|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is the Church of England Doomed?
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Sorry, Dyfrig, but your last post to me seems like spiritual masochism - at best giving up all those things would lead to a Pyrrhic victory. If we all have to give up our own equivalents of your list we need a better reason than you are able to give us. The way forward in Christ cannot be to mutilate ourselves thus. Your solution seems to me not to be a necessary paring down to essentials, but a recipe for losing ourselves completely. Christianity is not an brutally ascetic cult, but a completely enfleshed, incarnate, messy and real affair for real, messy, diverse human beings. You must know that Christ speaks to us through such things as you claim must be sacrificed. Whatever the solution is (try defining the problem first, though ...) it has to be a human one.
Dyfrig can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this is what he means. It seems to me not that we are all required to be ascetics or masochists but that if the tunicle or the attachment to a particular translation of the Bible or the Bible itself or whatever got in the way of the gospel (not Gospels, as Cosmo put it - as there was a gospel before the church figured out which of the Gospels it would call canonical), then the tunicle, translation, or Bible would have to go.
One hopes the church would recognize when something got in the way of handing on the gospel to succeeding generations and make the appropriate changes. The good news may be told in innumerable ways, and it is a mistake to be more attached to one way of telling the story than to the story itself.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The way forward in Christ cannot be to mutilate ourselves thus. Your solution seems to me not to be a necessary paring down to essentials, but a recipe for losing ourselves completely.
I've never quite got my head around the approach to Scripture that takes Matt 26.26f and parallels literally but doesn't do the same for Matt 19.29, Mark 10.17f, Luke 14.26 with the same reverence.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Dyfrig, you are so wasted cleaning toilets ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
What I need to let go of is listening to people who tell me what to let go of.......
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
Can you see what it is yet?
Frankly, I can't be bothered to wade through all that and make comments on all the relevant and irrelevant bits and try to work out computer code to quote more bits.
Translation: I am hiding behind the label technophobe. I haven't had a problem before, but I'll give it a go now.
quote:
Life is too short.
You have disagreed with me.
quote:
I would say that my previous post in reply wasn't written in faux indignation. Merely weariness and truth.
You have no idea how tiresome it is being right all the time.
quote:
I don't think these boards are anything other than a form of debating chamber and I only posted my OP to create comment and debate; not a Cosmo question and answer session (my name is not Gregory).
I wasn't expecting anyone to disagree with me. Therefore, since at least one person has, it is the fault of the medium.
Failing that, an obscure Orthodox priest.
quote:
Let us agree to differ on these subjects.
You have provided a reasoned argument. I haven't.
quote:
You think that the notion of episcopacy within the Church of England and the rest of the Church Catholic that I hold is incorrect or should be changed. OK. That's very nice.
I wasn't expecting anyone to disagree with me. Since you have, I choose to patronise you as a form of self defence.
quote:
If you would care to set yourself up in a new Church of England Lite (neo-episcopal branch) as a 'bishop' there's lovely. Although of course you would not be able to wear the tat and I don't see the point of being a bishop unless you can wear tha gremial. But fine.
Let's play a game of 'Spot the Straw Man'.
quote:
You think episcopacy is one thing. I (and the definition as provided by the church) think another. Jolly good.
Ha ha ha. I couldn't help myself.
quote:
Two.
I.Can.Count.
quote:
You would be happy to give up everything external to the gospel.
You didn't actually say - or even suggest - such an idea. After all, I think a "gospel" is something written down by someone or other. But it sounds good, and if someone was a bit stupid they may just think it's what you said. Well, it's worth a try, isn't it? I've noticed at least one sycophant falling for it.
quote:
You are either a fool to think so or one specifically chosen by God to think so.
Ad Hominem. One of my favourites. If the hosts call me on it, I'll claim bias. Works every time. They may well claim that it's built in a non sequitur, but I've got the Great White Death on today, and we all know what that means.
quote:
For most of the things you mention (except your need to stand in front of the crucifix before divine service and, as you have the intelligence, to read the Church Fathers) are not essential to salvation.
ha ha ha. I am a card, and should be dealt with.
quote:
But, for the rest of us poor unfortunate souls not so fortunate as you, we need those things as pointers on the way.
I honestly can't help it.
quote:
We need them to keep us going when, as Nunc Dimittis so fiercely reminds us, God can seem a very long way away.
But not as far away as now. God! Please come and help me defend you! I promise I'll wear my best dress!
quote:
By the way, concerning your wish to see the externals cut down, I think you should read Barchester Towers again. Very salutary for us all.
Straw man #765. That's pretty good going for a single post.
quote:
Good night, Mr Slope.
Goodnight, Mr. PointyHead.
quote:
Cosmo
Honestly, if you don't intend for people to actually engage with your posts, don't write them. Perhaps you thought that everyone would just agree with you, or perhaps you have no intimate relationship with the concept of Cosmo just may be damn well be wrong.
Dyfrig has engaged with you. He has attempted to define your implicit presuppositions, examined facts, parsed your logic and challenged your conclusions. Your response is, essentially:
quote:
What I think Cosmo really means:
Bugger. I was hoping for everyone to agree with me, and barrack outside of my house with "Cosmo is the Best" banners. Now I'll just have to try and make it look like Dyfrig is the Antichrist.
Now, the only problem I have is that that this post is far too long for Cosmo to read, so it will fall on deaf ears. With a modicum of luck, some discerning people will see it and see Cosmo's crusading for what it really is; chances are, though, that the people who really need to understand this are blind to it.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
OK here we go, Dyfrig you fall in to the same trap as the OP’er. In that you are unbalanced and at times deliberately obtuse. It suits neither of you well to be so parochial. You the least Dyfrig because you know exactly what Cosmo is trying to say hen he uses the term “classical Anglicanism” but you childishly refuse to give any thought to it but have a little show off of given the context of the use of the phrase (and the title of the thread) of your knowledge of the history of Anglicanism.
I also am unhappy with the length of your posts. You hardly post for months then you drop two bombshells. Whist by the rules this is obviously acceptable by my understanding of manners it is rude. They are to long. Of course if one wants to take the 20 minutes of concentrated reading to digest them one is rewarded by the work put in to it. Many do not have the time or the inclination. Which is why your post length is virtually unique. In length and depth being some of the longest and most thoughtful posts I have ever seen. However they are both nearly a thread killers apart from the work of David. Given this that both of you seem to consider this and excuse to badger Cosmo is childish. I would ask you to keep your posts shorter, to include fewer points, in the hope that we can tackle one at a time (each point you make is a thread in itself) and to ask yourself is this style of posting conducive?
Anyway to the meat of your post:
quote:
Firstly, the phrase "classical Anglicanism" has been used. To put it bluntly – which one? At what point can we say that such a thing emerges?
As I have said already I think your (overly) long diatribe (deliberately) missed the point. I considered Cosmo’s OP to be mourning the decline of the C of E and many of the great things that it once was. Not least its breadth (in terms of churchmanship), its center of parish not congregation, its standing in the community as a beacon of decency and the bearing of the torch of both orthodoxy and tradition. What is to argue about this ? He has a valid point.
quote:
The second point where more thought is needed is in realising what the Church (and, therefore, Churches such as the CofE) is actually for.
One thing it is not for is self-preservation. The Church, like all of creation, is entirely contingent…..
Absolute Nonsense. Of course THE role of the church is self preservation. It is vital that the church carries the gospel and the doctrines of the church intact through the centuries. We stand on the brink of age old heresies and some seem to be screaming for them to be bought on. The church must preserve itself to proclaim a salvivic message, sheesh. And now I am deliberately misunderstanding you because you did not mean this, I know. But my point is valid.
I will say this to you again and again (in fact I am sure I have said it before) this is the way in which the C of E does things. It is the model it paradigms. There are other models I fail to see why you keep wanting the C of E to change horses in mid stream to another paradigm. None of which are proven to work any better.
quote:
We come now to a related aspect – the notion of the CofE being "Episcopal" and the integrity of the threefold order of ministry.
Do you know I don’t give a rats ass whether this form of ministry is “biblical”, “traditional” or pure bullshit. It is what we have. You seem to be arguing both for it and against it. I am not sure what you want. Yes it was (and still is) Patriarchal, stifling and its biblical authority questionable. But it is the model used by all the “big” churches. In fact as you point out nearly all churches use the “called leader” model. What we call it is just our way of doing things. You seem angry with “office holders” whilst ignoring the churches role of discernment in putting forward such men. I would be the first to accept that in the past to be a bishop one must be a politician and a safe pair of hands. I would accept that the C of E has become to bureaucratic. What you are failing to make clear is your acknowledgement of the strengths of this position. Which have brought us safely here today. That times are changing and that we need to become more fluid is obvious. I disagree that we need to buy a new model. We need to service the model we have. It has worked well in the past it can work well again. Again show me a better model and convince me we should go that way. I suspect you can not because every other model will not preserve the “doomed” C of E.
In regard to points about the sacraments (again a topic on which we have had several ENOURMUS threads). We all know where Cosmo is coming from. It is not that he is wrong it the way in which he is saying it that you dislike. He has a point, indeed within you post you point more clearly than he did to the dangers of anti-sacramentalism. I wish you would make a simple point about this than try and cover every aspect. I suspect, being Anglican you can’t.
In defense of Cosmo he is honest about who and what he is. We are free to like or dislike it. If we dislike it we are stuck, as Anglicans with the fact that he is in the same church as we are. That he shows a characteristic of that church that has a deep and historical resonance. Which can not be said of some aspects of where some would have us go.
Dyfrig, I wish you would rail against AC’s (in small chunks please) or put forward the “Dyfrig 10 year Plan” for the C of E or give us concise history lessons about (some) of the reasons why we are here now. By trying to do all three it makes you impossible (for me) to grapple with you.
Whist I am all for open and frank discussiuon it has taken me over an hour to consider the thread (again) and write this. Smaller posts with fewer (conflicting) points would be helpful, please.
P
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Dyfrig ; hi
What I think would be useful is for you to outline the sort of CofE you would like to see. I think I know what you don't like and why, but I can't work out from what you have written, what your own ideals are.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
[QB] you know exactly what Cosmo is trying to say hen he uses the term “classical Anglicanism” but you childishly refuse to give any thought to it
Nope. I didn't know which one he meant, and it's worth noting that the one he eventually identified is not the one you thought he meant, either.
quote:
I also am unhappy with the length of your posts.
I'm unhappy with the length of my posts (I'm also unhappy with the length of the mile, but that's another matter). If I could have said things quicker, believe me pyx_e, I would have. But this topic is far too wide-ranging for soundbites.
quote:
I fail to see why you keep wanting the C of E to change horses in mid stream to another paradigm. None of which are proven to work any better.
Ok. Let's do this simply. No, let's not change the CofE so long as it works in doing the job of proclaiming the salvific acts of God in history.
quote:
You seem angry with “office holders”
Ummmmmm, where on earth did you get that idea from?
quote:
I disagree that we need to buy a new model.
Fine. You don't actually need to disagree with something I never said.
quote:
We need to service the model we have. It has worked well in the past it can work well again.
And would this servicing, perhaps, include engaging properly with the history of the Church, the development of Anglicanism and an examination of Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Episcopacy? If so, I submit my first two posts for consideration.
quote:
I wish you would make a simple point about this than try and cover every aspect.
Ok. The Sacraments are equally valid in the Methodist, Presbyterian, Reformed, Pentecostal and Congregationalist traditions.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I am concerned at the 'either-or'edness of this thread. Because people are so different, I don't think we all need to give everything up, or all need to preserve everything. But there needs to be diversity.
The CofE needs to have room for the Dyfrigs, and the Cosmos, and the Choristers, and the .......s. (Insert alternative word here).
I wonder whether part of this difference is due to the fact that people worship through their senses in different proportions. Therefore, to some people, strong visual imagery is important during worship, but to others it may be not. To some the sounds are most important (eg. music, or the flow of words in the Liturgy), to some it may be smell - e.g. incense.
If the CofE is to speak to people in the wider environment, maybe it needs to make more, rather than less, of different sensory experiences?
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David:
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
Can you see what it is yet?
Frankly, I can't be bothered to wade through all that and make comments on all the relevant and irrelevant bits and try to work out computer code to quote more bits.
Translation: I am hiding behind the label technophobe. I haven't had a problem before, but I'll give it a go now.
quote:
Life is too short.
You have disagreed with me.
quote:
I would say that my previous post in reply wasn't written in faux indignation. Merely weariness and truth.
You have no idea how tiresome it is being right all the time.
quote:
I don't think these boards are anything other than a form of debating chamber and I only posted my OP to create comment and debate; not a Cosmo question and answer session (my name is not Gregory).
I wasn't expecting anyone to disagree with me. Therefore, since at least one person has, it is the fault of the medium.
Failing that, an obscure Orthodox priest.
quote:
Let us agree to differ on these subjects.
You have provided a reasoned argument. I haven't.
quote:
You think that the notion of episcopacy within the Church of England and the rest of the Church Catholic that I hold is incorrect or should be changed. OK. That's very nice.
I wasn't expecting anyone to disagree with me. Since you have, I choose to patronise you as a form of self defence.
quote:
If you would care to set yourself up in a new Church of England Lite (neo-episcopal branch) as a 'bishop' there's lovely. Although of course you would not be able to wear the tat and I don't see the point of being a bishop unless you can wear tha gremial. But fine.
Let's play a game of 'Spot the Straw Man'.
quote:
You think episcopacy is one thing. I (and the definition as provided by the church) think another. Jolly good.
Ha ha ha. I couldn't help myself.
quote:
Two.
I.Can.Count.
quote:
You would be happy to give up everything external to the gospel.
You didn't actually say - or even suggest - such an idea. After all, I think a "gospel" is something written down by someone or other. But it sounds good, and if someone was a bit stupid they may just think it's what you said. Well, it's worth a try, isn't it? I've noticed at least one sycophant falling for it.
quote:
You are either a fool to think so or one specifically chosen by God to think so.
Ad Hominem. One of my favourites. If the hosts call me on it, I'll claim bias. Works every time. They may well claim that it's built in a non sequitur, but I've got the Great White Death on today, and we all know what that means.
quote:
For most of the things you mention (except your need to stand in front of the crucifix before divine service and, as you have the intelligence, to read the Church Fathers) are not essential to salvation.
ha ha ha. I am a card, and should be dealt with.
quote:
But, for the rest of us poor unfortunate souls not so fortunate as you, we need those things as pointers on the way.
I honestly can't help it.
quote:
We need them to keep us going when, as Nunc Dimittis so fiercely reminds us, God can seem a very long way away.
But not as far away as now. God! Please come and help me defend you! I promise I'll wear my best dress!
quote:
By the way, concerning your wish to see the externals cut down, I think you should read Barchester Towers again. Very salutary for us all.
Straw man #765. That's pretty good going for a single post.
quote:
Good night, Mr Slope.
Goodnight, Mr. PointyHead.
quote:
Cosmo
Honestly, if you don't intend for people to actually engage with your posts, don't write them. Perhaps you thought that everyone would just agree with you, or perhaps you have no intimate relationship with the concept of Cosmo just may be damn well be wrong.
Dyfrig has engaged with you. He has attempted to define your implicit presuppositions, examined facts, parsed your logic and challenged your conclusions. Your response is, essentially:
quote:
What I think Cosmo really means:
Bugger. I was hoping for everyone to agree with me, and barrack outside of my house with "Cosmo is the Best" banners. Now I'll just have to try and make it look like Dyfrig is the Antichrist.
Now, the only problem I have is that that this post is far too long for Cosmo to read, so it will fall on deaf ears. With a modicum of luck, some discerning people will see it and see Cosmo's crusading for what it really is; chances are, though, that the people who really need to understand this are blind to it.
And this rant has how much to do with the OP or the thread? It does seem a bit rich to talk about ad hominem arguments and then post this personal attack (I can't see how it can be regarded as anything else). Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned Mr Slope (although I did try to show how relevant to all of us that particular person and that particular novel is). If that caused offence to Dyfrig then I apologise. The rest of your post I can't see as anything else than a 'I think Cosmo's a twat and I'm going to try to show that he is and swipe at anyone who might have the temerity of agree with him about anything'.
Cosmo
(you can call me Mr Pointyhead when I'm a bishop)
Posts: 2375 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
And this rant has how much to do with the OP or the thread?
It has nothing to do with the OP and everything to do with the thread.
quote:
It does seem a bit rich to talk about ad hominem arguments and then post this personal attack (I can't see how it can be regarded as anything else).Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned Mr Slope (although I did try to show how relevant to all of us that particular person and that particular novel is). If that caused offence to Dyfrig then I apologise.
I had no idea what it meant. My retort was a bad pun.
quote:
The rest of your post I can't see as anything else than a 'I think Cosmo's a twat and I'm going to try to show that he is and swipe at anyone who might have the temerity of agree with him about anything'.
Tell me honestly that you can't see it as an attempt to expose your method of argumentation: straw men, ad hominem tu quoque, misdirection, irrelevant complaints about irrelevancies and, when that fails, just say "no it isn't". You've even done it again in the reply to my post!!!
Dyfrig's first post comes in a little under 4000 words. It's a reasonably large post, but an extremely small Bryce Courtenay novel. In the time it took you to complain about the size of the posts, you could have attempted to refute a single point (hint: "I disagree" is not really a refutation). In any case, I've got your attention so there's not much else to do here.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
Chorister, I love you dearly, but you're really missing the point, and if I'm the cause of that by my long-windedness, then I am sorry.
This is not an either/or thing about whether the Anglican communion is big enough to hold everybody. It is about the basics of our understanding as Church - that our every action must be gbrounded in the sacrificial nature of love, as Jesus taught us (surely, this isn't that controversial?) and that we have to be honest about who we are and what our history is. Pyx_e speaks well when he says that, pragmatically, this is what we've got in the CofE so get on with it - what is not right is that the CofE should continue to claim a history that it has not got.
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
What I think would be useful is for you to outline the sort of CofE you would like to see. I think I know what you don't like and why, but I can't work out from what you have written, what your own ideals are.
Well, a slightly less prickly response from its clerics when a lay person points out the fundamental problems in the things he's being taught would be a good start.
However, let's try with: the formal and unequivocal acknowledgement by the CofE of the ministry and sacramental life of all trinitarian bodies who confess the Nicene faith, and that they are all legitimate parts of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?
Dean Cosmo Grantley accuses me of three things: that I desire to set up a new church; that I have claimed some spiritual superiority; and that I am some "progressive" who wishes to banish all forms of worship that do not appeal to me. As I have said none of these things, I am sorry to say that his score has now fallen to nil.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Can I be Mr. Crawley?
OK, I get to have a shitty life, but at least I'm right
And can I also associate myself with
quote:
the formal and unequivocal acknowledgement by the CofE of the ministry and sacramental life of all trinitarian bodies who confess the Nicene faith, and that they are all legitimate parts of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?
??????
The real point is not that we Anglicans have to give up the threefold ministry, but that we have to stop pretending that the Lutherans and Presbyterians and Methodists et cetera et cetera have given it up.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The real point is not that we Anglicans have to give up the threefold ministry, but that we have to stop pretending that the Lutherans and Presbyterians and Methodists et cetera et cetera have given it up.
I'm speaking as a Baptist here, and, um, well, as much as I agree utterly with the sentiment expressed (the admission of the equality of other denominational groups), well... you can't escape the facts. We don't have the threefold order. It's not that we gave it up... it's just that we never really believed in it. Or certainly not in the way that Anglicans do.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Milkman of Human Kindness:
I'm speaking as a Baptist here, and, um, well, as much as I agree utterly with the sentiment expressed (the admission of the equality of other denominational groups), well... you can't escape the facts. We don't have the threefold order. It's not that we gave it up... it's just that we never really believed in it. Or certainly not in the way that Anglicans do.
That's why I deliberatly didn't mention the Baptists explictly ![[Smile]](smile.gif) Independent churches are a different model. But the ones I mentioned all have formal roles of service, eldership, and oversight, even if they don't use words like "bishop".
Of course I don't actually, personally, myself, think that a 3-fold ministry is mandated in scripture anyway, seeing as the New Testament talks about maybe 15 or 20 different roles within the church, but that's beside the point. And don't tell on me to the Archdeacon.
There are independent churches (& to some extent connexional churches) with no formal role of oversight, but most do have it.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
However, let's try with: the formal and unequivocal acknowledgement by the CofE of the ministry and sacramental life of all trinitarian bodies who confess the Nicene faith, and that they are all legitimate parts of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?
The Anglican-Methodist Covenant proposes the following affirmation:
- We affirm one another's churches as true churches belonging to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church of Jesus Christ and as truly participating in the apostolic mission of the whole people of God.
It continues through six more affirmations covering sacraments, Scripture, holy orders, the episkope as revealed within each church - that kind of thing. And then goes on to a number of commitments.
It would be good for the CofE to move forward on this kind of affirmation, as Dyfrig suggests, and I hope the document is given full and prayerful consideration. I don't know how the affirmations above specifically would apply however, as one or two others above have hinted, to churches which tend not to follow the kind of orders of ministry that, arguably, are shared within both Methodism and Anglicanism.
On a personal level, I can't imagine refuting any other Christian his/her membership to belonging, legitimately, to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.
Unless they felt, as many of my URC and Baptist friends do, that that doesn't adequately describe the Church to which they think they belong, and would feel rather insulted to be appropriated by such an 'unequivocal acknowledgement' which wouldn't reflect their own self-understanding and theology.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Dyfrig, sorry to be thick if my post Mrs D Point.
and apologies for quoting another of your threads, but 'what is the point?' (if you see what I mean) Are you able to set out, briefly, say in the style of a Mission Statement, your argument in a nutshell? I admit what you had to say did get rather lost in the three page-scrolls I had to do.....
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
I find it odd that the Church of England argues strongly against Papal Infalibility and yet makes the very same "mistkakes" by enforcing new ideas on a christian community. It claims to be catholic and yet neither wants the discipline or the responsiblities of catholicism. And although some may argue that the vast majority of Anglicans may be in favour of say womens ordination that makes no sense at all. A majority of a tiny minority of catholic christendom can't make these decisions right even if the whole anglican communion were to sign the dotted line. And while there will be people of conscience within Anglicanism it may be that our link with our catholic breathern may be maintained.
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
I submit this as devil's advocate. If the goal is mumerical growth, recent developments in both Christianity and Ilam, suggest that the way to go is not ecumenisicm or flexibility or change or tolerance. Anglicanism should follow the model of the rapidly growing faith groups that adopt and enforce a strict set of beliefs and practices, and having drawn a line in the sand basically consider those on the other side at best deeply in error and at worst Hell bound.
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
The fastest growing religion in the UK is no religion. Even the recent census showed that, despite the high level of vestigial Christian identification and the lielihood that people put 'Christian' because they wanted to appear respectable.
Maybe that tells us something quite different ( also playing devil's advocate!)
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Anglicanism should follow the model of the rapidly growing faith groups that adopt and enforce a strict set of beliefs and practices, and having drawn a line in the sand basically consider those on the other side at best deeply in error and at worst Hell bound.
Well, that's me out, then. And possibly you as well. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
The fastest growing religion in the UK is no religion. Even the recent census showed that, despite the high level of vestigial Christian identification and the lielihood that people put 'Christian' because they wanted to appear respectable.
Maybe that tells us something quite different ( also playing devil's advocate!)
I will play along with your devil's advocate, MM. No I don't think people put Christian because they wish to appear respectable. I think they put Christian because they see themselves as Christian. But they don't see the need to go to Church (unless their children / grandchildren are taking part in a school harvest festival or carol service).
So the problem is more, how do we get them to see that they need to support the church more regularly, or else it - and arguably Christianity - won't be there anymore for people to put on their census forms.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I can't play devil's advocate any more because thats exactly what I do think!
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gunner:
I find it odd that the Church of England argues strongly against Papal Infalibility and yet makes the very same "mistkakes" by enforcing new ideas on a christian community.
EEEK! A troll!
You do realise that this is bullshit don't you? I'd hate to think you were so stupid as to believe it to be true.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sola Scriptura
Shipmate
# 2229
|
Posted
If sticking to one's beliefs and not being tossed about by any new idea that comes along is stupid then thats what I am and proud of it! ![[Love]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
--------------------
Used to be Gunner.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lutonite
Shipmate
# 3901
|
Posted
There is a book called Hope for the church by Church house publishing which gives statistical analysis of the decline in numbers of people going to church of england churches.
It also uses the statistics to provide the hope in the title and suggest strategies to encourage growth. I found the book interesting and reading it leads me to the conclusion that the church of england is not doomed but will have to change.
dj
Posts: 54 | From: Luton | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gunner:
And while there will be people of conscience within Anglicanism it may be that our link with our catholic breathern may be maintained.
I have no idea what is actually meant by this sentence ![[Confused]](confused.gif) , but I wondered if you could elaborate as to who 'people of conscience within Anglicanisn' may be (apart from yourself obviously, and just as obviously excluding everybody who supports the ordination of women. Gosh, how strange to see a reference to that in one of your posts, Gunner! )
And do you mean 'catholic brethren' as defined, for example, in the Methodist/Anglican Covenent? Or do you have something else in mind.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by djlane:
There is a book called Hope for the church by Church house publishing which gives statistical analysis of the decline in numbers of people going to church of england churches.
It also uses the statistics to provide the hope in the title and suggest strategies to encourage growth. I found the book interesting and reading it leads me to the conclusion that the church of england is not doomed but will have to change.
dj
But what everyone argues over is how the CofE should change! The Evangelical church down the road means something totally different by it (everyone should be slain in the spirit) than the Aff Caff church up the road (that we should have women bishops).
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lutonite
Shipmate
# 3901
|
Posted
quote:
But what everyone argues over is how the CofE should change!
The changes that are in the book are more about attitude and working practices than the actual stlye of worship. Overall there is no difference in the rate of decline in the different flavours of church.
dj
Posts: 54 | From: Luton | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Gunner:
I find it odd that the Church of England argues strongly against Papal Infalibility and yet makes the very same "mistkakes" by enforcing new ideas on a christian community.
EEEK! A troll!
You do realise that this is bullshit don't you? I'd hate to think you were so stupid as to believe it to be true.
More importantly, what's a mistkake?
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Gunner:
I find it odd that the Church of England argues strongly against Papal Infalibility and yet makes the very same "mistkakes" by enforcing new ideas on a christian community.
EEEK! A troll!
You do realise that this is bullshit don't you? I'd hate to think you were so stupid as to believe it to be true.
More importantly, what's a mistkake?
The forgotten bun at the bottom of the tin? (missed cake, get it? Sorry, I bring food into everything these days, it's hormonal!)
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Gunner:
I find it odd that the Church of England argues strongly against Papal Infalibility and yet makes the very same "mistkakes" by enforcing new ideas on a christian community.
EEEK! A troll!
You do realise that this is bullshit don't you? I'd hate to think you were so stupid as to believe it to be true.
More importantly, what's a mistkake?
Or that cow-pat you manage to just avoid putting your foot in?
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Is this a consecrated, liturgical bun, or just an ordinary edible bun?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Is this a consecrated, liturgical bun, or just an ordinary edible bun?
I'm not sure if this is a trick question! Can you have holy buns? ( ) I'm not very up on tat and the appendages and useages thereof.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I don't know, but the CofE have always been good at bunfights.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I'm not sure if this is a trick question! Can you have holy buns?
Doughnuts have holes in them.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Milkman of Human Kindness:
you can't escape the facts. We don't have the threefold order. It's not that we gave it up... it's just that we never really believed in it. Or certainly not in the way that Anglicans do.
Oh, I think it's quite easy to escape the facts, The. We've been pretending that we do have bishops since 1536, which is since well-before tea-time. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Chorister - check the Elephant.
Gunner - I'm sorry to have to be the one to break this to you, but it is precisely because "a tiny minority of catholic christendom" decided that
they could "make these decisions right" as regards the liturgy, ordination and the sacraments that you're currently allowed to call yourself "Reverend" at all. Do you check with Constantinople before you read the eucharistic prayers out loud of a Sunday morning? No, I didn't think so.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
Do you check with Constantinople before you read the eucharistic prayers out loud of a Sunday morning? No, I didn't think so.
But the soon-to-be-enthroned Archbishop of Canterbury has checked to ensure that the creed for that service is approved by Constantinople. Maybe there is hope for the CofE after all. enthronement pdf
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen
Shipmate
# 40
|
Posted
It was also used at the enthronement of Robert Runcie IIRC....
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
quote:
Originally posted by The Milkman of Human Kindness:
you can't escape the facts. We don't have the threefold order. It's not that we gave it up... it's just that we never really believed in it. Or certainly not in the way that Anglicans do.
Oh, I think it's quite easy to escape the facts, The. We've been pretending that we do have bishops since 1536, which is since well-before tea-time.
I beg your pardon? Have you checked the historical facts recently, or is it just easier to make your argument work on your planet? Ah, I thought so ... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I beg your pardon? Have you checked the historical facts recently, or is it just easier to make your argument work on your planet? Ah, I thought so ...
Fear not, CB - of course I know there are people exercising episcopal ministry in the CofE.
They're quite easy to spot - they are the ones greeted on a Sunday morning with the versicle "Lovely sermon, Vicar."
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fantastic Verger
Apprentice
# 3827
|
Posted
All I can say guys is that our church has a slow and steady trend in the attendance figures, we currently have around 70-90 communicants for the Solemn Eucharist-which for a parish church in the City of London is VERY good. The numbers have been rising over the last five years and seem to be following that trend. The numbers for adult baptism and confirmation are quite staggering this year and attendance of the Rectors' regular lectures and courses are consistantly on the up. Before I came to this church i was always under the belief that the growth in the CofE was firmly in the Evangelical camp, but The Priory Church has proved me wrong. Anglo Catholism is a very much needed style of worship as many of our congregation are RC and are in need of the traditional form of catholic liturgy we maintain. I feel that as a church we have become to preoccupied with how we look when we gather to worship than getting down to the serious work of devoting ourselves to God, this is why at our church we spend little time on planning where so and so will stand and when we will all bow etc etc-but we spend an awful lot of time preparing for Mass spiritually.
Maybe the Church of England will stand a better chance of surviving if the focus were to shift from Politics to the spiritual bubble we all live in-one of these days it will burst and where will be then?
Right I am tired...God bless!
--------------------
***********************************
Love is the greatest gift
***********************************
Posts: 18 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fantastic Verger
Apprentice
# 3827
|
Posted
oh sorry for the double post, but i just want to justify a point i made. When I say that many of our congregation are RC I should add that we are very proud of the ecumenical friendships we have made and that they feel more comfortable with our uncluttered catholic liturgy than with the modern rite of the Roman Church.
--------------------
***********************************
Love is the greatest gift
***********************************
Posts: 18 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
No the Church of England is not doomed.
Michael Gill has the solution. quote:
This could change the whole perception of what the Church of England stands for. It's revolutionary. It's moving with the 21st century.--Michael Gill
The Church of England
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Little Bex
Apprentice
# 4521
|
Posted
Jesus said He would build His church and the gates of Hell WILL not prevail against it.
Posts: 19 | From: Cambridge | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adrian1
Shipmate
# 3994
|
Posted
I don't think Cosmo or Fr Cuthbert need fear unnecessarily for the future of traditional Anglicanism or its ordered liturgy and ritual. Of course all is not what it used to be - and still should be. I can well understand the feelings of those who harbour anxieties for the church and the worship tradition which has been a model example of restraint, beauty and dignity. Indeed it is increasingly becoming the case that in order to get the service of your choice you may have to travel several miles or be prepared to do it yourself - as I have found (to some extent) against my wishes.
However, things are not quite so bad as they may at first appear. Musical and liturgical excellence are still to be found if you know where to look for them and are prepared to travel. There will always be people who care about such things and will fight to the death to defend them. So long as there is breath in my body I will preach, teach and exort people about the glories of the Book of Common Prayer, in season and out of season, in cyberspace and out of cyberspace. This may not please some people but I am prepared to do it nevertheless.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
The Parson's Handbook contains much excellent advice, which, if it were more generally followed, would bring some order and reasonableness into the amazing vagaries of Anglican Ritualism. Adrian Fortescue
Posts: 1986 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ned43
Apprentice
# 2622
|
Posted
I continue to be convinced that the Anglican Church worldwide offers in large part a very difficult but important evangelisation appeal to those who struggle to keep both heart and mind in their own internal faith equations. It is not easy, as I think we would agree, to find perfect truth for both heart and mind all the time, because the appeal to one or the other often is so strong we are tempted to give way. For instance, the emotionalism of some evangelisation is so appealing that we're liable to forget that it ultimately requires us to give up our God-given ability to judge. In the same way, appeals to the mind can be so sophisticated and appeal so much to our own perceived brilliance that we can be tempted to forget the blood and suffocaion of Jesus on the Cross (the Arian heresies come to mind). A third stumbling block might be the "legalist" one, where we come to feel that if it can be "proved" via Scripture or some other written document, it must be true.
Alas, as I think many would agree, the struggle is to be faithful both to the intellect and the heart and reach conclusions that are both reasonable and faith-filled. And as luck would have it, these kinds of conclusions often lack the "appeal" of the other kinds, probably because they require us to respond as thoughtful adults. Nonetheless, I believe it is the brain-heart equation, as difficult as it is, that remains at the core of the appeal of Anglican Christianity.
Regarding church growth qua growth, I believe it is terribly painful and fruitless to seek growth for its own sake -- we leave that up to God. Rather, we might better continue to work out our own salvation in all thoughtfulness and faith, and if the way we do that attracts others, the Church will grow perforce.
My final words are those of some 19th century wag and are suitably frivolous but contain perhaps a grain of truth: "The Church that marries the spirit of this passing Age will find itself a widow in the next."
--------------------
Peter in Buenos Aires.
Posts: 8 | From: Buenos Aires, Argentina | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Welcome aboard, Ned43! Enjoy posting here in Purgatory, and also check out some of the other boards. You'll find that each one is a bit different, as explained in the guidelines at the top of each board.
Please be sure to read the Purgatory guidelines and the Ship's 10 Commandments. If you have any questions, check the FAQs or feel free to ask.
scot
Purgatory Host
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I've just clicked on Ley Druid's link ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
'The church of England' cannot be found - it may have been removed, had its name changed, or be temporarily unavailable.
Well, that settles it then........ ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif) ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
'The church of England' cannot be found - it may have been removed, had its name changed, or be temporarily unavailable.
[fixed code]
[ 05. June 2003, 10:40: Message edited by: Scot ]
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
