|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: CPAS = GAFCON?
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by TheMightyMartyr:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Picking up on the 'no formal invite being given' point, that's part of what lay behind my question to TheMightyMartyr: is it the case that an invitation is being given that expressly denies the requirement for baptism or is it just that no invitation is being given at all? If it is the latter, ISTM to be rather unfair to interpret that as permitting CwoB; at no time when I've attended Catholic Mass have I ever heard a formal invitation given, and yet I don't think I'll find anyone here claiming that the Catholic Church believes in and practices CwoB!
Sadly, I have the service leaflets to prove it.
This is taken from page 13 of the October 12, 2008 Harvest Thanksgiving Service:
Share the Gifts
If you know the brokenness of life, its fractures within and its division without, then you have participated in the broken body of Christ and you are invited to share in the breaking of bread. If you desire to know the love of god that overcomes indifference and despair, if you desire the reconcilication that over comes estrangement and alienation then you are invited to share the cup of the new covenant.
No requirement for baptism there...
Nor here:
quote:
YE that do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins, and are in love and charity with your neighbours, and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking from henceforth in his holy ways; Draw near with faith, and take this holy Sacrament to your comfort; and make your humble confession to Almighty God, meekly kneeling upon your knees.
Nor here: quote:
Draw near with faith. Receive the body of our Lord Jesus Christ which he gave for you, and his blood which he shed for you.
Eat and drink in remembrance that he died for you, and feed on him in your hearts by faith with thanksgiving.
[Edited to include context (top of page ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) )]
[ 24. June 2009, 16:03: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheMightyMartyr:
No requirement for baptism there...
Nor here:
quote:
YE that do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins, and are in love and charity with your neighbours, and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking from henceforth in his holy ways; Draw near with faith, and take this holy Sacrament to your comfort; and make your humble confession to Almighty God, meekly kneeling upon your knees.
This brief note by Br. Tobias Taller provides an implicit response on this point. This traditional invitation reflect a time when it could be assumed that only baptized Christians were present.
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheMightyMartyr:
No requirement for baptism there...
Nor here:
quote:
YE that do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins, and are in love and charity with your neighbours, and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking from henceforth in his holy ways; Draw near with faith, and take this holy Sacrament to your comfort; and make your humble confession to Almighty God, meekly kneeling upon your knees.
This brief note by Br. Tobias Taller provides an implicit response on this point. This traditional invitation reflect a time when it could be assumed that only baptized Christians were present.
Of course. And it's very possible that in our world of high mobility we need to clarify the traditional language used to invite members of the congregation to the Eucharist. (I myself am not a supporter of the practice of communing the unbaptized, FWIW.)
My point is rather that one cannot prove that a church is practicing CWoB from the language of a service leaflet alone. Else one could prove on the same grounds that the 1662 Book of Common Prayer recommends communing the unbaptized.
Others have also made that point.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
My point is rather that one cannot prove that a church is practicing CWoB from the language of a service leaflet alone....
Fair enough. However, it is a fact that there are churches practicing CWoB, and given that invitation statements in bulletins typically mention baptism, avoidance of reference to baptism is a strong 'clue' that a congregation affirms CwoB.
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
My point is rather that one cannot prove that a church is practicing CWoB from the language of a service leaflet alone....
Fair enough. However, it is a fact that there are churches practicing CWoB, and given that invitation statements in bulletins typically mention baptism, avoidance of reference to baptism is a strong 'clue' that a congregation affirms CwoB.
For me, and the way I look at things, I'd rather check it out with a member of the congregation in question, or better yet a member of the clergy, before I said positively: "Such-and-such a church affirms/practices communion of the unbaptized."
Otherwise, rumors get into circulation, then become amplified and distorted, and end by becoming pretexts for schism.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TheMightyMartyr
Shipmate
# 11162
|
Posted
Grammatica, as my parents were married there, I was baptised and confirmed there, and I have attended on many other occasions, I know the practice of the parish, which is CwoB...
I have been in other parishes in the Diocese where it has been announced that "in the Anglican Church of Canada all are welcome at the table," which is contrary to canon law last time I checked.
--------------------
You cannot claim to worship Jesus in the Tabernacle if you do not pity Jesus in the slum.
Posts: 259 | From: the Land of Ingham | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
For me, and the way I look at things, I'd rather check it out with a member of the congregation in question, or better yet a member of the clergy, before I said positively: "Such-and-such a church affirms/practices communion of the unbaptized."
Otherwise, rumors get into circulation, then become amplified and distorted, and end by becoming pretexts for schism.
I think your policy is quite prudent, and I agree with it. But, I am feeling a bit confused about what you are arguing here. Are you claiming that there are not, in fact, parishes that practice CwoB?
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
Dubious Thomas:
I am responding to a claim originally made by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The allegations against ECUSA are very simple [....[ They have also endorsed communion for the unbaptised.
I say that is not true as stated, and actually, I don't think we are in disagreement there. In fact, the Episcopal Church has not endorsed communion for the unbaptized.
The "proof" offered in this discussion that the Episcopal Church endorses communion for the unbaptized was a worship service bulletin from a Canadian diocese that did not mention baptism as a requirement for communion. I say that's not sufficient proof that the congregation in question actually does practice communion of the unbaptized. I don't think we are in any disagreement on this point either.
As I mentioned much earlier, I live in an all-but-breakaway diocese of the Episcopal Church in the Deep South/Bible Belt of the U.S. I have heard a great many rumors and unsubstantiated allegations concerning the Episcopal Church from would-be breakaways and their supporters over the past six or seven years. Versions of these are the stock in trade of a number of blogs (Stand Firm, for example).
I have learned to be very skeptical of these rumors and unsubstantiated allegations, and I don't accept them as fact without proof. I don't think we're in real disagreement on that point, either.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheMightyMartyr:
Grammatica, as my parents were married there, I was baptised and confirmed there, and I have attended on many other occasions, I know the practice of the parish, which is CwoB...
I have been in other parishes in the Diocese where it has been announced that "in the Anglican Church of Canada all are welcome at the table," which is contrary to canon law last time I checked.
On the other hand, this is much closer to proof, though I still wish I might hear someone from the parish explain why they do it this way.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
I have put together a canonically correct invitation for the CofE. Any takers? ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif) quote:
Draw near with faith, members of the Church of England who have been confirmed in accordance with the rites of that Church or are ready and desirous to be so confirmed or who have been otherwise episcopally confirmed with unction or with the laying on of hands except as provided by Canon B16 [sc. notorious offenders]; baptized persons who are communicant members of other Churches which subscribe to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and who are in good standing in their own Church; any other baptized persons authorized to be admitted under regulations of the General Synod; and any baptized person in immediate danger of death (you may receive communion in your pew). Receive the body of our Lord Jesus Christ which he gave for you, and his blood which he shed for you.
Eat and drink in remembrance that he died for you, and feed on him in your hearts by faith with thanksgiving.
Anyone else is welcome to come forward for a blessing.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I have put together a canonically correct invitation for the CofE. Any takers?
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
On the other hand, this is much closer to proof, though I still wish I might hear someone from the parish explain why they do it this way.
Here, in brief, is what the leadership of my parish would say: Jesus ate with "tax collectors and sinners." His open table fellowship should be our model. It is Christ's Table, not our Table. We should leave it to Christ to invite people to eat and drink (speaking to their hearts about whether it is right or not), and not assume we know whom he is inviting. An open invitation to everyone allows Jesus this freedom.(*)
You'll doubtless find a more sophisticated case for CwoB in the Anglican Theological Review article referenced in the blog-post by Tobias Haller I linked above.
(*) For the record, I'm not convinced by this argument. But that's not really the point right now.
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I have put together a canonically correct invitation for the CofE. Any takers? quote:
Draw near with faith, members of the Church of England who have been confirmed in accordance with the rites of that Church or are ready and desirous to be so confirmed or who have been otherwise episcopally confirmed with unction or with the laying on of hands except as provided by Canon B16 [sc. notorious offenders]; baptized persons who are communicant members of other Churches which subscribe to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and who are in good standing in their own Church; any other baptized persons authorized to be admitted under regulations of the General Synod; and any baptized person in immediate danger of death (you may receive communion in your pew). Receive the body of our Lord Jesus Christ which he gave for you, and his blood which he shed for you.
Eat and drink in remembrance that he died for you, and feed on him in your hearts by faith with thanksgiving.
Anyone else is welcome to come forward for a blessing.
An invitation based on TEC's actual policy would be much more straightforward... and actually does appear (with slight variation) in hundreds of bulletins throughout the United States:
All who have been baptized with water in the Name of the Holy Trinity are invited to receive communion.
Of course, unlike the CofE, we're sliding into apostasy....
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Frankly, I think that most of the arguments being presented here about CwoB are picking up on theological points that would completely escape the average parish secretary responsible for putting together a pew bulleting, and I'm far from convinced that they would even be present in the mind of a priest at the exact moment that he or she tells people to come up to the altar rail.
I've been to church my entire life and I can't ever recall this being an issue subject to much discussion. When I think about it carefully, the most common invitation I heard in my last church was to anyone who was 'a member of another church'. Does this pass muster?
The idea that a statement needs to be interrogated to establish it's specifics on baptism just doesn't make sense to me in the ordinary, day-to-day context.
I don't doubt its importance in the sense of establishing the formal position of a church, which I am sure IS communicated to clergy. However, in this thread people seem to be trying to rely on much LESS formal statements as evidence in a way that I don't think was ever intended by the makers of those statements.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Frankly, I think that most of the arguments being presented here about CwoB are picking up on theological points that would completely escape the average parish secretary responsible for putting together a pew bulleting, and I'm far from convinced that they would even be present in the mind of a priest at the exact moment that he or she tells people to come up to the altar rail.
I've been to church my entire life and I can't ever recall this being an issue subject to much discussion. When I think about it carefully, the most common invitation I heard in my last church was to anyone who was 'a member of another church'. Does this pass muster?
The idea that a statement needs to be interrogated to establish it's specifics on baptism just doesn't make sense to me in the ordinary, day-to-day context.
I don't doubt its importance in the sense of establishing the formal position of a church, which I am sure IS communicated to clergy. However, in this thread people seem to be trying to rely on much LESS formal statements as evidence in a way that I don't think was ever intended by the makers of those statements.
I agree completely.
But there are people who will use any scrap of evidence at all to make TEC/Canada out to be apostates and heretics. The "issue" of CWoB is just one of many sticks they use to beat TEC/Canada with. It's all very disheartening.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
The sort of statement I've seen (which I like BTW) in pew leaflets, goes something like this:
a) All are welcome at the Lord's Table.
b) If you normally receive at your own church please come to receive the bread and wine (skirts discussions about confirmation etc)
c) If not, please come to receive a blessing.
I like this because it is welcoming (which, to me, is one of the hallmarks of Jesus' ministry), and yet gently acknowledges the complications we've got ourselves into, without becoming too complicated.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Dubious Thomas:
I am responding to a claim originally made by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The allegations against ECUSA are very simple [....[ They have also endorsed communion for the unbaptised.
I say that is not true as stated, and actually, I don't think we are in disagreement there. In fact, the Episcopal Church has not endorsed communion for the unbaptized.
The "proof" offered in this discussion that the Episcopal Church endorses communion for the unbaptized was a worship service bulletin from a Canadian diocese that did not mention baptism as a requirement for communion.
No - the proof offered was the reported admission of Hindus to the communion at LA cathedral. This is far more important than a failure to strictly enforce standards in every parish. However to avoid the issue derailing this thread - which appears to be far from its home anyway! - I've started a new one on Communion without Baptism
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I have put together a canonically correct invitation for the CofE. Any takers? quote:
Draw near with faith, members of the Church of England who have been confirmed in accordance with the rites of that Church or are ready and desirous to be so confirmed or who have been otherwise episcopally confirmed with unction or with the laying on of hands except as provided by Canon B16 [sc. notorious offenders]; baptized persons who are communicant members of other Churches which subscribe to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and who are in good standing in their own Church; any other baptized persons authorized to be admitted under regulations of the General Synod; and any baptized person in immediate danger of death (you may receive communion in your pew). Receive the body of our Lord Jesus Christ which he gave for you, and his blood which he shed for you.
Eat and drink in remembrance that he died for you, and feed on him in your hearts by faith with thanksgiving.
Anyone else is welcome to come forward for a blessing.
Excellent, except that you missed the rubric for the blessing of coming forward with an Order of Service sheet or your arms folded across your chest.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyinOxford
Apprentice
# 12657
|
Posted
At the risk of entering Dead Horse territory: it looks to me as though Grammatica has been trying with great eloquence and passion to deal with a rhetorical problem. Bishop Pete explained the view held by many evangelicals (he said) of the Episcopal Church in the US (which he refers to as ECUSA); Grammatica pointed out that this view is distorted and culpably misleading; +Pete says he is only stating the view held in many parts of his own constituency. Matters might have been easier if he had said whether or not he thought the account he gave was as inaccurate a representation of TEC as Grammatica suggested. It is perhaps helpful that he has now commented elsewhere on a Fulcrum thread (about GAFCON and FCA) -- 'There's not, in my opinion, much left to commend ECUSA and the Canadians [...]': still room for some expansion, of course.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
Tony
Posts: 35 | From: oxford | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on Hill
Shipmate
# 12183
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I have put together a canonically correct invitation for the CofE. Any takers? quote:
Draw near with faith, members of the Church of England who have been confirmed in accordance with the rites of that Church or are ready and desirous to be so confirmed or who have been otherwise episcopally confirmed with unction or with the laying on of hands except as provided by Canon B16 [sc. notorious offenders]; baptized persons who are communicant members of other Churches which subscribe to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and who are in good standing in their own Church; any other baptized persons authorized to be admitted under regulations of the General Synod; and any baptized person in immediate danger of death (you may receive communion in your pew). Receive the body of our Lord Jesus Christ which he gave for you, and his blood which he shed for you.
Eat and drink in remembrance that he died for you, and feed on him in your hearts by faith with thanksgiving.
Anyone else is welcome to come forward for a blessing.
Excellent, except that you missed the rubric for the blessing of coming forward with an Order of Service sheet or your arms folded across your chest.
And the bit about those who are allergic to components of the elements [and the optional bit about the precautions to be taken to avoid passing on swine flu or other infectious diseases]
--------------------
God appointed a worm that attacked the bush so that it withered.
Posts: 171 | From: Berkshire | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on Hill:
And the bit about those who are allergic to components of the elements [and the optional bit about the precautions to be taken to avoid passing on swine flu or other infectious diseases]
This is what now appears in the service bulletin of a parish in the ACofC diocese of Toronto as a result of the swin flu scare. I find it interesting that fear of a potentially lethal influenza has resulted in (sort of) clarifying statements about the nature of the Eucharist:
quote:
Christians of all denominations are invited to receive Communion. Sidespeople will direct you to a place at the altar rail - those in the side aisle pews come forward first. Communion is offered in both kinds, both bread and wine. If it is your custom preference or need, you may receive in one kind only, either just the bread or just the wine. The communion is complete in either form so that receiving either bread or wine alone constitutes receiving full communion. We do not practice intinction, that is dipping the bread in the wine. Again, options for receiving are in one kind only, bread or wine or receiving both. Instead of intinction one may touch the base of the chalice if you desire.
As receiving communion is essentially a spiritual communion, the administrators will pause at every person at the altar rail and say the words of administration, including for those who do not receive. Please cross your arms on your chest to indicate you will not be receiving that particular element. [This section is underlined in the original.]
I'm still puzzling over what "essentially a spiritual communion" means.
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Dubious Thomas:
I am responding to a claim originally made by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The allegations against ECUSA are very simple [....[ They have also endorsed communion for the unbaptised.
I say that is not true as stated, and actually, I don't think we are in disagreement there. In fact, the Episcopal Church has not endorsed communion for the unbaptized.
The "proof" offered in this discussion that the Episcopal Church endorses communion for the unbaptized was a worship service bulletin from a Canadian diocese that did not mention baptism as a requirement for communion.
No - the proof offered was the reported admission of Hindus to the communion at LA cathedral. This is far more important than a failure to strictly enforce standards in every parish. However to avoid the issue derailing this thread - which appears to be far from its home anyway! - I've started a new one on Communion without Baptism
Check again -- they turned out to be members of the Church of South India,
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TonyinOxford:
It is perhaps helpful that Bishop Pete has now commented elsewhere on a Fulcrum thread (about GAFCON and FCA) -- 'There's not, in my opinion, much left to commend ECUSA and the Canadians [...]': still room for some expansion, of course.
If I am correct about this, he did attend GAFCON and refuse to attend Lambeth, one of the few English clergy to do so.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Ah - so it's OK for PECUSA to pick off orthodox parishes in the US... 'They came for the Communists but I wasn't a communist...'
![[Confused]](confused.gif) Are you referring to TEC? (The "P" was dropped sometime back. If so, what sort of paranoid fantasy scenario is this? (If the above scenario wasn't so spectacularly non-factual I would have merely contented my self with a ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif) )
TEC is not "picking off" anyone. No one kicked out those who split.
CAVEAT: I tend to be very linear-minded (and literal-minded) so forgive me if i'm missing some irony
It can be seen as being "kicked out" if you are thrown out of the church building where you have worshiped for years and years.
I would think principle is more important than money, and quite frankly, if i was in a position of decision-making in the TEC i'd bite the bullet and say to those wanting to split, go ahead and take the property. But the splitters know damn well that (with few exceptions) the diocese owns the property and not the parish, but, as seems to be usual for far right wingers of the religious as well as the political variety, they want to have their cake and eat it too.
If the principles the splitters want to stand upon are so important to them, this would give them an opportunity to feel all martyrly.
[ 25. June 2009, 14:49: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Check again -- they turned out to be members of the Church of South India,
And I think it would be illuminating to see what statements the Churches of India have issued about relations with Hinduism and prostelyizing.
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Check again -- they turned out to be members of the Church of South India,
And I think it would be illuminating to see what statements the Churches of India have issued about relations with Hinduism and prostelyizing.
Not sure why, in this context?
The alleged incident to which Ender's Shadow was referring took place in LA.
Here is an account of what actually happened, subject to correction, of course.
At a large service, presided over by Bishop Bruno, to which members of other faiths had been invited, a number of South Asians in traditional dress came up to take communion. Someone (hostile to TEC) in the congregation spotted them at the rail and said -- aha! communion of the unbaptized! Because apparently anyone in a sari must be a heathen pagan unbeliever. Well, the alleged pagans turned out to be members of the Church of South India (a conservative province and member of the Global South).
Disappointed that rumor is still circulating. Very disappointed it is used as a pretext for schism. But not surprised...
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
innocent(ish)
Shipmate
# 12691
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
If I am correct about this, he did attend GAFCON and refuse to attend Lambeth, one of the few English clergy to do so.
No, I'm afraid you are incorrect in this. He did not attend either Lambeth or GAFCON
--------------------
"Christianity has become part of the furniture ... like a grand piano nobody plays any longer.I want the dust to be taken off and people to play music." Archbishop John Sentamu
Posts: 109 | From: Rochester | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by innocent(ish):
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
If I am correct about this, he did attend GAFCON and refuse to attend Lambeth, one of the few English clergy to do so.
No, I'm afraid you are incorrect in this. He did not attend either Lambeth or GAFCON
Thank you for that correction!
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
dolwgan
Apprentice
# 14769
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I don't speak for Fulcrum, but I don't think I'd be far wrong in saying that the OEs are much more likely to side with the CofE liberals (who want to remain in the CofE as it stands) than the CofE CEs (who don't - either leaving or molding it in their own image).
FCA is importing an argument we in the CofE simply don't need to have, and therefore there's no need for the FCA to organise within the CofE. [/QB]
I think that there is a slight misunderstanding here. CofE CE's are basically trying to stand by the traditional understanding and teaching of Anglicanism; OE's, along with the liberals, are challenging that traditional understanding and teaching. That would seem more likely to be a process of remoulding than the CEs' standing by those traditions. Now, it may be right that the traditions and teachings should be remoulded - after all, all denominations ahve ideas and practices that are (at best) dubious when placed against New Testament teaching.
The reason why we DO need to be having the debate(s), debate(s) that have been going on for much of my half-century lifetime and certainly not imported from anywhere else is that we need to be sure that any remoulding is scripturally correct. Why replace a practice that is scripturally dubious with another equally dubious practice?
Posts: 16 | From: Dinas Powys, S. Wales | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
dolwgan
Apprentice
# 14769
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The CofE is a broad church. Most of us like it like that. Most evangelicals like it like that, too. [/QB]
Sadly, certain extreme conservative and liberal elements want to change this and to ensure that both within and without the church only their way of thinking is acceptable. Ironically, the liberal end are now not only pushing their stance on the church, but on society as well. Here in Britain, the Government is trying to repeal a freedom of speech provision and replacing it with a clause that states that expressing the opinion that that gay relationships are wrong (however strongly that might be backed up with scientific and/or sociological evidence) is illegal.
Posts: 16 | From: Dinas Powys, S. Wales | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Er...I don't think it's quite as simple as that, either on the 'scientific' point or on your commentary on the Coroners and Justice Bill, which is in the process of being significantly amended to drop the provisions you fear in their current form.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on Hill
Shipmate
# 12183
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dolwgan:
I think that there is a slight misunderstanding here. CofE CE's are basically trying to stand by the traditional understanding and teaching of Anglicanism; OE's, along with the liberals, are challenging that traditional understanding and teaching. That would seem more likely to be a process of remoulding than the CEs' standing by those traditions. Now, it may be right that the traditions and teachings should be remoulded - after all, all denominations ahve ideas and practices that are (at best) dubious when placed against New Testament teaching.
I think this is a misunderstanding. CofE CEs are trying to stand by their interpretation/understanding of what is the traditional understanding and teaching of the Church of England - as do many groups within the Church. Different groups have different understandings, and the traditions of the church seem to me to be richer and more varied than any one group claims.
The challenge to some of the CE understandings is that after the Savoy Conference it was the presbyterians who left because the reforms had not gone far enough for them.
Just as Newman in Tract 90 pushed the boundaries of interpretation to create a 'Catholic' interpretation of the 39 Articles which they do not seem to bear, so in present days some of the reinterpretation ("rediscovery") of the reformed tradition in Anglicanism seems to me to push history beyond its natural limits.
--------------------
God appointed a worm that attacked the bush so that it withered.
Posts: 171 | From: Berkshire | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Er...I don't think it's quite as simple as that, either on the 'scientific' point or on your commentary on the Coroners and Justice Bill, which is in the process of being significantly amended to drop the provisions you fear in their current form.
Now I'm getting confused. I thought it was the Equality Bill which some Christians fear might take away freedom of speech, and which certainly narrows the exemptions which the churches currently have. On the Coroners and Justice Bill an attempt is being made by Lord Falconer to amend the Bill to protect from prosecution those who assist people who seek to end their lives (assisted dying) in other countries. Church leaders maintain that this opens the door to euthanasia. So there are currently two controversies bubbling.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Check again -- they turned out to be members of the Church of South India,
And I think it would be illuminating to see what statements the Churches of India have issued about relations with Hinduism and prostelyizing.
Not sure why, in this context?
The alleged incident to which Ender's Shadow was referring took place in LA.
Here is an account of what actually happened, subject to correction, of course.
At a large service, presided over by Bishop Bruno, to which members of other faiths had been invited, a number of South Asians in traditional dress came up to take communion. Someone (hostile to TEC) in the congregation spotted them at the rail and said -- aha! communion of the unbaptized! Because apparently anyone in a sari must be a heathen pagan unbeliever. Well, the alleged pagans turned out to be members of the Church of South India (a conservative province and member of the Global South).
Disappointed that rumor is still circulating. Very disappointed it is used as a pretext for schism. But not surprised...
Apparently the story originated with an inaccurate report in the LA Times, which the paper later corrected. See http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=50760
Out of curiousity, did the bishop apologise for all efforts to evangelise Hindus or just agressive or intrusive evangelism?
[ 30. June 2009, 09:27: Message edited by: Yerevan ]
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Er...I don't think it's quite as simple as that, either on the 'scientific' point or on your commentary on the Coroners and Justice Bill, which is in the process of being significantly amended to drop the provisions you fear in their current form.
Now I'm getting confused. I thought it was the Equality Bill which some Christians fear might take away freedom of speech, and which certainly narrows the exemptions which the churches currently have. On the Coroners and Justice Bill an attempt is being made by Lord Falconer to amend the Bill to protect from prosecution those who assist people who seek to end their lives (assisted dying) in other countries. Church leaders maintain that this opens the door to euthanasia. So there are currently two controversies bubbling.
D'oh! Yes, you're quite right - I've been bombarded with so many emails on both over the last several weeks from the likes of the Lawyers Christian Fellowship that I've got throughly confused myself ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dolwgan:
I think that there is a slight misunderstanding here. CofE CE's are basically trying to stand by the traditional understanding and teaching of Anglicanism;
Would that be the 'traditional understanding and teaching of Anglicanism' under (Thomas) Cromwell, Henry VIII, or Cranmer; or Edward VI or even Elizabeth I? The 'tradition', you may be surprized to hear, varied considerably under each of these formative and essential influences. From Luther to reformed Catholicism in fact, depending on whom you wish to base your 'tradition and understanding'.
I don't think anyone - or any one group - can fairly claim to have a handle on the traditional understanding and teaching of Anglicanism, when the very people who created it where themselves so very much at odds with fellow Anglicans.
Now if you were to state that conservative evangelicals were standing up for a particular understanding of the teaching of Anglicanism, over and against another understanding of the same, you might be closer to the point.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Would that be the 'traditional understanding and teaching of Anglicanism' under (Thomas) Cromwell, Henry VIII, or Cranmer; or Edward VI or even Elizabeth I?
Or, indeed, under Augustine of Canterbury, Bede, Pope Adrian IV or John Fisher?
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Just because this is in the news today, there's an interview in the Sunday Telegraph of 5 July 2009, with the Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali saying why he's joined the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans.
Er...I think that'll be the Mail
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
Back on topic.
I had an email John Dunnett making it clear that CPAS is not aligned with FCA, and wishes to serve leaders and ministers across the 'Evangelical' spectrum.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
What do you think he means by that?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I think he means he's received several worried emails from supporters asking him if he realises what could have been implied from his first circular.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Thanks! I wonder then what Grammatica makes of this:
quote:
The following week, the Episcopal Church in America is expected to endorse liturgies for single sex marriage and allow more homosexuals to be made bishops.
from the article: how accurate is it and, if it is accurate, to what extent does that give the lie to her claim that TEC has backed off?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Thanks! I wonder then what Grammatica makes of this:
quote:
The following week, the Episcopal Church in America is expected to endorse liturgies for single sex marriage and allow more homosexuals to be made bishops.
from the article: how accurate is it and, if it is accurate, to what extent does that give the lie to her claim that TEC has backed off?
Hi Matt. Just more of the same wild exaggerations and fear-mongering from the usual suspects, I'm afraid. Note the passive voice: "the Episcopal Church in America is expected..." -- by whom? I'd like to know.
We do have a General Convention coming up and there are people unhappy with B033, especially in the House of Deputies.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Thanks for the clarification.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
Matt, here's a more balanced account of expected actions at Convention: Episcopal News Service article on General Convention 2009.
As someone else said on another thread, there are many Episcopalians, especially among the laity, who are passionately convinced that full inclusion of gay and lesbian persons in the life of the Church is a justice issue. They are outspoken people who will not be shy about making their points of view known at CG 2009.
FWIW in the end I expect GC 2009 to make some sort of fudge (again), something that conservatives who do not want schism will judge sufficient to keep the peace of the Church.
GAFCONites and others who do want schism, on the other hand, will keep pressing for the "discipline" of the Episcopal Church no matter what TEC does or doesn't do. This has been making some Episcopalians increasingly reckless, as they can see perfectly well through the GAFCONites' game. I can understand this point of view but don't think it will prevail.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Grammatica,
Wanting to remain the same is conservative, intransigent, and perhaps even intolerant depending on your perspective, but schismatic it ain't. Departing from the faith as we have received it is schismatic. Refusing to leave the church after having doctrinally departed from it is the ecclesiastical equivalent of squatting. At the moment the progressive leadership of TEC is trying to evict the doctrinal home-owners, when it is they who have theologically left the building.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Grammatica,
Wanting to remain the same is conservative, intransigent, and perhaps even intolerant depending on your perspective, but schismatic it ain't. Departing from the faith as we have received it is schismatic. Refusing to leave the church after having doctrinally departed from it is the ecclesiastical equivalent of squatting. At the moment the progressive leadership of TEC is trying to evict the doctrinal home-owners, when it is they who have theologically left the building.
The above paragraph makes much more sense if each of its sentences is prefixed by "In my private judgment."
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
