homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » MW: Valid Consecration (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: MW: Valid Consecration
Hooker's Trick

Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89

 - Posted      Profile for Hooker's Trick   Author's homepage   Email Hooker's Trick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
you asked for it -- what makes a valid consecration? Do you need a priest in Holy Orders to have a "valid" Eucharist? If not, why not.

Some point to remember:

If you're going to bang on about Holy Orders, sacerdotal functions, etc, you must define those. You've got to tell us what a priest does. And why a Communion is valid or not.

Also, if you DON'T think you need a priest, please explain why.

This is probably one of the trickiest issues dividing Christ's church and the celebration of his Sacraments, and deserves our attention.

I'll kick it off with a question:

If a bunch of good Catholic Christians were trapped on a desert island without a priest (let's say he drowned because he was wearing too much coloured-silk damask), would they be consigned to a Eucharist-less life, or could they perform a valid but irregular Lord's Supper?

Have at it.

HT

[ 10. March 2003, 02:15: Message edited by: Erin ]

Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443

 - Posted      Profile for CorgiGreta         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Since it's the Lord's Supper, isn't it a bit arrogant for us to decide on its validity? As an Anglican, I BELIEVE the Eucharist is valid in my church, and as a Christian, I would not dare to pronounce on the validity of anyone else's rite. I leave that in God's hands.

Greta


Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
for that matter, what it mean for a communion to be valid. and whats the result of having an invalid one... or of not having a valid one?

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!

Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29

 - Posted      Profile for Siegfried   Author's homepage   Email Siegfried   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
When Jesus said "Do this in rememberance of me", he didn't add, "But only if you have a Priest handy who is in the direct apostolic successession."
However, I should put here the caveat that as a Presbyterian, I don't believe in transubstatiation or any of that, so your milage may very if you are from a different tradition.
Communion to me is the solemn reminder that Christ gave His own blood and body as a sacrifice for our sins. And whether it is administered by a priest in a cathedral, or a youth minister in a park (yes, I've had Communion that way as well), it is just as meaningful and solemn.

Sieg

--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!


Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Intrepid Thurifer
Shipmate
# 77

 - Posted      Profile for Intrepid Thurifer     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry all but I believe that a priest duly ordained only has the power to consecrate and know one else. However I am not going to foist my ideas on others who believe differently.
I have received communion in churches were this has not been the case and I still treat the act reverently but differently as a memorial rather than a sacrifice.

Posts: 142 | From: Melbourne Australia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34

 - Posted      Profile for babybear   Email babybear   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Intrepid Thurifer:
I believe that a priest duly ordained only has the power to consecrate and no one else.

Can you explain *why* you believe this? I don't want this discussion to become "proof texts", and I realise that your belief is a fairly orthodox view within the Anglican world. But why do you believe what you believe?

I believe in the priesthood of *all* believers, and think that for too long the church has been happy to shove too much responsibility onto our leaders (clergy).

With communion, it came out of the Passover Meal, something that was for the whole people. Each household celebrated the Passover. It was not something that the priests did. It was the people's work.

I would be quite happy to celebrate communion lead by any Christian who is in good standing with their local church. I can not see how it is something that 'belongs' to the clergy.

This also brings in what is holy. For me, something is concecrated or made holy by setting it aside to be used in the Lord's work. This applies to bread and wine, but also to ourselves. Is it possible for something that is holy to become un-holy? I think so, but the idea doesn't sit easily.

bb


Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Steve G
Shipmate
# 65

 - Posted      Profile for Steve G   Email Steve G   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The C of E officially has a 'high' view of communion - only a priest can preside and the left overs are meant to be consumed (by priest and deacon) not just chucked away. This is changing, partly out of theological conviction and partly because there aren't enough priests to go around.

My own view(as a priest in training) is that communion is valid or otherwise according to how it is received by the communicant, not according who celebrates or how. The problem in 1Cor11 lies not with the person officiating but with those receiving, that's why "it is not the Lord's supper you eat" (v20).


Posts: 168 | From: Exeter | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34

 - Posted      Profile for babybear   Email babybear   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Happy Coot posted this on BP, but I think it is more at home here.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the proper thing to do with consecrated bread that makes floor-fall?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My (anglo-catholic) rector picks it up and consumes it, however I understand it may be reverently disposed of by burying in the earth. I regret to say, that a rector (evangelical) of another parish whom I assist in services at a nursing home for advanced alzheimer's patients reverently disposes -cough- of the wine (much salivated into) down the sink. (We both consume the bread). And then there was my High Church lecturer who gulped down a very soggy wafer that was not able to be swallowed by a woman receiving the Last Rites.
Re: the remaining consecrated elements (Anglican practice) - I can't tell you when the change occurred - but in the early prayerbooks, the priests were allowed to take the remains for their own use. I believe the practice changed not so much for the irreverence of what the consecrated elements might then be used for, but in case of superstitious people trying to obtain the magical 'Body of our Lord'. (Another reason for locking the reserved sacrament away in the Aumbry).

I think it is incredibly bad form for more protestant Presidents presiding at a eucharist where all flavours of Anglicanism are represented to be disrespectful and disturb the orderly worship of a section of the congregation (eg. taking great relish in tearing apart crumbly buns). This sort of anecdote makes me shake my head - what is the point of consecrating the elements ie. setting them apart as holy, if they are not going to be treated as such? I know I get very resentful of intrusions into my worship before and during my approach to the Lord's Table. And I find it very hard to be angry without sinning....

The Apostle says:
"...I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love." Ro14: 14-15.

I think this may be applied to the crumbly bun anecdote. Scattering the Bread on the floor may be a nothing to a low church President, but it is certainly not a loving act towards those present who focus on the Real Presence rather than the memorial.

PS. I am a sort of mutated Evangelical - I find that if you want to debate with literalists and persons who quote from the XXXIX Articles (nay even the Book of Homilies!) you must meet them on the battlefield of their own choosing.


bb
----
MW Host


Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34

 - Posted      Profile for babybear   Email babybear   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Happy Coot:
I think it is incredibly bad form ... to be disrespectful and disturb the orderly worship of a section of the congregation.

Scattering the Bread on the floor may be a nothing to a low church President, but it is certainly not a loving act towards those present who focus on the Real Presence rather than the memorial.


I fully agree with you. It is not an act of love to disregard the worship of others. (Even if we suspect that God likes our style of worship the best.)

There seems to be a bit of confusion about "memorial" or "rememberance". If I remember to orginal correctly it was more of the flavour of "keeping or making present" rather than what we would traditionally think of remmebering. When Israel were celebrating the Passover/Sabbath, they would tell the story of the flight out of Egypt, and it was *their* escape, not just their ancestors escape.

So, communion is not just remembering, but rather about making to present, making it now. I am tempted to use the phrase "real presence".

bb


Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Steve G
Shipmate
# 65

 - Posted      Profile for Steve G   Email Steve G   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This is probably too big a debate to open up here, but...

I find the simplicity of the reformer Zwingli's view of the sacrament quite compelling. If Christ is bodily seated in heaven, how can he be bodily present in the bread? Of course he is present by his Spirit, but no more or less so because of what a priest has said over some bread.

As for the bread being made holy, I'd argue it serves a holy purpose, but has no holiness of its own (how could it?). Once it's served it's holy purpose, surely it matters very little what is done with it. I agree we don't want to cause undue offence, but (gulp) at the same time we don't want to allow people to continue in what can sometimes be superstitious or even magical views of the sacrament.


Posts: 168 | From: Exeter | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ann

Curious
# 94

 - Posted      Profile for Ann   Email Ann   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Happy Coot (by way of bb),

I think you'll find that the Prayerbook allows the use of unneeded unconsecrated bread and wine by the priest/curate. Any that has been consecrated should be consumed by the priest (and any handy communicants).

At our church we usually use a bap for the Bread. Once, when we were between priests and had a very low turnout, the officiating priest found himself with most of a bap to consume. He was working on it and kept offering it to the servers, who would tear off a small fragment and return it, leaving him with almost as much to finish as before. He had great difficulty in finishing before the Communion songs had finished and the service continued.

--------------------
Ann


Posts: 3271 | From: IO 91 PI | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Astro
Shipmate
# 84

 - Posted      Profile for Astro   Email Astro   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Since I believe in the priesthood of all believers then any christian can consectrate the elements as a priest. However I accept that many have different views.

Astro

--------------------
if you look around the world today – whether you're an atheist or a believer – and think that the greatest problem facing us is other people's theologies, you are yourself part of the problem. - Andrew Brown (The Guardian)


Posts: 2723 | From: Chiltern Hills | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443

 - Posted      Profile for CorgiGreta         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
babybear,
Does your belief in the priesthood of all believers lead you to be opposed to any kind of professional, paid, ordained clergy as is the case among Quakers, Mormons, Christian Scientists, and Jehovah's Witnesses? It does seem to work for them, but I think it would be considered a radical and dangerous notion in other demominations (especially among the clergy!).

Greta


Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pyx_e

Quixotic Tilter
# 57

 - Posted      Profile for Pyx_e     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
oh my , being members of a church ( in my instance the church of england ), we may wish to consider what our church leaders are agreed upon on these matters. call me a fuddy duddy but these things matter to me.

the church of england is quite clear about this. only a duly ordained priest may consecrate the sacrements. there are many reasons for this here are a few;

1/ the c of e stills holds to the idea of apostolic succesion. our priests are laid hands on as were all previous disciples in a line that ( by stretching a bit ) leads back to Jesus. this does not validate their blessing of the bread and the wine but places our priests in a different area from pastors , ministers, evangelists ect. our church recognises its priest to be called to a specific service/duty. part of that duty by their calling, the discernment of the church and the blessing by a bishop is to preside at the eucharist. no one else in the church of england is allowed to do this and the vast majority of members would only recieve from a duly ordained priest.

2 the eucharist must fall in its correct liturgical place. that plcae a priest is trained to preside over. it comes in amongst bible reading , prayers and sermons that follow a pattern that stretch back over centuries and are proof against herecy. anyone not trained to adhere to these formularies stands in danger of diving into herecy at the drop of a hat.

3 sadly ( in my opinion) this whole " do we need a priest to have the lord's supper" thing is just ANOTHER anti roman, anti church authority and anti doctrine attempt by those who wish to "free" the church to the spirit but will ruin a structure that has stood firm for centuries. we will have as many different versions of the eucharist and as many different understandings /interpritations / heretical botch ups as there are mmmmmmmm let me see ....... hey CHURCHES IN AMERICA ( 40k and counting).

4 lastly in this time when choice is so important to us some people think they can choose to say the words of the eucharist, even thought the church would not , if it knew , let them. it would not let them because the strictures that apply to ordination are severe. there are a plethora of disgruntled wannabe-priests, or those subversive by nature, who would use the opourtunity to say these words as a get back at church authority and as a "proof" that they are good enought to do it. niehter of which reason is correct for saying mass (opps). i accpet that some churches do not have such a high understanding of the mass and i would respectfully recieve from any one in the spirit of love which this meal was offered but there is only one mass , said by a priest (in the church of england). for members of this church who take part in agape' then look to your obediance. if you so badly wish to pull down the central core of this church then PLEASE think carefully about alll the issues not just take bread and wine in a mocking protest.

lastly whilst i to admire the idea of the priesthood of all belivers we are all called to serve and sacrifice in different ways we are NOT all called to be priests in the sense that this thread is dicussing. to suggest that use of this broad phrase "priest" allows or encourages people to attempt to perform duties that are not fit for or called to only muddies the water. the church of england is very clear about this.

sigh Pyx-e

--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.


Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29

 - Posted      Profile for Siegfried   Author's homepage   Email Siegfried   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:

I don't believe in transubstatiation or any of that,

Er, the 'or any of that' was not as well worded as it could have been. My apologies if anyone took offense.

Sieg

--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!


Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
ok, but pyx_e, what do you _need_ a "valid" communion for? whats the consequences of _not_ having valid communion? thats what i want to know.

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!

Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
GeoffH
Shipmate
# 133

 - Posted      Profile for GeoffH   Email GeoffH   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by babybear:
Can you explain *why* you believe this? I don't want this discussion to become "proof texts",
bb

I respect BB's position on this but I don think that you can ignore scripture and rely on tradition alone.

As a confirmed proddy, first Baptist and now a member of a charisamtic community church, I hold very strongly to the priesthood of all believers and that we all have the right to celebrate and lead a communioin service.

We of course believe that this is a memorial feast - in rememberance of - and not a sacrifice as transubstantiation implies. Christ died but once for our sins and to keep sacrificing him sees to many of us as a complete heresy.

We use wholemeal bread, some times motzas(?) and red grape juice (even I blanche when someone uses Ribena (for those not in the UK a sticky tooth degrading blackcurrant drink.))

However some of my friends are priests in the CoE and I love receiving communion from them. Both services hold equal relevance amd meaning for me.

What does sadden me though, is the division our respective views causes. Here in our small Wiltshire town we have good relations between the churches and yet our RC friends cannot take part in our communion service or we in theirs.

I respect the views of many more learned posters to this board and I'm sure that some of them will shoot me down, but there are times when I feel that the theatre of the service is getting in the way of the remembrance of what Christ did for us ALL on the cross.

--------------------
Geoff H - an unreconstructed proddy


Posts: 305 | From: UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34

 - Posted      Profile for babybear   Email babybear   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Geoff said:
I respect BB's position on this but I don think that you can ignore scripture and rely on tradition alone.

Sorry, I have caused confusion. "Proof texts" are the standard texts that are always trotted out, without actually stopping and looking at their context and just how relevant the might be to the particular discussion. I am far more interested in people justifying their thoughts and beliefs by using the Bible than from tradition. Tradition is what people have done, but, the Bible is about what God has done, and is therefore far, far more important.

quote:
CorgiGreta said:
Does your belief in the priesthood of all believers lead you to be opposed to any kind of professional, paid, ordained clergy ...

Strangly enough, no. But I might see their role a little differently than others here.

They are people who have a responsibility for the church. Not all clerics are equally adept at pastoral work, or preaching, or any of the other jobs that a minister/priest has to perform. But as the church leader they are responsible for ensuring that the church receives pastoral care, encouragement and teaching. Everyone in the church has different gifts and abilities that when added together augment and enable the church to truly be the body of Christ.

It is my opinion that for too long we have expected the clergy to be everything, and do everything. So that we have ended up with some worn out, disillusioned leaders, and a laiety who are quite prepared to sit back and be 'ministered' to. It is almost back to the Medieval sytem of indulgencies where we are quite prepared to pay our leaders to be Christians for us, and to do the work that the whole church was orginally commisioned to do.

For me, "the priesthood of all believers" is about the church (whatever its flavour) getting off its bum and actually doing the work that Jesus told us to do. It is about people in the church assuming responsibility for themselves and acting like grownup, mature Christians.

bb


Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pyx_e

Quixotic Tilter
# 57

 - Posted      Profile for Pyx_e     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
nicola
lol you have found out my weakness so quickly. of course our Lord is present wherever he chooses and most especial when we are doing something he has commanded us to do. it the agape is done with love then our lord is there, as he is wherever love is ( and many other places as well ). being at heart a wishy washy liberal i would not wish to argue about validity. in fact in my previous post i stress that the apostolic sucession does NOT infer a specific validity.

i would hope i was arguing from a slightly more mature postition (which would be a new one for me) that the eucahrist is much more than sharing a meal and remebering our lord.
i am also deply concerned that THE most precious part of my christian life is ( if possible) not used as either a political football in the protestant/catholic debate OR that those uncalled and unprepared use this powerful symbol in an unorthodox way.

Jesus called people to specific tasks. we his church have a structure to ensure that this continues.

we could vear of into a "meaning of words" debate , for me if a priest of the apostolic succesion celebrates its is a eucharist / communion / mass . otherwise at best it is a agape at worst a heretical nightmare.

--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.


Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pyx_e

Quixotic Tilter
# 57

 - Posted      Profile for Pyx_e     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
oh my, babybear.

if i may briefly without hogging the thread. The bible is not only about what God has done, its about what a lot of people have done, some of it pretty crappy.

And without tradition we would have no church. i have faith that the Spirit has always moved in her church to keep the good strong and to discard the weak, low and nasty.

this i call the tradition of the church. there has been more nonsense sprouted about god that godly stuff. it is the churches job , with inspiration, to uphold that which is good and to dismiss that which is not. this is tradition at work.

we are like fleas standing on the back of an elephant admiring the view and thinking how clever we are for getting up so high.


martys have died for the creeds (for insatnce) and they are traditional ......... opps im raving sorry but i hope i have made a point.

Pyx-e

--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.


Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
um pyx_e, that really doesn't answer my question. i really want to know what the "accepted" viewpoint is here, even if its not yours. why does "validity" matter? what happens to you if you _don't_ get a valid communion?

or to put it another way, is there anyone who believes that salvation depends on taking a valid communion? (i'm not asking what anyone here in particular believes, i'm asking, is that an accepted viewpoint at all?) and if not, then what difference is "validity" seen to make?

i'm comming at this from a methodist point of view... i'd only dimly even heard the term "apostolic succession", and i don't think i'd ever heard anyone talking about validity of communion until i heard it here, so please explain.

(btw, no big deal, but its nicole, not nicola)

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!


Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34

 - Posted      Profile for babybear   Email babybear   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
oh my, babybear.


I agree, Oh my, Pyx-e.

I suspect that we will never be able to agree on this. But thankfully that is not a requirement for salvation.

quote:
for me if a priest of the apostolic succesion celebrates its is a eucharist / communion / mass . otherwise at best it is a agape at worst a heretical nightmare.

I find this idea quite intolerable. I can understand it, but I would never be able to sign up to the idea of the apostolic succesion somehow confering "rightness" and "validity" to a person.

I am firmly of the opinion that commumion is for the people and should also be of the people.

bb


Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443

 - Posted      Profile for CorgiGreta         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Geoff H:

I trust your remark about "theatre of the service" is not limited to liturgical churches. I have heard people say that pentecostal/evangelical services can be too theatrical. One person's theatre may be another person's sacred worship.

Greta


Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443

 - Posted      Profile for CorgiGreta         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Geoff:

Something else: The official R.C.position on intercommunion is very exclusionary, but as with much R.C. teaching, individual and local practice often varies. I spent a couple of months in a village where the only church was R.C.
I visited the priest and told him I am Anglican. Without hesitation, he welcomed me to mass and communion.

A while back, The Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church in the United States took communion at an R.C. daily mass where the priest was aware of the P.B.'s identity. When the matter came to the attention of the press, the P.B. was criticized by some Episcopal clergy for not going to a nearby Episcopal Church that had daily mass. There was no reported criticism of the R.C. priest.

Greta


Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
AlastairW
Apprentice
# 445

 - Posted      Profile for AlastairW   Email AlastairW   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In the debate about who should preside at the Sacrament of Communion, eg on desert islands, what about the other sacrament of Baptism?
Most mainline churches accept that any Christian can baptise someone else (classically a midwife baptising a dying baby) and the Baptism is recognised as 'valid but irregular'.
Why can't the churches do the same for communion?

Posts: 14 | From: West of England | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
what in heavens name does an irregular baptisim mean??? i'd think you were either bapized or you weren't... and what difference would it make to your spiritual state that you had an irregular baptism???

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!

Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
seasick

...over the edge
# 48

 - Posted      Profile for seasick   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think the point is is that the baby is baptised, but that it is not the way that it would be done in an ideal situation, e.g it would be better done in church so that the baby can be welcomed into the family of the church etc . . .

--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley

Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29

 - Posted      Profile for Siegfried   Author's homepage   Email Siegfried   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But then this leads into the entire discussion of infant baptism... which strikes me as a thread unto itself, as I believe this has led to a number of doctrinal disputes and divisions within various churches.

Sieg

--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!


Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lioba
Shipmate
# 42

 - Posted      Profile for Lioba   Email Lioba   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
and the Baptism is recognised as 'valid but irregular'. Why can't the churches do the same for communion?
'valid but irregular'

With regard to communion the terms are not 'valid but irregular'but valid but illicit.

So there can be a situation where a valid communion is illicit, e.g. in the R.C. Church in the case of a laicized priest. He can perform a mass, but it is illegal = illicit.

From the Catholic point communion in other churches is invalid, because there is no priest present. So it's not just irregular, it simple doesn't take place.

Abo

--------------------
Conversion is a life-long process.


Posts: 502 | From: Germany | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lioba
Shipmate
# 42

 - Posted      Profile for Lioba   Email Lioba   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry, I forgot:

Baptism is a sacrament which does not need a priest to be validly administered. That's why it can be irregular, but valid. To make it licit, there has to be a grave reason, like danger of death.

Abo

--------------------
Conversion is a life-long process.


Posts: 502 | From: Germany | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
John Donne

Renaissance Man
# 220

 - Posted      Profile for John Donne     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Meandering a bit:
As an Anglican, when I attend the Roman Church I do not take communion - I think if I were to, it would be a very disrespectful act (to devout Romans) because I would not have prepared myself in the manner required of members of the Roman Church (attend confession), and neither do I accept the Sacrifice of the Mass. So if I partook I would be making a mockery of the Roman rite.

On the other hand, if I presented myself to the Roman priest, informed him that I was an Anglican and he invited me to receive communion knowing that I did not hold the Mass as an offering of Christ's Body and Blood for the sins of the world, I would gladly accept.

(More meandering! My rector uses the strictly illegal Sacramentary for mid-week services, I almost plopped over the week she used the prayer that included offering the Body and Blood in sacrifice... she said it didn't do much for her either and wouldn't use that particular one again hehe)


Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
John Donne

Renaissance Man
# 220

 - Posted      Profile for John Donne     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ann:

I think you'll find that the Prayerbook allows the use of unneeded unconsecrated bread and wine by the priest/curate. Any that has been consecrated should be consumed by the priest (and any handy communicants).


Ann, I've checked back through the early BCP (yer... I really am a BCP fangirl ). Here is the post-communion rubric to the 1552:

And to take away the superstition, which any person hath, or might have in the bread and wine, it shall suffice that the bread be such, as is usual to be eaten at the Table with other meats, but the best and purest wheat bread, that conveniently may be gotten. And if any of the bread or wine remain, the Curate shall have it to his own use.

Compare this to 1662:
And if any of the Bread and Wine remain unconsecrated, the Curate shall have it to his own use: but if any remain of that which was consecrated, it shall not be carried out of the Church, but the Priest, and such other of the Communicants as he shall then call unto him, shall, immediately after the Blessing, reverently eat and drink the same.

ie. the 1552 allowed for taking away even the remaining consecrated elements.

Good resources:
1662
1549 in frames with 1552
A 1910 reprint of 1549


Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pyx_e

Quixotic Tilter
# 57

 - Posted      Profile for Pyx_e     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
the good news is that i have decided to be a board host !!!!!! hurrah i hear you all say (or is that a cruching silence?)

no sorry i have changed my mind now i want to be a pilot for a jumbo jet flying from london to new-york anybody want to get on my plane ?

no, ok well i shall just be a simple mechanic fixing cars, ive never had an ounce of training but im gifted mechanically and im SURE i can do a good job, anybody want me to mend their engines, fix their brakes, adjust their steering ?

hey, whats the problem ? oh i see just saying your a host/pilot/mechanic dosnt make you one i hear you all cry. to true.

and what were to happen were i to be a host without training and the validation by my peers? well my board would be VERY popular with all thoses who wanted to arse around say dumb ass things and generaly break the rules (or even commandments) it would descend into anarchy, thats why Sof chooses its hosts carefully.

and as for being a pilot well given that i might get a plane off the ground im sure i could not land it and i would have hundreds of lifes at risk. but even if i could fly they still would not let me and whilst i would be cheap i would be DANGEROUS crashing, going to the wrong place...... youre all intelligent people you can see where im going with this i dont even need to talk about mechanics.

so maybe im saying that in the past(tradition has taught us) anyone could say mass but so many diasters happened the church felt the need to test the calling and vocation of those offering to perform this holy rite. to stop herecy, crashes, ending up in the wrong place , giving false teaching ect.

maybe nicole (sorry about before) that is why the churc is keen on validity. if a pilot does not hold a valid flying lisence (there must be such a thing) then he is not safe to fly and im sure we ALL want it that way.(btw i do not feel trained to give a proper opnion on "validity", sorry im sure someone will have a correct answer for you, i'd would rather just give you my opinion that lead you the wrong way, opps my point again)

but for the most important thing we do in church (imho). to suggest that anyone can do it give we the shudders. its not safe. the church is a vehicle of salvation we have a duty to ensure the safety of that vehicle. the church DOES do that, and points to a looooooong history of cults that wander from the path.

still ranting

Pyx_e

p.s. for those of you who shuddered when i suggested i was going to be a board host or even thought " oh no youre not " gues how i feel when i hear about lay presidency ?

--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.


Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
seasick

...over the edge
# 48

 - Posted      Profile for seasick   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Pyx_e, that's (surprisingly?) quite similar to the (British) Methodist stance on it. We say that only ministers can celebrate the communion, but that this is because of the need to maintain church order, rather than due to any particular power that they have.

--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley

Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443

 - Posted      Profile for CorgiGreta         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think it is worth noting that the Baptists and many Pentecostals are very "strict" about baptism.
Unless there is total immersion of a publicly professed believer who has reached "the age of accountability", a purported baptism would be deemed invalid, and in fact a nullity. Furthermore, I have the impression that the baptism must be performed by a pastor - it cannot be performed by a lay person. This all sounds to me to be as strict as the traditional Anglican view of the Eucharist.

Greta


Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443

 - Posted      Profile for CorgiGreta         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I read in one of these posts that posting twice in succession is bad form. Nevertheless...

Many baptistic churches "dedicate" babies (a kind of waterless baptism methinks}. This may indicate a softening of their strict views. Likewise, many Anglicans do not in their heart of hearts believe that the Eucharist is invalid unless it is celebrated by priests in apostolic succession. I am a fence-sitter on this issue, and as noted in an earlier post leave the matter to divine adjudication. I would, however, like Pyx-e, vehemently oppose lay presidency in my church, except perhaps in cases of acute clergy shortage. I do not feel that this is in violation of the letter or spirit of the concept of the priesthood of all believers.

Greta


Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34

 - Posted      Profile for babybear   Email babybear   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
Methodist stance on it... We say that only ministers can celebrate the communion,

Not quite true. Others can apply to be ganted a dispensation for communion. Most commonly this is given to members of the diaconate order, or to lay preachers. Ther requirements are that the person is in good standing within their church, and that there is a need for someone to administer communion. (eg in an area where there is no minister)

Reading back over what I have written, I realise that I have overstated my case. I am all for church order and discipline. I am not in favour of a free-for-all, or lack of respect, but that there should be appointed people within the church who are deemed suitable (in terms of faith, maturity etc) to lead in communion.

However, I have said more than enough about what I think (often happens when I care about the topic of the discussion). What do others think?

bb


Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lioba
Shipmate
# 42

 - Posted      Profile for Lioba   Email Lioba   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Many baptistic churches "dedicate" babies (a kind of waterless baptism methinks}.

No, it's not, though it's sometimes jokingly called a "dry baptism".

Dedication is a service of thanksgiving and prayer for the baby and parents. It fulfills many of the social functions infant baptism has as well.

BTW, I'm one of the few baptists who were accepted as members of the church on profession of their faith alone, without baptism in a Baptist Church. I was baptized as an infant and confirmed as a teenager in the Lutheran Church.

But further explanation and/or discussion of this would surely be to tangential or require a differnt thread ...

Abo

--------------------
Conversion is a life-long process.


Posts: 502 | From: Germany | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ann

Curious
# 94

 - Posted      Profile for Ann   Email Ann   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Happy Coot,

Thanks for that, I'm never too old to learn. I've just never checked for earlier versions before. I've bookmarked the references and will read through them with interest.

--------------------
Ann


Posts: 3271 | From: IO 91 PI | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
John Donne

Renaissance Man
# 220

 - Posted      Profile for John Donne     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
(Speaking with respect to the Anglican discipline)
I would accept to receive communion from someone whose life is in accord with 1Ti 3:8. But I do not have a need to, because my church has already tested and discerned persons whose lives are godly and who have been called by the Holy Spirit to teach, pastor and administer the sacraments - within the Anglican church.

The ordering of priests is a serious thing - a spirit-anointed thing and a lawful (in the sense of orderly worship and authority) thing: The bishop says "Take thou authority to preach the Word of God, and to minister the Sacraments in the Congregation, where thou shalt be lawfully appointed thereunto"

I know when I have a duly appointed priest performing a consecration that they have been vested with authority to do so - to have authority means you are a person under authority (cf. Roman Centurion Mt8:9). The flipside of having authority over their congregation is as the bishop cautions:
"Have always therefore printed in your remembrance, how great a treasure is committed to your charge. For they are the sheep of Christ, which he bought with his death, and for whom he shed his blood." And further on: "And if it shall happen the same Church, or any member thereof, to take any hurt or hindrance by reason of your negligence, ye know the greatness of the fault, and also the horrible punishment that will ensue."

So I am secure in the knowledge that my priest is (as far as a free-willed person can be) a known quantity, and spirit-led to acceptance of a great responsibility. It's the law of my church to have a priest ministering the sacraments and imo, a very sensible one. So that is why I must have a priest performing the consecration. But why I must have a consecration... you will have to ask one of my more anglo-catholic brethren or sistren.


Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443

 - Posted      Profile for CorgiGreta         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
babybear,
You stated: "However, I have said more than enough about what I think". I disagree. Keep talking. I enjoy your posts.

Greta


Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34

 - Posted      Profile for babybear   Email babybear   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thank you, that was very kind.

However, it is time for me to step back a bit from the discussion and let others say what they think. But I have no doubt that I will be wading back into it at some point.

bb


Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Intrepid Thurifer
Shipmate
# 77

 - Posted      Profile for Intrepid Thurifer     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The argument is clearly the difference between the church catholic and the church protestant.
I believe in the real presence and no protestant theology will convince me otherwise.
I also believe in the validity of anglican orders as part of the church catholic and all that goes with this.
If lay presidency ever became the norm in the anglican communiton I would be looking to
mving to another branch of the church catholic.
I have no sound argument for this its just a matter of faith to me

Posts: 142 | From: Melbourne Australia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
GeoffH
Shipmate
# 133

 - Posted      Profile for GeoffH   Email GeoffH   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Geoff H:

I trust your remark about "theatre of the service" is not limited to liturgical churches.
Greta


What I was trying to say was that many people like the vestments and incense side of things rather than actually realising what is behind the communion itself.

I have just this evening heard a message by David Pawson from his series on "Unlocking the Bible" He was talking about the book of Jeremiah.

He said one of the unique emphases of Jeremiah's prophecies was the foretell of the decline of the Temple worship and the rise of synagogue worship ir without the priests, vestments, sacrifices and altar.

He said that the early Christian Churches were in fact "Christian" synagogues. And Pawson said some church structure were trying to return to the Temple style of worship.

Interesting but I can see some arguements against

--------------------
Geoff H - an unreconstructed proddy


Posts: 305 | From: UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hooker's Trick

Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89

 - Posted      Profile for Hooker's Trick   Author's homepage   Email Hooker's Trick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A few things:

"Valid" sacraments. What are sacraments? Sacraments are outward and visible signs of inward and spiritual grace. If the sacrament is invalid, is the grace forfeit?

Article XXVIII sates:

"The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves, one to another, but rather
it is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death..."

So we've got redemption. Which brings up Intrepid T's comment about the mass as sacrifice. The validity of the Sacrament is certainly tied up in whether or not one believes that the Mass is a sacrifice. Article XXXI is most clear that there was only one all-sufficient sacrifice on the Cross, and "Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the
which it was commonly said that the priests did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to have remission of pain or guilt, were
blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits."

So not only do we have the question of validity, but the question of what the Eucharistic Sacrament is *for*: i.e. what does it do.

HT


Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Astro
Shipmate
# 84

 - Posted      Profile for Astro   Email Astro   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Only accepting Communion as being valid if if it performed by a particular type of person (i.e. in so-called Apostalic succession) stikes me as being in the same class of fundamentalism as only accepting that belief in a literal 6 day creation is the only valid way of interpreting the bible.

Astro

--------------------
if you look around the world today – whether you're an atheist or a believer – and think that the greatest problem facing us is other people's theologies, you are yourself part of the problem. - Andrew Brown (The Guardian)


Posts: 2723 | From: Chiltern Hills | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
um, excuse me but no ones yet answered my questions.

to phrase it in the simpliest way, whats gonna' (or not gonna') happen to someone who only has taken invalid communion? why, in other words, does the question of validity matter at all?

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!


Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117

 - Posted      Profile for Cosmo         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And believing that any Tom, Dick or Harriet can adminster the Mass seems to me to be just as absurd and leads to the 'anything goes' style of liturgy and theology which we saw at St Gregory of Nyssa in San Francisco. The apostolic succession is not 'so-called'. Rather it comes directly from the scriptures (the anointing of the apostles at Pentecost and the choice of Matthias) not to mention some of the accounts of the Early Church. All the Church Fathers as well as the Early Church historians (such as the nun Egeria) tell of the priesthood of the church, the way in which they were ordained by the laying on of hands, and that only the priests were to administer the Eucharist.

God calls all people to serve him in different ways. How then would YOU decide who is fit to adminster the Holy Communion? Would you, for example, receive communion from a practising Anglican such as Jeffrey Archer or a Baptist such as Bill Clinton or a self-confessed Christian called Adolf Hitler. Remember; you believe in the priesthood of all believers. Hitler said he believed. Do you accept that? I look forward to his mass. Brilliant choreography.
The final arbiter of who is or is not called to administer the sacraments of God is the Church. It is the Church which is the body of Christ (as St Paul saith) and thus it is the Church which is given the responsibility to define the will of God. In this way I, as a priest, can say mass. I believe I am called by God to follow those hundreds of thousands who he has called through his Church to serve as a priest. For if we believe what St Paul says about the Church then we have to accept its dictates or otherwise suspend our disbelief.
So if you, Geoff or nicolemrw or any of you others wish to celebrate a heretical and schismatical (for that it what it is) communion service then good luck to you. Just remember that you tread on two thousand years of the practice of the church and count the writings of all the Father and Doctors of the Church, as well as those theologians who have followed in their footsteps, as something which YOU, in your ineffable wisdom, are somehow entitled to disregard.
Post-modernism has truly gone mad and has metamorphosed itself into Humpty-Dumpty belief.
By the way, if any of you are Anglicans and believe in this lay presidency nonsense you have only two choices: either leave the Church for another one which mirrors your views or go to the Diocese of Sydney before it is thrown out of the Anglican Communion.

Yours, with the Angelic Doctor looking down approvingly,

Cosmo


Posts: 2375 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hooker's Trick

Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89

 - Posted      Profile for Hooker's Trick   Author's homepage   Email Hooker's Trick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Cosmo -- in re: Hitler's Mass. Article XXVI (someone is going to get fed up with me spouting the 39 articles all over the place) that the sacraments are not impeded by administration of the wicked. So, validity is NOT a matter of "godly" men doing God's business, surely?

I hope it's not about magic powers transmitted by the laying on of hands.

And is it really heretical seeing as how Anglicans don't practice closed communion themselves? And aren't Anglicans just as schismatic since we aren't welcome at Roman altars? Or maybe it's the Romans who are schismatic.

All that said, I wouldn't be at all happy with lay presidency. If there isn't a priest to preside at regular Eucharists, surely Morning Prayer services would suffice until a priest could be got in?


Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Carys

Ship's Celticist
# 78

 - Posted      Profile for Carys   Email Carys   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Only accepting Communion as being valid if if it performed by a particular type of person (i.e. in so-called Apostalic succession) stikes me as being in the same class of fundamentalism as only accepting that belief in a literal 6 day creation is the only valid way of interpreting the bible.
Astro

I am not sure if this is the case. This reminds me of something someone said in a sermon where he was talking about this when he was very critical about people who had doubts about the validity of communion in other traditions. One of the examples he quoted occured when he was at theological college. One of the students had previously been a non-conformist minister and was told by another student that the previous communions he had celebrated were invalid. & the other was someone who had refused to receive communion in a non-conformist setting. The preacher was very dismissive of this attitude - I can't remember exactly what he said but it verged on implying they weren't proper christians being hung up on the externals. I was very uncomfortable with the remark at the time. I'm not at all sure where I stand on this issue. On the one hand I am not in favour of lay presidency - this raises all sorts of questions re 'what is a priest?' 'what is their role?' 'how should they be trained?'. But where does this leave communions not celebrated by a priest? I have received communion in a Methodist Church (on one occasion with blackcurrent squash), and URC and at ecumenical services. I am also very unsure about the use of levened bread at communion but I've still received. Then there was the service at the ship weekend last year, with ordinary bread and green ginger wine IIRC. My head tells me that the latter was not a 'valid communion' but on the other hand my heart says it was powerful. A group of friends remembering what Jesus did.

Carys

--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise


Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools