentine dominance of the Latin rite by the Roman rite, Rome/the Holy See uses the term "Latin rite," not "Roman rite" to refer to Western Catholicism. As I understand it, when Roman Catholics say "Roman Catholic," "Roman" always means Catholics in communion with the bishop of Rome and never refers to the Latin rite. So, while non-Roman Catholics might use "Roman Catholic" to mean "Catholics who follow the Roman rite," Roman Catholics would not—or at least the hierarchy would not.
Again, happy to be corrected if that understanding is wrong.
[ 29. April 2015, 17:46: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Yes,the Roman rite,the Dominican rite,the Mozarabic rite,the Ambrosian rite are all western Catholic rites.
All these rites ,including former local uses Aquileian,Gallican,Nidaros,Celtic,Sarum,Herford etc.were all Latin rite.
If I am right the Latin and the Eastern Catholic churches have separate codes of canon law.All Latin rite churches come under a code of canon law published in 1983 whilst Eastern Catholic churches come under the Code of Canons of the Eastern churches published in 1990,covern all the churches in union with Rome but using various Eastern rites.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
And that was a great, great shame. Many venerable rites of much more than 300 hundred years old (Trent abbrogated all rites under that age) were killed off because of that. A good example of that would be the Sarum Rite and other local rites. When Roman Catholics were once again allowed to worship freely in England they chose to show their allegence to Rome by using the Roman Rite instead of their local rites.
I think that statement as it stands might be misleading.
English recusants are proud of the fact that they continued celebrating Mass illegally during the penal years. When Roman Catholicism became permitted, briefly during the reign of James II and then more gradually tacitly during the later C18, they did not then choose to "chose to show their allegence to Rome by using the Roman Rite instead of their local rites". They carried on using publicly the form of Mass that they had been using surreptitiously. That would have been the one their priests had been trained to use on the Continent, not the one that had been in use in the reigns of Henry VIII and Mary. ,
Posted by Amanda in the South Bay (# 18185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
It's only on the Ship that I've come across Anglicans who deny they are Protestants.
Really? I'd come across this a lot, long before I'd even heard of the Ship. You're obviously mixing with the wrong people
Almost certainly - but the wrong people are a lot more fun!
As for Pomona's point, please remember the CoE was established by Elizabeth. There was a mild Reformation under Henry, a drastic one under Edward, a turning back under Mary, and finally the establishment of a via media under Elizabeth. By which time the term almost certainly did exist, and we were able to get the best of both worlds.
The Via Media was pretty much just retaining an episcopal government, with a very stripped down reformed liturgy and lots of iconoclasm. Not so much halfway between some sort of Protestantism and Catholicism, but an amped up Protestantism with bishops.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
And that was a great, great shame. Many venerable rites of much more than 300 hundred years old (Trent abbrogated all rites under that age) were killed off because of that. A good example of that would be the Sarum Rite and other local rites. When Roman Catholics were once again allowed to worship freely in England they chose to show their allegence to Rome by using the Roman Rite instead of their local rites.
I think that statement as it stands might be misleading.
English recusants are proud of the fact that they continued celebrating Mass illegally during the penal years. When Roman Catholicism became permitted, briefly during the reign of James II and then more gradually tacitly during the later C18, they did not then choose to "chose to show their allegence to Rome by using the Roman Rite instead of their local rites". They carried on using publicly the form of Mass that they had been using surreptitiously. That would have been the one their priests had been trained to use on the Continent, not the one that had been in use in the reigns of Henry VIII and Mary. ,
You might very well be right. Never thought about it that way before.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Yes,the Roman rite,the Dominican rite,the Mozarabic rite,the Ambrosian rite are all western Catholic rites.
All these rites ,including former local uses Aquileian,Gallican,Nidaros,Celtic,Sarum,Herford etc.were all Latin rite.
If I am right the Latin and the Eastern Catholic churches have separate codes of canon law.All Latin rite churches come under a code of canon law published in 1983 whilst Eastern Catholic churches come under the Code of Canons of the Eastern churches published in 1990,covern all the churches in union with Rome but using various Eastern rites.
There are two codes and, for the canon law geek, some church-specific sets of legislation (most of which is not available in English). Many of our local Eastern Catholics refer to the Latins in casual discourse. I have always leaned toward Minions of the Scarlet Lady but have too often found myself misunderstood.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
I make the distinction that Lutherans are part of the evangelical catholic tradition. Note the small c in catholic, meaning universal.
For the longest time Lutherans have resisted being called Protestant. Protestants are usually of the radical side of the faith, meaning more of the Reformed and anabaptist traditions.
Good rule of thumb: if a church body generally follows the tradition of the mass they are catholic. If they claim their service is informal (whixh is funny because I see them as more rigid) then they are most likely Protestant.
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on
:
Now that I think of it, in the province of Ontario "Roman Catholic elector" is still a legally defined category of ratepayers for school board purposes. (My parents were among them). I remember pamphlets explain that this included "Roman and Ukrainian Catholics" - presumably a reflection of the latter's relative size to other Eastern churches in Canada, rather than of any disenfranchisement of, say, Melkites.
[ 30. April 2015, 04:53: Message edited by: Knopwood ]
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I make the distinction that Lutherans are part of the evangelical catholic tradition. Note the small c in catholic, meaning universal.
For the longest time Lutherans have resisted being called Protestant. Protestants are usually of the radical side of the faith, meaning more of the Reformed and anabaptist traditions.
Good rule of thumb: if a church body generally follows the tradition of the mass they are catholic. If they claim their service is informal (whixh is funny because I see them as more rigid) then they are most likely Protestant.
I'm getting lost in the small and upper case letters. Are you saying that "if a church body generally follows the tradition of the mass" then they are "small c catholic, meaning universal" and otherwise, if their service is 'informal' then they are, instead of being "small c catholic, meaning universal", Protestant?
Or are you saying something else?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Whatever the ecclesiantically pernickety may say, it doesn't avoid the simple and obvious fact that in the ordinary speech in the UK particularly among non-churchgoers, Catholic = Roman Catholic (Papist in the old days but that word isn't much used these days away from Northern Ireland) and Protestant = CofE, CinW, CofI, CofS and the rest.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
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.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
Now that I think of it, in the province of Ontario "Roman Catholic elector" is still a legally defined category of ratepayers for school board purposes. (My parents were among them). I remember pamphlets explain that this included "Roman and Ukrainian Catholics" - presumably a reflection of the latter's relative size to other Eastern churches in Canada, rather than of any disenfranchisement of, say, Melkites.
While this tangent is a slight removal from anything to do with the CoE, most colonial-era measures and post-Confederation legislation refers to "Roman Catholic" rather than "Catholic," (dioceses for many years were established by private acts of the assembly) as does The Canadian Style, which until a bout or convulsion of privatization, was the official government style book. In the savage wilds of eastern Ontario, where I was raised, Catholic was the term in common parlance, but in the Ottawa Valley, far more congregational in its tribalism than denominational in its consciousness, one spoke of the French or the Irish church. Protestant was a word only carefully used, as it suggested a common bond between respectable Presbyterians and Anglicans on the one hand, and Methodists and Baptists on the other, and we all knew better than that. In the 1960s, Anglican spawn were catechized to know that they were both catholic and protestant-- the previous generation had been given the face washed and the face unwashed metaphor, but we were spared that.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Interesting. Here BTW is the CofI's line on the question 'Protestant or Catholic?'
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Interesting. Here BTW is the CofI's line on the question 'Protestant or Catholic?'
I would have thought, and would certainly hope, that virtually all members of the CofE, and of other churches in the Anglican Communion would agree with that excellent summary by the CofI.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Yes- it's very good, isn't it?
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Whatever the ecclesiantically pernickety may say, it doesn't avoid the simple and obvious fact that in the ordinary speech in the UK particularly among non-churchgoers, Catholic = Roman Catholic (Papist in the old days but that word isn't much used these days away from Northern Ireland) and Protestant = CofE, CinW, CofI, CofS and the rest.
Well yes, and it's not unusual in "ordinary speech" to be asked if one is "Catholic or Christian?"
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Whatever the ecclesiantically pernickety may say, it doesn't avoid the simple and obvious fact that in the ordinary speech in the UK particularly among non-churchgoers, Catholic = Roman Catholic (Papist in the old days but that word isn't much used these days away from Northern Ireland) and Protestant = CofE, CinW, CofI, CofS and the rest.
Well yes, and it's not unusual in "ordinary speech" to be asked if one is "Catholic or Christian?"
It certainly is in my experience! That seems to be a US thing.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda in the South Bay:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
It's only on the Ship that I've come across Anglicans who deny they are Protestants.
Really? I'd come across this a lot, long before I'd even heard of the Ship. You're obviously mixing with the wrong people
Almost certainly - but the wrong people are a lot more fun!
As for Pomona's point, please remember the CoE was established by Elizabeth. There was a mild Reformation under Henry, a drastic one under Edward, a turning back under Mary, and finally the establishment of a via media under Elizabeth. By which time the term almost certainly did exist, and we were able to get the best of both worlds.
The Via Media was pretty much just retaining an episcopal government, with a very stripped down reformed liturgy and lots of iconoclasm. Not so much halfway between some sort of Protestantism and Catholicism, but an amped up Protestantism with bishops.
The via media was originally a middle ground between Wittenberg and Geneva. Contemporary Anglicans and Episcopalians who use it to describe a middle ground between Catholicism & Protestantism are using the phrase ahistorically.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
'Catholic' or 'Christian' is a term I have heard in the Middle East - probably coming from USA.
It raises then the question - not are Anglicans Catholics but rather are Catholics Christians ?
and in particular are Anglican Catholics Christians ???
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
TBH I'm just glad we're not burning each other at the stake over it these days. Thankful for small mercies and all that.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
Well yes, and it's not unusual in "ordinary speech" to be asked if one is "Catholic or Christian?"
I've heard some fringe evangelicals (in the UK sense) speak as though they thought like that, but that was 45+ years ago. In those days many Catholics thought the same except the other way round. I've never, even then, heard people use language that way. It would strike me as intolerant, self-righteous and deliberately offensive.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
To be honestI don't think it's meant to be insulting to anyone when 'Catholic' or 'Christian'
is used.
'Christian' is just a catchall term used of anyone who is not 'Catholic'.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
So it is okay to imply that Catholics aren't Christians?
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
Forthview, I see what you're trying to say. But the "Catholic or Christian" dichotomy suggests that the two things are mutually exclusive, rather than that one is a subset of the other.
Posted by crunt (# 1321) on
:
In east Asia, the idea that Catholicism and Christianity are distinct religions is quite a common one.
Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on
:
I have always liked the language of the Waterloo Declaration (the full communion agreement between The Anglican Church of Canada, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada): "We share a common heritage as catholic churches of the Reformation." I would also concur with comments upthread: to the extent that the Anglican Communion is a "via media," it is a via media between Calvinism and Lutheranism - not Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
Well yes, and it's not unusual in "ordinary speech" to be asked if one is "Catholic or Christian?"
I've heard some fringe evangelicals (in the UK sense) speak as though they thought like that, but that was 45+ years ago. In those days many Catholics thought the same except the other way round. I've never, even then, heard people use language that way. It would strike me as intolerant, self-righteous and deliberately offensive.
Perhaps it is a mark of the unsavoury circles which I have frequented that I fear that this dichotomy is used more than we would wish. I think I can, offhand, count having heard it almost a dozen times over the years--- in some cases with embarrassment and a glance to see if anyone was listening but, in other instances.....
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
While it is true the term "Protestant" originated in a letter written by 36 German Princes protesting the excommunication of Luther as a heretic, it has taken on different meanings over time.
Another way of understanding the difference between churches of the catholic tradition is their belief in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Lord's Supper. Roman Catholics have the doctrine of transubstantiation. Anglicans have consubstantiation. Lutherans belief in the real presence in, with and under the bread and the wine, but we don't really have a term for it, other than it is a mystery. We all see the Lord's Supper as a sacrament, a sacred act will God's grace comes to us through a physical means.
Most Protestants will affirm a spiritual presence of Christ in the supper. They see it not as a sacrament, but as an ordinance--something .Christians should do as a part of Christian living.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
I have always understood protestant as a definition which relates to a denomination's attitude to papal supremacy. It would certainly be possible to define it in relation to understandings of the Eucharist. In that case, however, the Church of England in some parts is protestant and in others is catholic, and the same is probably true across the breadth of the communion.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by crunt:
In east Asia, the idea that Catholicism and Christianity are distinct religions is quite a common one.
Would that go back to the language used by the earliest missionaries- RC ones talking about being Catholic, non-RCs talking about being Christian? Only a guess, mind.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I have always understood protestant as a definition which relates to a denomination's attitude to papal supremacy. It would certainly be possible to define it in relation to understandings of the Eucharist. In that case, however, the Church of England in some parts is protestant and in others is catholic, and the same is probably true across the breadth of the communion.
My (limited) experience suggests that some provinces lean much more one way than the other. The SEC seems to lean heavily in the Catholic direction, for example, presumably as a function of the dominant Church of Scotland picking up most folk who trend Protestant.
In terms of Eucharistic theology it would be pretty hard to define a single Anglican position, I would have thought, beyond maybe the statement attributed to Queen Elizabeth.
[ 01. May 2015, 06:43: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gog:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Protestants take the Bible as its sole authority.
Catholics balance scripture with tradition and reason.
Not all Protestants take the Bible as soul authority, some (ie Methodist) would take the same as the Catholics and add experience into the balance.
As would The Salvation Army; but then Salvationism came out of Methodism which came from Anglicanism. We are therefore in the Catholic stream rather than the Reformed stream. In fact, our doctrines in many respects are derived from Catholic and orthodox spirituality rather than Calvinistic thinking.
Our doctrines speak of the Bible being the 'only divine rule for Christian faith and practice' but we do look at reason and experience and the Holy Spirit too. If we didn't there wouldn't even be a Salvation Army.
[ 01. May 2015, 07:36: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
In my somewhat limited experience of hearing 'Catholic' or 'Christian' it has been Filipinos who have used these terms.Perhaps the word 'Protestant' or the names of any of the thousands of Protestant groupings were unknown to them.
It is true that non Catholic evangelical groups use the word 'Christian' as opposed to anything else and that has possibly been picked up and used in general parlance.
I repeat that,at least when I have heard these terms used,it was not meant as an insult to anyone.
The whole theme of this discussion is one which only concerns those who are heavily involved in expressing who or what they are. We all know how the terms' Catholic' and 'Protestant' are generally used.
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
... but rather are Catholics Christians ?
Well Forthview must know that fifty years ago that was a real question for many in Scotland. Separate schooling (and scouts and youth groups) meant that one could grow up with negligible experience of the other lot. For example, in my secondary school of 1200 pupils there was exactly one Roman Catholic, specially dispensed by the Bishop from travelling the 22 miles to the nearest RC school. Of course he was forbidden (by the Bp) to attend morning assembly. Was it odd that we asked him whether Catholics read the Bible, or knew the Lord's Prayer? Of course Scripture lessons were also verboten; so he missed the session when someone asked the visiting chaplain (a man of some distinction, part-time lecturer in the Divinity Faculty of the local Universsity) whether Roman Catholics could go to heaven---the chaplain was not prepared to say "yes".
I think quite a lot has changed for the better.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
I think quite a lot has changed for the better.
I agree.
Back in those days, both sides of the Reformation divide in the UK looked at each other in ways that were a pretty accurate mirror image of each other. Large numbers of both Protestants and Catholics took it for granted that they were the right and superior people of God and the poor benighted other lot were on a railway to the Lake of Fire.
A friend of mine at a nameless University that goes back to before the Reformation and is part of the CofE establishment (yes, I know that gives only two to guess from) was asked by a Roman Catholic fellow inmate "and which heresy do you practice?" Slightly jocular perhaps, but asked from a standpoint that implicitly took for granted the assumptions behind it.
Shipmates who have grown up since just do not appreciate how big a difference Vatican II has made to brains and souls on both sides of the Reformation.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I think that the example that you give might still be found among a certain type of rather affected Oxbridge RC (and there are CofE equivalents)- or at least, it might have been when I was up 25 years ago.
Mind you, my favourite story of this kind, told to me by the person on the receiving end of it, is of a new and young Fellow of a rather conservative college being addressed as it were from a great height by one of these ghastly characters (a convert, as several of them were):
'Ah, so you're our new mathematical Fellow. Good Caartholic, I trust?'
'Well, no. actually: I'm Jewish'
'Jewish? Hmmm. [Pause] Oh well, at least it's old '.
Which actually I think is quite amusing, and so did the chap who told me about it.
[ 01. May 2015, 12:11: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I'm currently reading an old book , 'The Church of England' by Paul Ferris (1964), which seems to take it as read that CofE clergy of the time generally saw the Church as Protestant.
Things have surely changed now. To emphasise ones Protestant heritage is taken as a bit anti-Catholic, which is frowned upon by moderate Christians these days. Evangelicals appear to emphasise their evangelicalism rather than their Protestantism, and some scholars see global Pentecostalism as a different thing from Protestantism, rather than a sub-section of it.
It seems that the mainstream denominations that once specifically emphasised their Protestantism are a bit squeezed these days, at least in Britain. But some Anglicans in other contexts might find it more strategically useful to differentiate themselves from Roman Catholics by stressing their Protestant identity.
[ 01. May 2015, 12:21: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I think that the example that you give might still be found among a certain type of rather affected Oxbridge RC (and there are CofE equivalents)- or at least, it might have been when I was up 25 years ago.
Still alive and well I'm afraid. I'm not at the university any more, but still near it. I've been called, in all seriousness, a heretic and a biscuit-worshipper in the last 6 months. And, yes, they were in deadly (if camp) earnest.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
Full marks though to the chap in the back bar of the King's Arms who dismissed me in January as a member of the Church of Wantage - at least he displayed both a knowledge of the correspondence between Evelyn Waugh and John Betjeman, and the facility to deploy it properly in English conversation.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
.... deadly (if camp) earnest.
The worst kind. Poisonous.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Best counter ever heard to that sort of Caaartholic clap trap: friend's son was asked by snooty RC "and are you a Cartholic?" and received the reply "I'm sorry, father, I'm just a Christian". ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by gog:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Protestants take the Bible as its sole authority.
Catholics balance scripture with tradition and reason.
Not all Protestants take the Bible as soul authority, some (ie Methodist) would take the same as the Catholics and add experience into the balance.
As would The Salvation Army; but then Salvationism came out of Methodism which came from Anglicanism. We are therefore in the Catholic stream rather than the Reformed stream. In fact, our doctrines in many respects are derived from Catholic and orthodox spirituality rather than Calvinistic thinking.
This reminds me of the conversation I had with two very sweet elderly ladies who inadvertently pronounced: "Of course, Methodism came out of Christianity". I took great pleasure of regaling my wife (who is a Methodist) with this story. Of course, the shoe was on the other foot a few weeks later when I reminded them that I was an NSM. "Oh yes. It's been years since we had a proper curate". When I mentioned this to a very holy and thoughtful member of the congregation she paused for a moment before saying: "Clearly Father, you are the improper curate!"
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Salvationism came out of Methodism which came from Anglicanism. We are therefore in the Catholic stream rather than the Reformed stream. In fact, our doctrines in many respects are derived from Catholic and orthodox spirituality rather than Calvinistic thinking.
I understand that Wesley came in for criticism for abandoning the Calvinism that dominated the CofE in his time, so I don't think his 'Catholic and orthodox spirituality', as you put it, was a particularly CofE trait.
Interestingly, I've come across a few Reformed criticisms of Revivalism and/or Pentecostalism which do see in these movements a kind of re-catholicisation of late Protestantism. John Wesley, as the grandfather of Pentecostalism, is seen as the originator of some of the 'Catholic' tendencies that the Reformed critics have highlighted.
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Best counter ever heard to that sort of Caaartholic clap trap: friend's son was asked by snooty RC "and are you a Cartholic?" and received the reply "I'm sorry, father, I'm just a Christian".
The attitude that Catholic does not equal Christian is prevalent among a certain strain of evangelicalism in the United States. I'm afraid I don't find it funny at all.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Interestingly, I've come across a few Reformed criticisms of Revivalism and/or Pentecostalism which do see in these movements a kind of re-catholicisation of late Protestantism. John Wesley, as the grandfather of Pentecostalism, is seen as the originator of some of the 'Catholic' tendencies that the Reformed critics have highlighted.
In fairness, Reformed criticisms of most things revolve around them being too Catholic.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
In The Salvation Army the 'catholic' features are things like our initial practice of baptising babies as opposed to believers baptism (which we never practiced) and our specific emphasis on holiness of life which comes from Wesley who took elements of Catholic and Orthodox teaching.
We also have an episcopal hierarchy in The Salvation Army.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I understand that Wesley came in for criticism for abandoning the Calvinism that dominated the CofE in his time, so I don't think his 'Catholic and orthodox spirituality', as you put it, was a particularly CofE trait. ...
I don't think that's generally true of the early C18 CofE. It was among the revivalists of the Great Revival in which the Wesleys were key players that this was an issue. I don't think latitudinarians, deists, high and dry, erastians or other strains of thought in the CofE at that time were particularly interested in Calvinism. I can't imagine Gilbert White of James Woodforde being particularly interested in such things.
Wales, I think, still has Calvinist Methodists, and I think the Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion derive from similar roots. There was once one of their chapels in Bath but it's a museum now.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Another way of understanding the difference between churches of the catholic tradition is their belief in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Lord's Supper. Roman Catholics have the doctrine of transubstantiation. Anglicans have consubstantiation. Lutherans belief in the real presence in, with and under the bread and the wine, but we don't really have a term for it, other than it is a mystery. We all see the Lord's Supper as a sacrament, a sacred act will God's grace comes to us through a physical means.
Most Protestants will affirm a spiritual presence of Christ in the supper. They see it not as a sacrament, but as an ordinance--something .Christians should do as a part of Christian living.
But even this is an overgeneralization. Affirmation of a spiritual presence—which is also affirmed to be a very real and unique-to-the-Lord's-Supper presence—is characteristic of Reformed churches, who very definitely see the Lord's Supper as a sacrament not as an ordinance, and who simultaneously embrace being called "Protestant" and being part of the church catholic. (This view of the sacrament is also found in streams of Anglicanism.) Methodists (at least United Methodists in the States) also consider the Lord's Supper a sacrament.
In my experience, those Protestants who consider the Lord's Supper an ordinance rather than a sacrament will also deny any presence of Christ in the observance beyond the presence guaranteed whenever two or three are gathered in his name.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In The Salvation Army the 'catholic' features are things like our initial practice of baptising babies as opposed to believers baptism (which we never practiced) and our specific emphasis on holiness of life which comes from Wesley who took elements of Catholic and Orthodox teaching.
We also have an episcopal hierarchy in The Salvation Army.
I suppose those things represent the 'reasonable' side of Catholicism!
However, it could be argued that where we see some Pentecostals or Revivalists variously emphasising miraculous happenings, the sanctity and divine authority of their clergy (even when they're engaged in serious wrongdoing), the possibility of inanimate objects being infused with divine power (e.g. holy water or towels, etc.) a certain less respectable 'Catholic' influence is apparent there too.
The charismatic evangelical emphasis on 'feelings' is often criticised on this website, and Wesley's followers were similarly criticised. Some might see this tendency as closer to a certain type of emotional RC spirituality than the more rational, restrained sort encouraged by the Reformed tradition.
I'm sure it depends on what type of Catholicism we're talking about, though. Perhaps the average English RC church and URC congregation today are fairly similar in terms of their spiritual emphases and in their expectations of the church, despite the historical and official theological differences.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
The Salvation Army has never been 'Pentecostal' in doctrine.
The other aspect of catholicism that we espouse is the universality of salvation - Christ died for the world. This would be in opposition to the Calvinists who maintain that Christ merely died for the Church.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Are 'ordinance' and 'sacrament' mutually exclusive? I've not thought about this particularly but I suspect many of us would assume Holy Communion/the Lord's Supper/ the Eucharist/the Mass/the Divine Liturgy/the Breaking of Bread Service is both.
It's a sacrament because in the classic CofE formulation, it is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. It is an ordinance because Jesus said "this do".
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
There's nothing in the dictionary definition of the word "ordinance" that would contradict the idea of a sacrament, but most denominations that make a point of calling Communion and Baptism "ordinances" are specifically rejecting the idea of sacraments. The Anabaptist and Campbell-Stone churches are among those who do so.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Are 'ordinance' and 'sacrament' mutually exclusive? I've not thought about this particularly but I suspect many of us would assume Holy Communion/the Lord's Supper/ the Eucharist/the Mass/the Divine Liturgy/the Breaking of Bread Service is both.
It's a sacrament because in the classic CofE formulation, it is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. It is an ordinance because Jesus said "this do".
The words are not mutually exclusive, at least not necessarily. That said, many who prefer the word "ordinance" or who use it exclusively seem to do so intending it to mean "as opposed to a sacrament." Perhaps another way of putting it is that those who consider the Lord's Supper to be a sacrament might also call it an ordinance, but those who do not consider it to be a sacrament would only consider it an ordinance.
I don't see it as much anymore, but in fairly recent American Presbyterian usage, "ordinance" tended to be used of rites such as confirmation, marriage and ordination that are not considered (by us) to be sacraments.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
ordinance yes...because there are no sacraments in the Bible.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
ordinance yes...because there are no sacraments in the Bible.
In that case I wasn't aware that the scriptures talk of "ordinances" either.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Having argued/discussed Anglican = Catholic or Protestant, and then Catholic as opposed to Christian, we now move on to sacrament and ordinance. Whilst all this may be of interest to those of us who frequent these boards it doesn't seem to me to be of great importance to the general public nor even to the average person who considers him or herself to be some sort of Christian of the Catholic ,Protestant,Anglican,Presbyterian,Methodist or Salvation Army family.
Yes,I remember Scotland over 50 years ago,over 60 years ago when there was a fairly rigid separation
between Catholics and others who were always called Protestants.Not everyone would know the term Presbyterian,though almost everyone would know Church of Scotland or the Kirk.The Scottish Episcopal Church,if known,was usually called the 'English'church.
I was just speaking the other day to a friend from a satellite town of Glasgow who regularly attended the Kirk who had no idea if there was an episcopal church in the town.
I'm writing just now about my impression of most people that I knew as a child in a smallish town on the outskirts of Glasgow,a town which had approx. 50% split between Catholics and Protestants.
My own family was of divided religious allegiance,but I never ever heard any arguments about religion between my mother and father.
Nor indeed were there any arguments amongst the children in the streets where we played with one another.
Personally,and I know this may be unusual I've always laughed or perhaps just smiled at the differences between people of different Christian
traditions.Bizarrely ? Catholics were not allowed to be members of the Bowling Greens in our town,apart from one.But on the other hand I remember once going to a swimming session organised by the Catholic Boys'Guild.A friend with me would have been allowed in,even if he wasn't a member,but when it was discovered he wasn't a Catholic,that was too much and he had to go home.
In the late 50s and 60s I spent a lot of time with relatives on the Austrian and Italian border areas.Most people were 'katholisch' and some were
'evangelisch'.With the encouragement of a Jesuit priest I went occasionally to the 'evangelische Kirche'In Austria these 'protestant' churches styled themselves as HB and AB.HB means Helvetian Confession which I take to be 'Reformed' and AB means Augsburg Confession which I take to be Lutheran.
Since then I have been interested in many different forms of Christianity and I thank the Second Vatican Council for making this an integral part of Catholicism.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
ordinance yes...because there are no sacraments in the Bible.
Unless you have a wildly different Bible to mine, there are no ordinances in the Bible either! Sacrament and ordinance are words used to described thing - those of us who believe in sacraments are quite well aware that the word isn't used in the Bible, I'm not sure why it matters.
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on
:
Forthview, I would take it as a great kindness if you would put spaces after commas, periods, and other punctuation. It helps us read and respond to your participation. If you're posting from a phone or a ridiculously slow computer I can understand and even sympathize, but it's still hard to read when wordsare jammed uptogether.
Barefoot Friar
Eccles. host
[ 01. May 2015, 21:29: Message edited by: Barefoot Friar ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Wales, I think, still has Calvinist Methodists...
It does: officially now known as the Presbyterian Church of Wales, but in common parlance, especially in Welsh, 'Methodist' here is likely to mean Calvinistic Methodist / Presbyterian rather than Wesleyan
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
To my mind the ordinances are where Jesus actually gave a direction - 'Do this in remembrance...', 'Go therefore...baptising in the name...'
There is nothing in the Bible that describes these two activities as sacraments in the mystical sense in which the catholic churches see them. In fact the only time the word 'sacramentum' is used is the Vulgate's (mis)translation of the the word 'mysterion' which, according to Paul's usage, is actually 'Christ in you the hope of glory.'
The further away from Rome one travels the less likely the church will call baptism and the Lord's Supper, a 'sacrament'.
[ 01. May 2015, 22:42: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Salvation Army has never been 'Pentecostal' in doctrine.
The other aspect of catholicism that we espouse is the universality of salvation - Christ died for the world. This would be in opposition to the Calvinists who maintain that Christ merely died for the Church.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Salvation Army has never been 'Pentecostal' in doctrine.
No, I didn't say the SA was Pentecostal in doctrine. My point was basically that if the SA has been influenced by Catholicism in one way, Pentecostalism has been influenced in another.
Regarding later comments, I'm aware of the officially Calvinistic Welsh Methodists, etc. More relevant to the thread is whether Calvinism has ever been significant in the CofE and whether there's much Calvinism in it today. Is Calvinist evangelicalism a major influence in the UK now, especially in the CofE? I wouldn't have thought so, although I'm sure there are hot spots
One reads a lot online about the creeping Arminian influence in both liberal and evangelical Christianity, but Calvinisim doesn't seem to have such an interesting afterlife. Not in the UK, anyway.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Mudfrog - but my point was that it doesn't describe ordinances either. Ordinances and sacraments are both things the Church has established as part of Tradition. Being in the Catholic-Anglican-Methodist line, presumably Tradition does have some role in SA theology? I have zero issue with other Christians not accepting a sacramental approach, but ordinances aren't any more Biblical. I freely admit that a sacramental approach is more from Tradition, I don't see the issue with it.
Svitlana - I'd say Calvinists in the CoE are pretty uncommon and limited to a particular strand of evangelicals, mostly in Sussex and London. Most evangelicals lean charismatic even if not full-on Pentecostal. However the Calvinists tend to be pretty loud and part of the more extreme evangelical Anglican pressure groups.
Posted by Amanda in the South Bay (# 18185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Mudfrog - but my point was that it doesn't describe ordinances either. Ordinances and sacraments are both things the Church has established as part of Tradition. Being in the Catholic-Anglican-Methodist line, presumably Tradition does have some role in SA theology? I have zero issue with other Christians not accepting a sacramental approach, but ordinances aren't any more Biblical. I freely admit that a sacramental approach is more from Tradition, I don't see the issue with it.
Svitlana - I'd say Calvinists in the CoE are pretty uncommon and limited to a particular strand of evangelicals, mostly in Sussex and London. Most evangelicals lean charismatic even if not full-on Pentecostal. However the Calvinists tend to be pretty loud and part of the more extreme evangelical Anglican pressure groups.
I tend to equate Evangelical Anglican with Calvinist (or Reformed). People like RC Sproul or Alister McGrath, or here in the US, large parts of the ACNA.
Posted by Amanda in the South Bay (# 18185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda in the South Bay:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Mudfrog - but my point was that it doesn't describe ordinances either. Ordinances and sacraments are both things the Church has established as part of Tradition. Being in the Catholic-Anglican-Methodist line, presumably Tradition does have some role in SA theology? I have zero issue with other Christians not accepting a sacramental approach, but ordinances aren't any more Biblical. I freely admit that a sacramental approach is more from Tradition, I don't see the issue with it.
Svitlana - I'd say Calvinists in the CoE are pretty uncommon and limited to a particular strand of evangelicals, mostly in Sussex and London. Most evangelicals lean charismatic even if not full-on Pentecostal. However the Calvinists tend to be pretty loud and part of the more extreme evangelical Anglican pressure groups.
I tend to equate Evangelical Anglican with Calvinist (or Reformed). People like RC Sproul or Alister McGrath, or here in the US, large parts of the ACNA.
Wait, I forgot, Sproul isn't Anglican, I was thinking of Packer.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In The Salvation Army the 'catholic' features are things like our initial practice of baptising babies as opposed to believers baptism
Baptising babies was of course encouraged by Calvin and is generally normative is those churches in the Reformed family that don't have a Baptist background.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
This would be in opposition to the Calvinists who maintain that Christ merely died for the Church.
Technically, Calvinists believe that Christ died for the Elect who become the church.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Mudfrog - but my point was that it doesn't describe ordinances either. Ordinances and sacraments are both things the Church has established as part of Tradition.
To agree with you actually I would say that we are probably ambivalent about so-called ordinances anyway. Just what did Jesus instruct? Did the man who set aside the traditions of men really set up ceremonial ordinances to be fulfilled and obeyed?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Well, I doubt if he ever expected that we'd actually have formalised and ritualised them in the ways we have.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In The Salvation Army the 'catholic' features are things like our initial practice of baptising babies as opposed to believers baptism
Baptising babies was of course encouraged by Calvin and is generally normative is those churches in the Reformed family that don't have a Baptist background.
Yes, but we wouldn't have had the same theology of infant baptism - ie covenant. We would not say that in baptism the salvation of the parents covers the child.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Well, I doubt if he ever expected that we'd actually have formalised and ritualised them in the ways we have.
Perhaps we could retain these things and make them much less formal? Could not a proper meal also be seen as a sacrament/ordinance?
To keep on the point of this thread, could the difference between catholic and protestant be seen in getting rid of the hang ups about strictly accurate liturgical actions and a finely tuned belief that only certain edible substances are The Sacrament?
Could a sacrament actually be in the gathering of God's people and the eating of a shared meal with Christ as the unseen guest, rather than in saying that only an elevated wafer dipped in wine over which prescribed words have been accurately said, can be the body and blood of Christ?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Yes.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes.
I'll order you a uniform - it's exactly The Salvation Army's position
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Ah - but I'm not really a "uniform" person ...
(P.S. I must tell you a totally irrelevant story. I had a friend who was a SA Officer in London. It just so happened that the design of the uniform hats was almost identical to the hats worn by the local Parking Wardens. So, whenever he was collecting outside the local Shopping Centre, cars would slow down to park illegally on the yellow lines, then the drivers would see him and race off. He reckoned that the Council should pay him for his services in keeping the traffic moving).
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
I understand the Roman Catholic Church's definition of the phrase 'Catholic Church'. It is clear, coherent and understandable.
I also understand the traditional Reformed understanding of the term. That is also clear, coherent and understandable.
I must admit to being mystified though by the implied Anglican meanings of the phrase in this thread. As far as I can tell it appears to be that denominations are part of the Catholic Church if they are sufficiently similar in theology, ecclesiology and cultural accretions to an idealised conceptual RCC, the main point of the exercise being to make sure the RCC and the Anglicans are on one side of the line and the Baptists and Presbyterians on the other...
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
To agree with you actually I would say that we are probably ambivalent about so-called ordinances anyway. Just what did Jesus instruct? Did the man who set aside the traditions of men really set up ceremonial ordinances to be fulfilled and obeyed?
I always got the impression that Jesus was fine with ceremony and tradition, so long as it didn't get in the way of loving people. So he kept the Passover in accordance with Jewish tradition; and he attended the local Synagogue on the Sabbath. But he also healed people any time, any place, regardless of what the Law said. He ignored the rules that separated men and women or Jews and Samaritans because he had more pressing concerns and those rules went contrary to love. Ceremony in the sacraments, particularly in Holy Communion which is, in so many ways, a refinement of the Passover, is entirely appropriate and in keeping with Christ's behaviour. That's not to say that there won't be times when it is right to dispense with the rules and do something different for the sake of love, just as Jesus did.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I always got the impression that Jesus was fine with ceremony and tradition, so long as it didn't get in the way of loving people... He ignored the rules that separated men and women or Jews and Samaritans because he had more pressing concerns and those rules went contrary to love.
And yet I cannot take communion in a Roman Catholic Church, a woman cannot be a priest and preside over the Mass and most Protestants wouldn't want to receive it from a priests in any case. One of the foundational reasons for The Salvation Army doing away with formal sacraments is down to the Church of England refusing to give the Sacraments to Salvation Army people who had not been previously confirmed in the Church.
I cannot think of a more divisive part of Christian activity than a formal ritual sacrament.
This whole question of Catholic v Protestant would not even exist had the Lord's supper not been so finely tuned and rigid that people were burned to death if they differed in just one phrase in their description of it.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
I feel very much like a reformed catholic; from the outside, I am probably one of those liberal catholic members of the Church of England which make no sense to anyone else, because they aren't in their right home and/or our position doesn't really exist.
Like everything else, the question of sacraments/ordinances and the place of the biblical narrative in church life seems to me to be an arena where compromise and adjustment in light of experience are both essential. Adopting a position because it reinforces a pre-established identity seems to me to be missing the point utterly spectacularly, and to be sacrificing living experience of life in God for the joys of stable identity.
As we believe that God's Word was made flesh, not written down - the written record is useful and effective, but nevertheless secondary to the Incarnation, it is entirely legitimate to take seriously the experience of the community of believers, living in the footsteps of that incarnation, and to incorporate that experience into our lived faith now. Sacraments may or may not have biblical precedent; they may be hallowed by experience and by their power to connect people to each other and to God. This strikes me as no bad thing, and as entirely legitimate. We live, and are called to live, in the here and now; not in an endless recreation of 1st-century Palestine. Equally, however, we would be foolish to forget that we are not the first people to try and follow in the footsteps of a certain 1st-century Palestinian and his followers, and to learn from them and from others who have already done what we are trying to do.
[ 02. May 2015, 08:52: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And yet I cannot take communion in a Roman Catholic Church, a woman cannot be a priest and preside over the Mass and most Protestants wouldn't want to receive it from a priests in any case. One of the foundational reasons for The Salvation Army doing away with formal sacraments is down to the Church of England refusing to give the Sacraments to Salvation Army people who had not been previously confirmed in the Church.
I'm not disagreeing that at times in the past the Church has erred in enforcing the letter of the law instead of the spirit (you will, however, note that the CofE no longer requires confirmation to receive communion, and indeed extends communion to anyone who would normally receive it in their own church). Indeed there are instances where the church continues to do so, and Protestants are just as guilty of that as anyone else (trying to stray too near the dead horses).
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
A little story Mudfrog: My Lutheran pastor and his wife were visiting a certain community in Maryland and decided to worship at the Roman Catholic Cathedral one Sunday. As they entered, they were greeted by an usher who asked them if they would be willing to carry the elements up to the alter during the offertory. They agreed. So, at the time of the offertory they took the elements up to the bishop who was celebrating the Eucharist at that service.
As they approached, the bishop greeted them and asked if they were visitors. They just said yes. He asked them where they were from. Western Washington. The bishop knew the bishop from Western Washington! He welcomed them.
My pastor said they actually felt obligated to commune that day. In both kinds.
Myself I have communed several times during Roman Catholic Mass. Once when I was in an ICU at a Roman Catholic Hospital, one of the priests was doing the rite of The Anointing of the Sick (Last Rites) to one of the patients near me. I was able to repeat the whole rite with the priest. He noticed that and came over to speak with me. I was in the hospital three weeks. He came by a couple of times to see me during the stay.
One Christmas I was again in a Roman Catholic Hospital because of a car crash. I asked for communion. One of the lay communion ministers came by. They did not have a Lutheran available that day, so he gave me communion.
So, don't assume you will not be permitted to go to Roman Catholic Communion. They don't have armed guards preventing you from approaching the altar.
Technically, though, there are certain conditions for receiving RC communion.
You must be in a state of grace
You need to have confessed your last mortal sin.
You have to believe in the Real Presence in the elements once they are consecrated.
You should have observed a Eucharistic fast and
You must not be under any ecclesiastical censure
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
One other essential is to have been baptised.All the baptised are considered to be members of the Catholic Church.
It is also important to have a wish to receive Communion,not just because others are doing so, but rather because one wishes to receive the Lord under these sacramental signs.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
One other essential is to have been baptised.All the baptised are considered to be members of the Catholic Church.
It is also important to have a wish to receive Communion,not just because others are doing so, but rather because one wishes to receive the Lord under these sacramental signs.
That's news to me. Baptism by itself isn't enough. The sacraments of Christian initiation go thus: baptism, confirmation and holy communion.
[ 02. May 2015, 17:30: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
One can't be confirmed before one has first been baptised.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
One can't be confirmed before one has first been baptised.
Indeed, but that wasn't my point.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by Forthview quote:
All the baptised are considered to be members of the Catholic Church.
Well someone should tell the RC church in England that because to my own certain knowledge they've re-baptised people who've become RC having previously been communicant members of the Church of England. In particular: a cousin who was baptised and confirmed in the CofE was re-baptised in an RC Cathedral as recently as 4 years ago.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Forthview quote:
All the baptised are considered to be members of the Catholic Church.
Well someone should tell the RC church in England that because to my own certain knowledge they've re-baptised people who've become RC having previously been communicant members of the Church of England. In particular: a cousin who was baptised and confirmed in the CofE was re-baptised in an RC Cathedral as recently as 4 years ago.
Not strictly rebaptism but conditional baptism.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Not strictly rebaptism but conditional baptism.
Either way still ridiculous.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
It's difficult to say, of course, not knowing all the details but assuming no ill will on the part of the priest then he must have had some reason to doubt the original baptism. The practice of conditional baptism is also quite common in many Orthodox jurisdictions as a kind of "just in case".
[ 02. May 2015, 19:33: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on
:
It could be too that that's what the convert wanted. Sometimes a convert will want to draw a line under his previous identity. Otherwise it does seem unusual from what little I know
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ad Orientem will correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I can gather the Russians are more likely than other Orthodox jurisdictions to re-baptise converts from other Christian groups - just in case.
I've not heard of it being done in an RC context, so I was surprised to read that up-thread ...
An Orthodox priest once told me that they will generally accept RC, Anglican and other Trinitarian non-Orthodox baptisms - but in the case of people from independent charismatic fellowships or 'non-denominational' churches they will often baptise 'just in case' as they've often found people from these backgrounds to be iffy on issues like the Trinity and not particularly well-taught on the creedal basics.
Sadly, looking around, I think they have a case ...
Be that as it may, I have seen other Orthodox online write that the baptisms of other Christian groups are not 'valid' in themselves but only 'potentially' so as it were and somehow 'completed' or validated retrospectively by Orthodox chrismation ...
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Forthview quote:
All the baptised are considered to be members of the Catholic Church.
Well someone should tell the RC church in England that because to my own certain knowledge they've re-baptised people who've become RC having previously been communicant members of the Church of England. In particular: a cousin who was baptised and confirmed in the CofE was re-baptised in an RC Cathedral as recently as 4 years ago.
If that is the case it more than likely because whoever originally "baptised" them didn't use the correct Trinitarian formula but rather some fluffy nonsense like Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier or some other equally asinine heresy.
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
It could be too that that's what the convert wanted. Sometimes a convert will want to draw a line under his previous identity. Otherwise it does seem unusual from what little I know
What the person might want is in fact totally irrelevant. If someone has been baptised then it is strictly forbidden to baptise them again.
Furthermore, when dealing with an adult convert, it's not just up to the priest either: all adult conversions need to be referred to the diocesan Chancery - the bishop's office for these things. One has to await permission before proceeding, and the Chancery will check if there has been a baptism.
The Code of Canon Law is quite specific:
quote:
Can. 869 §1. If there is a doubt whether a person has been baptized or whether baptism was conferred validly and the doubt remains after a serious investigation, baptism is to be conferred conditionally.
§2. Those baptized in a non-Catholic ecclesial community must not be baptized conditionally unless, after an examination of the matter and the form of the words used in the conferral of baptism and a consideration of the intention of the baptized adult and the minister of the baptism, a serious reason exists to doubt the validity of the baptism.
§3. If in the cases mentioned in §§1 and 2 the conferral or validity of the baptism remains doubtful, baptism is not to be conferred until after the doctrine of the sacrament of baptism is explained to the person to be baptized, if an adult, and the reasons of the doubtful validity of the baptism are explained to the person or, in the case of an infant, to the parents.
As it happens, I am dealing with just such a situation at the moment. Agapantha asked to be received into full communion, and attended all the sessions. She had been a member of a reformed church in the USA, and had been attending church for years. When it came to getting a certificate, pandemonium ensued because no-one could recall if she had been baptised or not, the churches she attended had no records and her parents had both died. So there now exists a serious doubt that she was ever baptised and so I will not receive her into full communion but will conditionally baptise her.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
As I said, it various from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Here in Finland Lutheran baptism is generally accepted (most converts being from Lutheranism). And yes, chrismation "completes" baptism, even Orthodox baptism. It is in chrismation that the Holy Spirit is given, that is in chrismation ones baptism is sealed with the Holy Spirit, the sign of which is annointing with sacred chrism.
[ 02. May 2015, 20:43: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
L'organist - my post about all the baptised being considered members of the Catholic Church stands.
I have no doubt about what you say,unusual as it is for a person who had previously a communicant of the Church of England.
For some reason I can only conclude that there must have been some doubt about the validity of the baptism. Perhaps your relative could not produce written proof of the baptism.
Or is it just possible that your relative was received into the RC church at an Easter Vigil service where a number of people might have been baptised and those already baptised ,anointed with oil of Confirmation ?
Mudfrog said that he could not receive Communion in a Catholic church,although he did not say why he would wish to receive Communion in a Catholic church.
Gramps gave a list of times when a non Catholic Christian m (licitly from a Catholic point of view) receive Communion.
Ad Orientem should know that while it is necessary to be baptised, it is not necessary to have been confirmed to receive Communion in a Catholic church.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
...As it happens, I am dealing with just such a situation at the moment. Agapantha asked to be received into full communion, and attended all the sessions. She had been a member of a reformed church in the USA, and had been attending church for years. When it came to getting a certificate, pandemonium ensued because no-one could recall if she had been baptised or not, the churches she attended had no records and her parents had both died. So there now exists a serious doubt that she was ever baptised and so I will not receive her into full communion but will conditionally baptise her.
I imagine any church which practices baptism would do much the same, wouldn't it? When my father was going to be confirmed in the CofE, in his 40s, he thought he might have been baptised as a baby, possibly in the Methodist church, but wasn't sure and there were no records and my grandparents were dead, so he was conditionally baptised.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Forthview quote:
All the baptised are considered to be members of the Catholic Church.
Well someone should tell the RC church in England that because to my own certain knowledge they've re-baptised people who've become RC having previously been communicant members of the Church of England. In particular: a cousin who was baptised and confirmed in the CofE was re-baptised in an RC Cathedral as recently as 4 years ago.
If that is the case it more than likely because whoever originally "baptised" them didn't use the correct Trinitarian formula but rather some fluffy nonsense like Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier or some other equally asinine heresy.
In some decades of knocking around Anglicanism I have only ever heard the "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer" line once, and that was in Canada, at the beginning of the sermon, and, perversely but wonderfully, was followed by one of the most magnificent Barthian sermons I have ever heard. Certainly, I have never come across it as a Baptismal formula, and I worshipped for some years in a liberal parish in the Diocese of Southwark. If there are some reasonable grounds in individual cases then fair enough, but anyone who assumes that Baptism with water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is not the usual practice in the C of E is intellectually on the level of someone who believes that the Jesuits are planning to kill the Queen and replace her with a shapeshifting lizard who will hand the Falklands back to Argentina and Gibraltar to the Spanish.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Ad Orientem should know that while it is necessary to be baptised, it is not necessary to have been confirmed to receive Communion in a Catholic church.
I know. And it is yet another error, thanks to Pius X the archreformer. Confirmation was never meant to be separated from baptism. So the RC now has people receiving holy communion who aren't fully initiated into the RC confirmation now being linked to the "age of reason", whatever that is.
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on
:
Thanks Fr. TT - I will admit I was just guessing
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Forthview quote:
All the baptised are considered to be members of the Catholic Church.
Well someone should tell the RC church in England that because to my own certain knowledge they've re-baptised people who've become RC having previously been communicant members of the Church of England. In particular: a cousin who was baptised and confirmed in the CofE was re-baptised in an RC Cathedral as recently as 4 years ago.
If that is the case it more than likely because whoever originally "baptised" them didn't use the correct Trinitarian formula but rather some fluffy nonsense like Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier or some other equally asinine heresy.
In some decades of knocking around Anglicanism I have only ever heard the "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer" line once, and that was in Canada, at the beginning of the sermon, and, perversely but wonderfully, was followed by one of the most magnificent Barthian sermons I have ever heard. Certainly, I have never come across it as a Baptismal formula, and I worshipped for some years in a liberal parish in the Diocese of Southwark. If there are some reasonable grounds in individual cases then fair enough, but anyone who assumes that Baptism with water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is not the usual practice in the C of E is intellectually on the level of someone who believes that the Jesuits are planning to kill the Queen and replace her with a shapeshifting lizard who will hand the Falklands back to Argentina and Gibraltar to the Spanish.
A priest in Queensland (IIRC) was removed from ministry a few years ago for among other things baptising with the above formulation. He was well known for his heterodoxy but his bishop had neglected to do anything about him until it came to light (and Rome's attention) that dozens, if not more, of his parishioners had never been validly baptised.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
t I also suspect that the official CofE view is that a person who has been baptised with some other formula, has not been baptised.
From here:
quote:
8 Conditional Baptism
If it is not certain whether a person has already been baptized with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, then the usual service of baptism is used, but the form of words at the baptism shall be
N, if you have not already been baptized, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
I think there's no difference between C of E and RC doctrine here.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
Tangent warning.
On the subject of baptismal formulae, there is a very large local penty church with ultimate origins in the Oneness Pentecostalism (or Jesus Only) modalism common in the US, which used to (and possibly still does) baptise "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19), even in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38)", which prior to the decimalisation of our currency in Australia would have been known as "having a bob each way".
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Forthview:
My cousin was baptised (by a bishop) during a service of Holy Communion according to the proper rites and ceremonies of the Church of England in 1962; it was baptism "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost - I know, I was there and remember the occasion quite well. The Godparents were all baptised, confirmed and communicant members of the CofE - in fact two were priests - so there can be no doubt it was a valid baptism.
And my cousin had (given to them by my aunt) the Baptism Certificate with all the details, plus information about the later confirmation and first communion.
There can be no doubt about the validity of the original baptism; and the so-called 'reception' was not at an Easter Vigil service.
There was no good reason at all for the 're-baptism' except that given by the RC priest at the time "because it wasn't a good Catholic baptism we're doing it properly (sic) now".
Not only was I outraged, so was an RC friend who was there.
Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on
:
It is of course quite silly,to rebaptise,if one is already validly baptised.
Not only r.c. priests are the culprits,eastern orthodox have often done the same, even to former
roman-catholics.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Again, it is not rebaptism. It is conditional.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Again, it is not rebaptism. It is conditional.
Doesn't matter what you call it. It's still a matter of "only we do it properly".
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
L'organist thank you for taking the time to explain more about the background to your relative's 'so-called' reception into the RC church.
I share your outrage at the way this ceremony was conducted. I repeat that the official position of the Catholic church is that all the baptised are members of the Church.
Of course that does not necessarily put all the baptised into full communion with the Catholic church,nor does it mean that all the baptised would rejoice in being called 'Catholic'.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Tangent warning.
On the subject of baptismal formulae, there is a very large local penty church with ultimate origins in the Oneness Pentecostalism (or Jesus Only) modalism common in the US, which used to (and possibly still does) baptise "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19), even in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38)", which prior to the decimalisation of our currency in Australia would have been known as "having a bob each way".
As a girl my mother was baptised 'in Jesus' name', but didn't get re-baptised as a Trinitarian when she joined the Methodists later. I don't think the Methodists knew, but they probably wouldn't have been very theologically anxious about it even if they had.
I get the impression that the CofE is stricter about this sort of thing, being a more sacramentally-focused and liturgically-minded organisation. I think this must be due to its 'Catholic side' rather than its 'Protestant side'.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Again, it is not rebaptism. It is conditional.
Doesn't matter what you call it. It's still a matter of "only we do it properly".
Boo hoo!
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Again, it is not rebaptism. It is conditional.
Doesn't matter what you call it. It's still a matter of "only we do it properly".
Boo hoo!
QED.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... I get the impression that the CofE is stricter about this sort of thing, being a more sacramentally-focused and liturgically-minded organisation. I think this must be due to its 'Catholic side' rather than its 'Protestant side'.
Not sure about that. I think it's got as much to do with regarding Matt 28:19 as authoritative.
quote:
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ...
I've heard there is a small denomination based in Chard that has an unusual baptismal formula. Do any shipmates know anything about this?
[ 03. May 2015, 16:11: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Again, it is not rebaptism. It is conditional.
Doesn't matter what you call it. It's still a matter of "only we do it properly".
Doesn't the RC Church recognize baptisms of other Churches when undertaken using the orthodox Trinitarian formula? I expect if someone wished to be received into the Catholic Church they would probably have to produce a baptism cert to prove valid baptism?
'Conditional' baptisms on the other hand are well enough known where it's unclear to, say, ordinands and confirmands, that they received such a baptism. An ordinand, eg, has to produce a cert to prove it. Otherwise the ordaining bishop will perform a conditional baptism. And I daresay some priests preparing their confirmands might even go that far to ensure their candidates are validly baptised.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
I suppose this is the point where I have to point out that Ecclesiantics aims for robust, yet polite, discussion.
We try to avoid letting things become personal, and we certainly avoid rude and dismissive language like flinging 'boo hoo' at people.
This is the last informal pointer, Hostly implements *will* be employed next time.
Your co-operation is, as always, appreciated.
dj_ordinaire, Eccles host
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Gordon Bennett! Would "live with it" have been better then?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
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.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Again, it is not rebaptism. It is conditional.
Doesn't matter what you call it. It's still a matter of "only we do it properly".
I don't understand this touchiness. If the original baptism really is pukka then the conditional baptism is no baptism at all.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I don't understand this touchiness. If the original baptism really is pukka then the conditional baptism is no baptism at all.
I think it might have something to do with the insulting implication that us poor benighted heretics can't even be trusted to baptise someone properly.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
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 (because of the pastoral ones). And the candidate will not accept doing a "reaffirmation of baptismal vows": real water, and total immersion, are essential!
[ 04. May 2015, 07:22: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I don't understand this touchiness. If the original baptism really is pukka then the conditional baptism is no baptism at all.
I think it might have something to do with the insulting implication that us poor benighted heretics can't even be trusted to baptise someone properly.
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.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Gordon Bennett! Would "live with it" have been better then?
No
Spike
SoF Admin
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Mudfrog said that he could not receive Communion in a Catholic church,although he did not say why he would wish to receive Communion in a Catholic church.
Why wouldn't I?
The Salvation Army doesn't practice the Eucharist but says to its members that we are free to receive communion in ecumenical settings where the host church allows it. I used to attend Anglican 8am communion in my uniform, I regularly received communion in the Methodist church my former congregation shared. But when I was studying ecumenical chaplaincy at an RC seminary a few years ago half we all attended Mass but only the Catholics were permitted to receive - the rest of us - about 25 of us had to sit and watch.
That was needlessly divisive I feel.
Especially when some of the delegates were Anglicans and therefore much closer than I was to the theology of the Eucharist.
I have to say that it always worries me when I hear talk of 'eucharistic unity'. This concept sets out to deliberately exclude those who do not practice the eucharist and also those who do not hold to the Roman Catholic belief. Why should unity assume a fall-back to the Roman church?
[ 04. May 2015, 08:21: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
The Eucharist is a sign of unity, that is why holy communion is a "members only" thing.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I have to say that it always worries me when I hear talk of 'eucharistic unity'. This concept sets out to deliberately exclude those who do not practice the eucharist and also those who do not hold to the Roman Catholic belief. Why should unity assume a fall-back to the Roman church?
For the same reasons, presumably, that the views of congregational, connexional and Presbyterian churches never seem to be taken into account in ecumenical discussions about Episcopacy.
[ 04. May 2015, 08:40: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
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.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
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.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
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.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
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.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
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.
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
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."
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
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?
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
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?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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...
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
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.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
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.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
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.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
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 ?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
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.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
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?
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
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.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
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
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
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.
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on
:
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.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
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.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
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.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
I think the Peace is meant to actualize being "in love and charity with [our] neighbors"--see also Mt 5:23-24.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Yes - but that seems integral to table fellowship. You can't have it without being at peace with your table neighbours.
Posted by Amanda in the South Bay (# 18185) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Sorry, that final question was really directed to Ad Orientem
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
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.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
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"?
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
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. ?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
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!
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
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!
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
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.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
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.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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'.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
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.
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
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.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
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.
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
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.
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
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.
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
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 doesn’t 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.
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
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.
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
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.
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
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.
Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on
:
'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.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0