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 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: MW: Valid Consecration
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29

 - Posted      Profile for Siegfried   Author's homepage   Email Siegfried   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Cosmo:
So, to be more explicit, are you saying that those of us of the Protestant persuasion are not part of the body of Christ, as manifested by the Church? Going beyond that, then, are we by the same token not actual Believers and Christians?

Sieg

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


Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443

 - Posted      Profile for CorgiGreta         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I do not understand how Sydney can reconcile its strict oppositon to women's ordination with its looseness with regard to Eucharistic presidency. Talk about picking and choosing!

I still insist that there is nothing to be gained by telling people in other faith communities that their sacraments, or ordinances, or clergy are "invalid". At one time, this sort of thing fueled religious wars and burnings at the stake. I am glad those days are long past. I feel secure in my belief that the clergy and sacraments are valid in the Anglican branch of the church catholic, and short of a revival of something like human sacrifice or Bacchanalia I would not anathematize practices in other faith communities. I think it is fair to discuss our differences and to point to things that are tasteless, or bizarre, or inconsistent, but applying labels like 'heresy' or 'invalidity', at the very least, offend my (Anglican?) sense of decorum.


Greta


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

 - Posted      Profile for CorgiGreta         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
errata: 1. "offend" should be "offends"

2. I would be howling with rage at any rites involving animal sacrifice as well.

Greta


Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117

 - Posted      Profile for Cosmo         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My dear HT, that Article is there precisely because there are priests who are validly ordained but who then end up leading a life inconsistent with that of Holy Orders. It is not there to allow Adolf Hitler to say mass and for it to be perfectly valid but merely celebrated by a mass-murderer. If he had been ordained then we would have a pretty problem but we should also hope that the Church, as I said above, as the Body of Christ, would have discerned that perhaps Hitler wasn't the best candidate for Little Puddlington-by-the-Wardrobe.
In relation to Protestants then it is a matter of emphasis. Anglicans are called protestants by Roman Catholics but are, as a church, nothing of the kind. Nowhere in the BCP or the ASB Ordinal will you see the word 'protestant'. The Church is the Church Catholic and accepts the threefold ministry of Bishop, priest and deacon. Not to accept this ministry, the ministry which the Church has received (and we must allow the work of the Holy Ghost to penetrate even the Church), is not to accept the Church and to cause grave difficulties to be a member of the Body of Christ. By their very nature of protesting, protestants place themselves outside of the Church. There are, of course, grey areas in which Christian feeling must be given its proper place and that the balance of the doubt should be given. But there are some 'Christian' communities which are so far removed from the notion of 'Church' or indeed of christian love (the cult churches such as the London Church of Christ for example) that they are not part of the body of Christ, they are in fact profoundly anti-Christian.
We must remember that Christianity does have doctrine, it does have dogma. It also has an ecclesiology. The Anglican Quadrilateral of Scripture, Reason, Tradition and Episcopacy holds true for the Roman Church also. What Christianity is not is a free-for-all love feast where everybody can hold their own views about the nature of Christ and the nature of the Church and for those views to be equally valid. Equally valid for discussion and debate certainly, but not equally correct.
What do you think happened in the first five hundred years of the Church? It determined, as far as we can tell as humanity, the philosophy and the dogma of the nature of God and of the Church. Just because we live in a post-modern, post-Christian world does not mean we live in a post-doctrinal, post-ecclesiological world. Thus a mass celebrated by somebody whom the Church as the Body of Christ has not recognised as being called by God to perform that function of ministry is not a real mass but merely a reconstruction, a pantomime if you prefer. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh but it is true.
Unfashionable as such a statement is, there are still times when you have to say 'No'.

Cosmo


Posts: 2375 | 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 
quietly cheers (cosmo) from the back seats

hurrah

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


Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | 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 is not going to make himself popular. I however do not wholly disagree with what he has to say.

Must ask 2 things: Are Lutherans the "grey area"?

Also, I think we must answer nicolemrw's question. What does an "invalid" communion do to you (I suspect it's more a question of what it doesn't do for you, seen from a certain point of view).

HT

Oh -- and Rome, rational?


Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2

 - Posted      Profile for Erin   Author's homepage   Email Erin       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, you only thought you'd gotten rid of me. First off, I am a somewhat active member of my ECUSA parish. I was, however, baptized into the United Methodist Church.

Cosmo says...

quote:
The Church is the Church Catholic and accepts the threefold ministry of Bishop, priest and deacon. Not to accept this ministry, the ministry which the Church has received (and we must allow the work of the Holy Ghost to penetrate even the Church), is not to accept the Church and to cause grave difficulties to be a member of the Body of Christ. By their very nature of protesting, protestants place themselves outside of the Church.

Now, let me see if I understand this correctly. Are you saying that our Baptist, Methodist, etc. and non-denominational contributors here are not members of the Body of Christ? Cause I am having an extraordinarily difficult time with this one. In fact, I consider myself to be a helluva lot closer spiritually to some of those you've just kicked out of the church than those you've deemed worthy of staying inside it. If this is an exclusionary trend of the Anglican Communion, I'm headed right back to the UMC.

--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.


Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 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:
Cosmo said:
Anglicans are called protestants by Roman Catholics but are, as a church, nothing of the kind.

I would find this laughable if it weren't for the fact that I am shaking my head in sorrow.

"We aren't Protestants because we don't call ourselves that."

A Christian is a person who believes that Jesus is Lord and Saviour, the way to Almighty God, and who has placed their love, their belief, and trust in him. A Christian is not someone who is a member of the Angliocan or the RC Church. There are a great number of Christians within those branches of the church, but not every member is a Christian.

Being a Christian is not about accepting the "Traditions of the Church", it *is* about Jesus.

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 
Not only quietly cheering Cosmo but loudly applauding
Posts: 142 | From: Melbourne Australia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2

 - Posted      Profile for Erin   Author's homepage   Email Erin       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
We must remember that Christianity does have doctrine, it does have dogma.

Christianity might. Christ did not.

--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.


Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 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 
The term "catholic" means universal, and properly understood ought to be as comprehensive and inclusive as possible. In practice, however, there is a temptation to capitalise Catholic and use it as an exclusive badge to unchurch others -- of this I do not approve. I think certain parties in the church feel threatened and react to that by standing very firmly on their principles... However, I also think it is important to maintain the catholic heritage of the Anglican communion.

But it is pointless to argue whether we are more protestant or catholic. It is quite clear that the Church of England was reformed (if not by Henry or Liz 1, then by Edward and his protectors). So I think we can agree that the CofE is a reformed (catholic) church. But when it comes down to it, we are an Anglican church, neither wholly catholic or protestant. Just as there are Roman Catholic Christians and Protestant Christians and Orthodox Christians, there are Anglican Christians. We need not be ashamed of that because there are few of us. And I think we pigeon-hole ourselves within the confines of a larger, more convenient tradition to our peril.

That doesn't mean we can't be proud to claim (even when it is unpopular) our own heritage. But neither does it mean that ambiguity is a bad thing.

HT


Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117

 - Posted      Profile for Cosmo         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Erin, if you can separate Christ from Christianity in such a way then surely anything goes. It is a waste of time arguing whether or not Christ had 'dogma'. Babybear tries to say that Christianity is not about following the Church but about following Jesus. For a start it is a dogma of the Church that Christ was the Son of God who died to save us from our sins and, being the son of God, is also as much God as the Father. That is a dogma of the Church not of Christ. Do you believe that? Can you call yourself a Christian if you don't? If not why not? Who decides?
Not only that if it all about Jesus and not the Church then why do Evangelicals, in particular, get so obsessed about the writings of Paul? He and Peter are the prime founders (apart from God) of what we now call the Church. Paul didn't even know Jesus, never saw or met him, and yet so many Christians follow his writings and pay more attention to them than they do the Gospels. It is Paul and the other writers of the Epistles who tell us about the early struggles in the Church, the early arguments and debates on the nature of Christ or what it means to be a Christian. It is Paul who tells us that the Church is 'the Body of Christ' and so, it follows from that, that to be separate from the Church is to be apart from from Christ. Harsh I know but then many of Christ's sayings, particularly in Matthew's Gospel, are 'hard'.
Perhaps what I am trying to say is that to be what was once known as a 'non-conformist' is place oneself in a position not againast Christianity but in a position whereby one cannot enjoy being part of the Body that the Hoy Spirit brought into being. Whether or not that is a mortal sin or not I do not know.
It is not enough however just to say that Christianity is about 'Jesus'. The Acts of the Apostles should teach us that, not to mention the history of the Church. For, as John Macquarrie says, 'the primary datum of Christians is not the Bible but the Church'.

Cosmo


Posts: 2375 | 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 
joins intrepid in the loud claping , ventures to whistle piercingly using his fingers in his mouth and makes a wet farting noise.
give me a C, give me an O ..........

--------------------
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:
Erin, if you can separate Christ from Christianity in such a way then surely anything goes. It is a waste of time arguing whether or not Christ had 'dogma'. Babybear tries to say that Christianity is not about following the Church but about following Jesus. For a start it is a dogma of the Church that Christ was the Son of God who died to save us from our sins and, being the son of God, is also as much God as the Father. That is a dogma of the Church not of Christ. Do you believe that? Can you call yourself a Christian if you don't? If not why not? Who decides?

This is what I believe. And, in theory, what any of the 'mainline' Protestant churches beleive (Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc), as stated in the Apostle's Creed.

quote:
Not only that if it all about Jesus and not the Church then why do Evangelicals, in particular, get so obsessed about the writings of Paul? He and Peter are the prime founders (apart from God) of what we now call the Church. Paul didn't even know Jesus, never saw or met him, and yet so many Christians follow his writings and pay more attention to them than they do the Gospels.

Because Paul interpreted the teachings of Christ and explained them to the early Christians via his Epistles. I wouldn't go so far as to call him a commentator, but to a certain extent, his writings are useful in that way.

quote:
It is Paul and the other writers of the Epistles who tell us about the early struggles in the Church, the early arguments and debates on the nature of Christ or what it means to be a Christian. It is Paul who tells us that the Church is 'the Body of Christ' and so, it follows from that, that to be separate from the Church is to be apart from from Christ. Harsh I know but then many of Christ's sayings, particularly in Matthew's Gospel, are 'hard'.

Fine.. but here you are making the assumption that the Church is defined narrowly as only that portion of the Body of Christ that follows direct apostolic succession. Where does Paul say that? Where does Christ say that?

quote:
Perhaps what I am trying to say is that to be what was once known as a 'non-conformist' is place oneself in a position not againast Christianity but in a position whereby one cannot enjoy being part of the Body that the Hoy Spirit brought into being. Whether or not that is a mortal sin or not I do not know.
It is not enough however just to say that Christianity is about 'Jesus'. The Acts of the Apostles should teach us that, not to mention the history of the Church. For, as John Macquarrie says, 'the primary datum of Christians is not the Bible but the Church'.

Which, by your definition, is only those Churches within the apostolic succession (RC/Anglican/Orthodx(although I haven't seen you mention them in that context)).

Sieg
PS-And as far as a mortal sin, that implies that there is some sin so vile that Christ's sacrafice on the cross was not sufficient to wash away. Which definitely strikes me as un-scriptural.

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


Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443

 - Posted      Profile for CorgiGreta         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Fr. Cosmo,

Do your views require you to deny communion to Protestants?

Greta


Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stephen
Shipmate
# 40

 - Posted      Profile for Stephen   Email Stephen   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
We-e-e-ll.....it certainly looks as though he's going that way,CorgiGreta.....which means I'm confronted with a paradox.I have a liking for colour and ceremony;I value the three-fold ministry,all of which might categorise me as leaning towards the High Church.Yet I find myself nodding vigorously in agreement with Siegfried's post.It is not for us to unchurch other Christians,and I'm sorry but if I were to receive the Sacrament in Siegfried's church than I'd feel I'd received a valid Communion.I feel sure that God has blessed the ministry of churches other those who hold to the three-fold ministry....God is not limited to his ordinances,assuming that the apostolic succession is.Whilst this is the way it developed in the Early Church and one could even argue I suppose that this is what Christ wanted to happen I cannot approve of our using this to unchurch others.In this I'm very much in sympathy I think with what HT has posted,although I think I'd be inclined to say that the Anglican church in Britain is of course continuous with the mediaeval church.....the Church has been reformed before and doubtless will again....aka Common Worship,I suppose.BTW the current settlement dates from Liz 1...you can't argue IMHO for an Edwardian or Henrician anymore than you can a Marian settlement of the present Anglican Church.I'm sure that HT's alter ego would have something to say about it!
I would also say that we should perhaps celebrate the diversity of Christian witness and we should all recognise that different Christians will have different approaches:what is important to one may be of supreme indifference to another;tolerance - on every side - is perhaps what is needed.
Incidentally this threar seems to be getting IMHO somewhat Purgatorial...

--------------------
Best Wishes
Stephen

'Be still,then, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the nations and I will be exalted in the earth' Ps46 v10

Posts: 3954 | From: Alto C Clef Country | 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 Cosmo:
[QB
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.
[/QB]

Methinks Cosmo, as he always does, over eggs the pudding.

What I stated has some tradition behind it going back some centuries so it's not post modertn.

I also do not beleive that it is schismatic.
I want all people to be able to have a part in this special service and I think it is more schismatic (or divisive) for those who believe that only one person has the rikght to preside over communion keeps more peop;e away than it attracts.

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


Posts: 305 | From: UK | 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:
. Paul didn't even know Jesus, never saw or met him, and yet so many Christians follow his writings and pay more attention to them than they do the Gospels.
[/QB]

Damascus Road Cosmo. I believePaul said he met the Lord Jesus on the Damascus Road.

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


Posts: 305 | From: UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117

 - Posted      Profile for Cosmo         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Geoff:
1 Just because you don't believe it to be schismatical doesn't mean that it isn't. As I said we should not be dealing in such Humpty-Dumpty religion and theology.
2 Do you really think that Paul met Christ on the Damascus Road, shook his hand, had a brief chat about the prospects of being blind in a new post-Hebraic society and then went on his way? Many of us have met Christ (or at least hope and believe so) but not physically which was the meaning I was trying to put across. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
3 Just because something might attract more people (although we can never be sure of how many it repels - far more I would wager) does not make it right. The Moonies draw in hundreds of thousands, the Mormons are the fastest growing sect in the UK. It doesn't mean that they are right.

To the others:
1 No I don't refuse protestants communion. For a start I don't know whether or not they are protestants and, like baptism, it is not up to me to refuse somebody the sacrament unless they are obviously taking the piss. Rather like a murderer coming to confession, confessing without contrition and then expecting absolution. One can withhold but your reasons have to be very good.
2 Mortal sin is that sin which is a deliberate act of sinfulness against God ie placing oneself apart from the saving act of Christ. To deny mortal sin is to deny sin itself and to deny sin is to deny free will.
3 What I am trying to do is not to exclude but to include. Evelyn Waugh wrote an article about the Roman Catholic Church entitled 'Come Inside' in which he stated that it was impossible to recognise the value, comfort and feeling of reconcilation by being a member of the Roman Catholic Church. The True Church is Waugh's opinion. I would agree, although expand that to the Catholic churches of Christendom, namely the Romans, Anglicans and Orthodox. Thus I say to those who criticise my opinion from a protestant view, Come Inside. You don't know what you are missing.

Cosmo


Posts: 2375 | 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 Stephen:
Incidentally this thread seems to be getting IMHO somewhat Purgatorial...

I agree. It would be very interesting to have this discussion in Purgatory, where there is a wider selection of different church backgrounds.

One of the rules for hosts is that if they are activily taking part in the discussion then they forego hosting responsibilities on that thread. This is to avoid any calls of unfair etc.

As I have been one of the 'main players' in this discussion in the last few days I have effectively disbarred myself as a host.

bb


Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stephen
Shipmate
# 40

 - Posted      Profile for Stephen   Email Stephen   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Babybear...
I have no complaints whatsoever about the way you HT or SS have hosted the thread;and I have enjoyed reading all the posts.But I realise this may put the Board Hosts in a perceived difficult situation and for that reason you may want to transfer this discussion to Purgatory.I think it is going that way and if it were transferred would enable the MW hosts if they wished to take part more than they may feel able to.But as to the actual decision I leave in your (collective) very capable hands

--------------------
Best Wishes
Stephen

'Be still,then, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the nations and I will be exalted in the earth' Ps46 v10

Posts: 3954 | From: Alto C Clef Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2

 - Posted      Profile for Erin   Author's homepage   Email Erin       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
What I am trying to do is not to exclude but to include... Thus I say to those who criticise my opinion from a protestant view, Come Inside. You don't know what you are missing.

Yeah, in the "my way or the highway" sense. Do you really think that by saying "if you don't subscribe to the three-fold ministry" -- which is not, btw, necessary for our salvation -- "you're an unchurched heathen" you're gonna win converts? Good luck, you are definitely going to need it.

quote:
Just because you don't believe it to be schismatical doesn't mean that it isn't.

Just because you don't believe it to be protestant doesn't mean that it isn't. See the trouble with this sort of argument?

--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.


Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
John Donne

Renaissance Man
# 220

 - Posted      Profile for John Donne     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I believe the Roman Church conceded there was salvation outside of itself at Vatican II. Which was nice of 'em.

You could draw some conclusions about the sacraments and valid consecration from that?

Nonetheless, I'll fight anyone who wants to belong to the Anglican discipline and promotes lay presidency of the eucharist.

Cursed are they that celebrate with a lay president in the Anglican church!
Amen!


Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
David
Complete Bastard
# 3

 - Posted      Profile for David     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So the reason for denominations is not the irrelevancy, insularity and corruption of the catholic institutions?

Silly me.


Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2

 - Posted      Profile for Erin   Author's homepage   Email Erin       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Happy Coot:
I believe the Roman Church conceded there was salvation outside of itself at Vatican II. Which was nice of 'em.

You could draw some conclusions about the sacraments and valid consecration from that?


Well, considering that Rome not too long ago reiterated the invalidity of Anglican orders, we don't seem to have valid consecration, either.

--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.


Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
David
Complete Bastard
# 3

 - Posted      Profile for David     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You can't possibly be correct there, Erin.

That'd make them Protestants.


Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
John Donne

Renaissance Man
# 220

 - Posted      Profile for John Donne     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If I remember correctly, 'deficient' is the word (translation thereof) Cardinal Ratslinger used with reference to our orders. Hmph! Deficient indeed, how dare he! Someone should remind him that there were 3 popes at one time.
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443

 - Posted      Profile for CorgiGreta         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So now we have Protestant "invalidity and heresy" on the one hand and Catholic "irrelevancy, insularity and corruption" on the other. I'm glad to see it's becoming a balanced discussion.

Greta


Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stephen
Shipmate
# 40

 - Posted      Profile for Stephen   Email Stephen   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hmm....quite!I'm not sure if "balanced" would be my choice of words......"heated" possibly!
But it should be possible to talk about this without throwing bricks made in the 16th.century...Or am I being too optimistic?

--------------------
Best Wishes
Stephen

'Be still,then, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the nations and I will be exalted in the earth' Ps46 v10

Posts: 3954 | From: Alto C Clef Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443

 - Posted      Profile for CorgiGreta         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Stephen,

I guess it isn't balanced. We Anglicans are down two bricks to three. That "corruption" brick really knocked us on our fannies.

Greta


Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Astro
Shipmate
# 84

 - Posted      Profile for Astro   Email Astro   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am finding this discusion interesting and challemging.

I am try to consider why "The Priesthood of all believers" is so important to me.

I suppose it is mainly because I am unhappy in situations where the leaders of a christian group
have some kind of claim that aets them apart from the laity.

This can be in a mild kind of way, such as in a college CU where only those
who can agree to the UCCF statement of faith can become leaders,
through the kind of heavy shepherding seen particularly in Chrismatic circles
where the leaders get to make all the decisions and the laity cannot do anything
for themselves. This kind of thing was discussed in the Ungodly Fear board
a while back. Then further to real abuse such as happened in the Nine O'Clock Service
through to the laity following their leaders to suicide as in the Jim Jones followers.

By accepting that all believers are priests they get empowered to work out their
own relationship God/Jesus and can think and act for themselves instead of
waiting to be told what to do by someone who claims to be anything from a special
type of priest to a modern day Apostle.

By the way I hold to the Priesthood of ALL believers not that abhorrant variation
the priesthood of male believers which can also lead to abuse.

Ultimately denying someone the communion elements beacuse there is not a
certain type of person present to bless them smacks of power politics to me rather
than Christian Love.

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
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 
But what is the priesthood of all believers and what does it mean?

Presumably a Christian priest is a person called by God and the community, trained by the church and vested with authority in certain matters.

The priesthood of all believers seems to underscore the notion that all Christians have an unmediated relationship with God in Three Persons (though this notion is seriously undermined by the practice of priests alone making communion at the mass, and is somewhat compromised by setting up saints as special intercessors or mediators).

Of course, one could imagine a church without "priests" as a group of individuals supported by the community and invested with authority. The early churches that St Paul founded may have been like this. But by the end of the second century (at least) the church had adopted a system of deacons, presbytyrs and bishops.

In a world where the church must exist, maintain the Sacraments and teachings, surely the church must also support a structure of authority and arbiters of propriety (perhaps we might even say "truth"?).

HT


Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117

 - Posted      Profile for Cosmo         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As I said Astro, I do not withhold communion to people unless they are obviously not Christians. For example I would not give communion to an obvious Sikh but would give them God's blessing instead.
I feel that you have got your logic the wrong way round; as though because an abuse may happen, it makes the Christian priesthood, as considered by the episcopal churches, to be wrong. This is not the case. The doctrine came first. Abuses came afterwards and with all forms of Christian ministry not just clergy.
Also I can't quite understand the level of disbelief or approbrium thrown at me for merely stating orthodox Anglicanism. If you are an Anglican and don't believe in the threefold ministry then you should not be an Anglican, simple as that. If you are a Baptist or whatever then don't throw scorn at something you don't understand and never will unless you are a part of it.
I'm very sorry Erin if you feel that for stating such orthodox Anglican theology I am going to need a big slice of luck in the future ( and for the life of me I can't understand why). What I try to do is follow the doctrine of the Church as it has been received and developed since the earliest times. What protestants follow is a code which, by its nature, protests against that and which believes itself to be have found the truth after nearly 1500 years of error. (or do you believe that all is truth, rather like Pontius Pilate?). You may well be right. What I do know is that I can trace my orders and that of the Catholic Church back to the earliest apostles (which does not demean anybody else by the way unless you believe that the only valid form of Christian ministry is the ordained ministry) and the early Church and follow the orthodox creeds and doctrine fought over and debated by them. That will do for me, for the millions of other Catholic Christians and, I hope, for God.

Yours, getting slightly irritated by this whole game,

Cosmo


Posts: 2375 | 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 Cosmo:
What I do know is that I can trace my orders and that of the Catholic Church back to the earliest apostles (which does not demean anybody else by the way unless you believe that the only valid form of Christian ministry is the ordained ministry) and the early Church and follow the orthodox creeds and doctrine fought over and debated by them.

This is pretty much the answer I had asked for earlier. One last clarification--do you personally belive that the only valid form of Christian ministry is the ordained ministry? I've honestly found some abiguity on that in your prior posts. I had thought this was your view, but then in this post I find that perhaps I am mistaken.

Sieg

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


Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117

 - Posted      Profile for Cosmo         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Of course I don't believe that the only valid form of Christian ministry is the ordained ministry. The problem now is that so many people seem to think that it is. We have NSM's and OLM's and all sorts of other people knocking around who wish to serve the Church and are told 'go and get yourself ordained and then we will have another pair of hands around the place' rather than serving the Church in a different and perhaps more mutually beneficial way. The scandal of the phasing out of the permanent diaconate is a case in point. Because they are unable to function as a priest (and are thus seen as a burden) the Church puts great pressure on them to be ordained priest, even if they do not wish it or feel called to it, and also try to block any new vocations to that ministry. It is a wholly misguided and uncatholic way of regarding priestly ordination, particularly OLM's.
What some people who advocate the priesthood of all believers do not accept is that it does not demean any form of ministry to exclusivize (if I can use such a horrible term) one form of it to ordained priests ie the calling by God for those people to administer the sacraments of his Church, in particular to say mass and to pronounce God's forgiveness. This does not demean anybody else nor diminish their ministry. Rather it enhances it as we recognise that God does indeed call all of us to be his ministers but in a variety of ways. Not everybody can be a priest as not everybody can be an organist or a server or a reader or sidesman or a launderer or a barman or whatever. That is what I mean. The priests of God are the direct apostolically ordained descendants of the earliest apostles. They recognised that there are different ministries and that not all are called to priesthood eg the election of Matthias. That being said it is up to the Church to discern who those people are and, just as importantly, recognise that a priest is a priest in his very being not just in his doing. We badly need to rediscover that.

Cosmo


Posts: 2375 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2

 - Posted      Profile for Erin   Author's homepage   Email Erin       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Cosmo...

I am an Episcopalian. If I truly was anti-threefold ministry I would not be in the ECUSA. That said, I do not agree that churches which do not subscribe to this belief are outside of The Church. I just think it's flat-out wrong to in essence kick people out of The Church because they don't agree with the hierarchy.

[argh! stupid typo]

[ 13 June 2001: Message edited by: Erin ]

--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.


Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 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 -- many thanks for your recent contributions. You are particularly spot on about the permanent diaconate, and the pereceived need by every middle-aged church-goer who feels he (or often she) has been renewed in Christ Jesus to rush into the priesthood.

I am no fan of unchurching anyone, but Fr Cosmo expresses the orthodox view.

Of course, many people are drawn to the Anglican Communion because it is NOT rigidly orthodox (either by catholic or evangelical standards). You may see this as a great cause for thanksgiving or a great shame...

HT


Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
David
Complete Bastard
# 3

 - Posted      Profile for David     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well here's a funny thing. I agree with Cosmo, but not completely.

I do agree that ministry is ordained - but choose to differ on the substance of ordination. God performs the ordination of all ministry (note, I'm not limiting this to the activity of a priest or whatever). Far be it from me to drag scripture into this sort of debate, but Paul most certainly recognises a hierarchy of giftedness that is not predicated on a position being set aside to perform certain tasks, but rather on people being set aside by God to perform certain tasks and therefore occupy the position. A subtle but substantial difference in the two positions (as I understand them - if I've misrepresented anything, please say so).

It makes much more sense to me than some (probably historically unviable) claim to direct succession.

(And Cosmo - you statrted the "game", you can't back out now).


Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mercy Brat
Apprentice
# 106

 - Posted      Profile for Mercy Brat     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Fr. Cosmo, if I'd had you to challenge me as a young adult, I'd have made better and faster progress on my Christian journey. (Unfortunately, I probably wouldn't have listened.)

Two notions I haven't seen addressed:

1. Evenhanded acceptance of all other viewpoints isn't necessarily tolerance. Believing passionately in something that desperately matters to you, while recognizing the right of another to do the same, probably is.

2. The early Christian church existed within a hostile ambience. "Comunitas" - in the sense of knowing literally who your community was - was critical for survival. Bishops kept lists of both Catechumens and the baptized, which they exchanged with other bishops as a courtesy for travellers. Exclusivity had nothing to do with it.

Have read over your posts several times; no spin, no hyperbole, no dumbing-down, how dare you? You goad me into facing St. Augustine, a chore I've avoided lo these many years.

Ad multos annos,
Mercy Brat


Posts: 26 | From: Western MD, USA | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
David
Complete Bastard
# 3

 - Posted      Profile for David     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A set of questions.

What's the real Church (capital C), and therefore, I've seen it noted, the Body of Christ? Is the Anglican communion? Roman? Eastern? Someone else?

Which Eucharist is the "valid" one? I can't see that it'd be all of them, as the underpinning beliefs are substantially different. So which is valid and which ones are the "pantomimes"?

Is the Sydney Anglican diocese part of the "Church?". If not, why? If it is, and they allow a lay presidency, why doesn't this constitue the "Body of Christ" deciding who can and can't do it?

Call me Humpty Dumpty, but I just can't work it out.


Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 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 
Fr. Cosmo--
Thank you very much for your respone! I was afraid at one point that you were perhaps chanelling Mr. Rizzo. Instead, I find that for the most part, I'm in agreement with you.

As for this thread, have we actually yet addressed the original question posed? Looking over it so far, we seem to have danced around it a bit.

Sieg

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


Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | 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 
David, the answer to your question (like so much else) depends upon your point of view.

From one point of view, the Church (Body of Christ) are only those spiritual bodies which derive from the early, undivided church, and stand in apostolic succession. These would be the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church(es), the Anglican Communion, (and some Scandinavian Lutherans).

Valid Eucharists would only be those celebrated by the ordained priests of those churches.

A broader view would be to say any church which considers itself apostolic, whether or not it enjoyes the historic episcopate, is a part of the True Church. This would include Lutherans and Methodists and other protestants. This would validate their Eucharists as well, I suppose.

The most liberal view of this matter would be to include anyone in Christ's body who claims to be a Christian. This view discards credal or other faith-statements or definitions of faith as lost in the fracturing of Christ's body.

As I said, all this depends on your point of view. Rome considers everyone outside itself to be schismatics or heretics. The Orthodox church sees Romans as heretics. Rome sees Anglicans as schismatics, and some Anglicans think Rome is the Scarlet Whore, while other Anglicans can't get their birettas off fast enough to kiss the pope's toe. Protestants think Romans are idolaters, and I have no doubt that some Protestants think Anglicans are Roman-wanna-bes.

That Leaves us in a pretty state, doesn't it?


Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Br. Christopher Stephen Jenks, BSG
Shipmate
# 8

 - Posted      Profile for Br. Christopher Stephen Jenks, BSG   Email Br. Christopher Stephen Jenks, BSG   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There are so many messages to catch up on that I can't possibly read them all, so please excuse me if I am repeating what somebody else already said. (I was on vacation for 2 weeks btw.)

I agree with Fr. Cosmo, HT and others who have pointed out that the RC, Orthodox, Anglican and some Lutherans are churches that maintain the apostolic succession. Of course, only Anglicans believe Anglicans have maintained the apostolic succession and most Lutherans from Scandenavia I've met really don't care that their church has maintained apostolic succession. It certainly is not a big enough issue for them to break communion with Lutheran churches that have not.

The apostolic succesion was a device used in the early church to verify a person's credentials. It was not seen as some sort of magical device used by the Holy Spirit to impart the power and authority on someone to preside at the Holy Mysteries or any other sacramental act. That authority rested with the local church working under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The idea that ordination by the laying on of hands and in the apostolic succession somehow imparted this authority on someone apart from the church itself didn't start developing until much later. This doesn't make the apostolic succession bad. It is a sacramental expression of the calling that all deacons, priests and bishops have to preach and teach the apostolic faith, and I would be quite upset if the ECUSA decided to give it up for any but the gravest reasons.

However, I am really uncomfortable with using words like "valid" and "invalid" with regard to the Eucharist. Who can know whether a Eucharist is valid except God alone. I do think it's legitimate to say that a Eucharist celebrated by someone not in the Apostolic succession within the an Anglican, Roman Catholic, Orthodox etc. context is "irregular." But that is not to pass judgment on its "validity," only on whether it conforms with the practices of the church body in which it is done.

Clear as mud, I guess. It is HOT here today, and I think my brain has turned into oatmeal.

Chris


Posts: 151 | From: Yonkers, NY, USA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stephen
Shipmate
# 40

 - Posted      Profile for Stephen   Email Stephen   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think Chris has -more or less, anyway - summed up my feelings on this subject....AS for Siegfried's point...yes he's right we have been skating round it but possibly this is something where we have to agree to disagree?
I am very uncomfortable with the idea that a Free Church Communion is somehow null and void......but I wouldn't be an Anglican if I didn't wholeheartedly accept the three-fold ministry

--------------------
Best Wishes
Stephen

'Be still,then, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the nations and I will be exalted in the earth' Ps46 v10

Posts: 3954 | From: Alto C Clef Country | 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 David:
Which Eucharist is the "valid" one? So which is valid and which ones are the "pantomimes"?

Regarding valid eucharists and consecrations in general: The Anglican Church is a church of the Word and of the Sacrament, and I am not a strong sacramentalist, however worship in reverence and holiness in the Anglican tradition is important to me. I'd like to hear a strong sacramentalist discuss consecration further (perhaps in purgatory?). Why do we need it? Approaching the Lord's Table is as central to my worship as hearing the Word preached - I couldn't give a useful explanation as to why, but I would certainly feel diminished if there was no consecration. Intellectually I am in rebellion with the sacramental emphasis of the Lord's Supper, but there is an awe about it that can only be understood as Cosmo(?) said by 'come inside'. It might just be that I was bonded to it at a formative age... but I'll just smile laconically and say 'It works for me' - even though I don't understand it and consciously find it irrational!

Having said that I would feel diminished without a consecration, it does not follow that I think other celebrations of the act that Jesus instituted are deficient - I take part in a loving act of the Body when in other churches, but it does not touch me in the same place as when I do so in my owntradition. For all the moves to ecumenism I think we are still quite tribal.


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 David:
Is the Sydney Anglican diocese part of the "Church?". If not, why? If it is, and they allow a lay presidency, why doesn't this constitue the "Body of Christ" deciding who can and can't do it?

It is inimical to the tradition and character of the Anglican Church to have a eucharist with a lay president. Imo, it ceases to be the 'Anglican Church'.

I am not up on it, but I believe the measure of Anglicanism is if a church is in full communion with Canterbury. Would Canterbury accept to be in full communion with a church that institutes lay presidency of the eucharist?

Division in the Church is a bad thing, QEI knew that... and there are a lot of things that are negotiable - the via media is nice and broad, but if you stretch it too far it breaks. The ordination of women caused some people to break communion with the Anglican Church, while others who were opposed to it accommodated - I would make a distinction between the essence of that issue and the issue of lay presidency. For the priesthood there is a both a calling by the Spirit and a discernment of the Body. (Its roles being central to our discipline).

As a body the Sydney Diocese could make the decision that they will have lay presidents of the eucharist, but imo, they are not free to make this decision if they wish to remain in the Anglican Church.

I contemplate the future of the Anglican Church in Australia with anxiety and sadness. Our Primate is right to call them 'Sydney liberals' - we joke that this is their payback for women's ordination and the move for women bishops. I think the Diocese of Sydney will eventually become the indomitable handful of currently existing anglo-catholic parishes.

There is a lot of money bound up in property there too... and things always get nasty where money is concerned.


Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | 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 
quote:
Originally posted by The Happy Coot:
Would Canterbury accept to be in full communion with a church that institutes lay presidency of the eucharist?


It has always been my impression that the Anglican Communion does not "excommunicate" people. I don't know what the consequences of a lay presidency decision would be, but I don't think Canterbury declares anyone "out of communion".

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 
I havn't got much time to reply, but thanks to all who replied to my post.
We all have one mediator _ Jesus - He is our High Priest and we are Priets under Him.

As to the need for other intermediatory priests - I thnk that we are going to have to agree to differ - but hopefully in love.

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
GeoffH
Shipmate
# 133

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

I am try to consider why "The Priesthood of all believers" is so important to me.
Astro

The priesthood of all believers is part of the letter to the Hebrews. While Astro looks at from a "politlcs and power" view the real importance at least for me is that a`s Christ has "Gone through the curtain" there is now no need for any intervention other than Christ and the Holy Spirit between me a sinner and the almighty God.

To my mind this means I don't have to "confess" to a priest. I don't have to receive absolution from a human being. My only confessor is God, through Christ.

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


Posts: 305 | From: UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
1. On lay presidency -- ordination is essentially public onfirmation of the fact that individuals are rightly called (by the church and God) to "priestly" ministry, and commissioning of those called to undertake that ministry. Laying on of hands was the conventional way of doing this sort of thing in the early church -- as an action, it is no different from people laying on hands to heal. If in today's society, a bishop recognizes that God and the church have called an unordained person to preside at the eucharist, and licenses him (or her, pace Sydney) to do so -- I would argue, as an Anglican, that this effectively constitutes ordination -- being one of today's usual ways of dling such things. That Sydney would not recognize this, if anything, adds to its validity in my books.

2. WIth all due respect to Cosmo and others, for whose position I have a great deal of sympathy, it is not at all clear that personal and direct succession by laying on of hands really can be proved. Rather, as I think Br. Jenks is trying to say, there is a corporate succession. Certainly there are enough exmaples both from patristic and reformation times where episcopal lay on of hands was not required for a person to exercise prebyterial or episcopal authority in the church to show that we would be better focusing on corporate validity. And, given the Porvoo agreement, at least those of you in the C of E have an interesting time if personal succession is required.

3. On the priesthood of all believers -- someone with more Greek than I should verify this, but my understanding is that this expression refers to "hierarchoi(? -- as I implied, my Greek is not great) -- a term related to the sacrificing prriests of the Jewish and pagan cults. And scripture clearly says that such people no longer exist. "Priests" as Anglicans use the term are in fact "prebyteroi" -- elders in the community, and specifically those ordained by the church to preside at the eucharist.

Unfortunately, I am being called away for 3-4 days so I cannot check in to see if I need to add anything, but have fun.


Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | 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