|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Protestant Objectors at Walsingham
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
On another thread, the National Walsingham Pilgrimage for 2017 is being discussed and the question is asked, “Who are these protestant objectors?”
Well, this persuasion belongs to the umbrella organisation of Walsingham Witness, who were originally low church conservative evangelical members of the Church of England, who took a literal and fundamentalist interpretation of the 39 Articles of Religion in the Book of Common Prayer 1662. They made the National Pilgrimage at Walsingham the occasion to do their protesting, in the belief that many bishops by being present, were being disloyal to their reformed heritage of what is contained in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 39 Articles of Religion. In July 1988, the protesters were present “doing their stuff” when worldwide Anglican bishops were on pilgrimage at Walsingham as part of the Lambeth Conference that year. But today, followers of that persuasion do not belong the Church of England as we know it, for they formed the breakaway C of E (continuing) over such developments as women’s ordination. But not all protesters belong to C of E (continuing); some come from Free Churches, such as Strict and Particular Baptist churches and other extreme protestant evangelical churches like that.
People of that persuasion are living in the 16th century and it does not suit them to admit that the Church has moved on since those days long past. Nor does it suit them to admit that the Roman Catholic Church has changed radically since Vatican2. The 39 Articles are not articles of faith; they are statements dealing with the controversies of a period in history, now long past. To give two examples, “The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England” - but in modern times, two reigning popes have visited the UK and were received very warmly. Another article refers to the right of the State to carry out capital punishment, but in those days, capital punishment was carried out not only for murder. A banner displays that (sic) “The Mass is a dangerous fable and a blasphemous deceit” – quoted not quite correctly.
One banner displays, “No Popery”, but what is that supposed to mean, referring to Anglicans and not Roman Catholics. They mistakenly consider that carrying the image (statue) of Our Lady of Walsingham in procession is idolatrous.
To sum up – adherents and opponents at the Walsingham National, all claim allegiance to Jesus Christ, which is ludicrous!
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ˇFelices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Well, perhaps they are concerned that Our Lord is somehow being overlooked, given all the attention being paid to Mary. They forget the times she's mentioned in Scripture, usually in relation to her Son, and/or the early Church.
I must admit that some of the more extreme doctrines (e.g. The Immaculate Conception) or devotions stick in my craw rather, despite the fact that I'm a paid-up member of Our Place's Walsingham Cell. Our little book of readings and propers for OLW Masses (made up of Anglican and RCC material), however, only contains Scripture-based stuff, which fact I doubt the protesters would appreciate.
Maybe they're also jealous of the continued attractiveness of Walsingham to so many people, compared with the tiny numbers supporting their churches? The Church of England (Continuing), for example, boasts only four congregations:
http://cofec.org/
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
I instanced the Church of England (continuing), but a much older church with similar aims and objectives, is that of the Free Church of England, which broke away from the "official" Church of England in the 19th century. They have two dioceses (Northern & Southern, respectively). They wanted to disassociate themselves from the high church beliefs and practices prevalent at that time, to continue a low church ethos. They have churches and congregations few and far between up and down the country.
Overseas is the Church of England in South Africa, which is similar and is a breakaway from the Church of the Province of Southern Africa, in that part of the Anglican Communion, which has high church leanings.
There may be in existence, other small breakaway churches from "official" Anglicanism.
A further thought about the Walsingham protesters, is that they are making passages of scripture and the 39 Articles, to mean what they would like them to mean, rather than what they are really saying to us.
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ˇFelices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
The Free Church of England has a fairly long and respectable history, and I can't imagine them trying to disrupt and heckle at Walsingham, however much they might disapprove of Marian devotions.
What do the protesters hope to achieve by their actions? It seems unlikely that any of those taking part in the Procession etc. will suddenly throw down their rosary, tear off their chasuble, and join the C of E (C) or whatever.
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Does it strike anyone else as curious about that youtube that the protester is proclaiming his message against a backdrop of 'massed' robed Anglo-Catholic clergy all singing Blessed Assurance? That's a famous and popular hymn, one we probably all know well. All the same, I'd put it well down the candle, at the revivalist evangelical end of the spectrum.
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
... A further thought about the Walsingham protesters, is that they are making passages of scripture and the 39 Articles, to mean what they would like them to mean, rather than what they are really saying to us.
As regards both the 39 Articles and the traditions of the CofE, that's the one charge in this argument which I don't really think it's open to the Guardians of the Shrine et al to put. People may have tried. They may even think they have persuaded themselves. But it really is impossible to argue that the 39 Articles are anything other than a fundamentally Protestant document, or that the whole recreation of Walsingham is compatible with the traditions of the CofE as it was from 1558 until at least two generations after 1833.
One can argue that the movement in the C19 out of which Walsingham derived was a good innovation or a travesty. What one can't argue is that it is compatible with either what the post-Reformation CofE stood for, or the 39 Articles.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
You can see here one of the protesters describing the day from their perspective.
The protesters' account of the day
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
Overseas is the Church of England in South Africa, which is similar and is a breakaway from the Church of the Province of Southern Africa, in that part of the Anglican Communion, which has high church leanings.
There is a strong argument that CESA is the continuing church while CPSA is the breakaway. That argument matters for little though, as it is the CPSA which has the recognition of the rest of the Communion.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
... A further thought about the Walsingham protesters, is that they are making passages of scripture and the 39 Articles, to mean what they would like them to mean, rather than what they are really saying to us.
As regards both the 39 Articles and the traditions of the CofE, that's the one charge in this argument which I don't really think it's open to the Guardians of the Shrine et al to put. People may have tried. They may even think they have persuaded themselves. But it really is impossible to argue that the 39 Articles are anything other than a fundamentally Protestant document, or that the whole recreation of Walsingham is compatible with the traditions of the CofE as it was from 1558 until at least two generations after 1833.
One can argue that the movement in the C19 out of which Walsingham derived was a good innovation or a travesty. What one can't argue is that it is compatible with either what the post-Reformation CofE stood for, or the 39 Articles.
Thanks Enoch
Far more temperate at putting that than I would have been.
By the way from my perspective, and I suspect a fair few 16th Century extreme Protestants, the protestors are straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Enoch:
quote:
As regards both the 39 Articles and the traditions of the CofE, that's the one charge in this argument which I don't really think it's open to the Guardians of the Shrine et al to put. People may have tried. They may even think they have persuaded themselves. But it really is impossible to argue that the 39 Articles are anything other than a fundamentally Protestant document, or that the whole recreation of Walsingham is compatible with the traditions of the CofE as it was from 1558 until at least two generations after 1833.
One can argue that the movement in the C19 out of which Walsingham derived was a good innovation or a travesty. What one can't argue is that it is compatible with either what the post-Reformation CofE stood for, or the 39 Articles.
It;s strange though, that despite the 39 Articles being profoundly anti-Presbyterian/Reformed, nobody protests outside of these churches or their conferences/shrines. Many have argued in the past and still do today, that the 39 Articles are much more vociferous in their denunciation of Presbyterianism/Reformed than they are of Roman Catholicism. Being a former Presbyterian I can say it does tend to slap you up the face when you read it from this perspective.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
sonata3
Shipmate
# 13653
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Enoch:
quote:
As regards both the 39 Articles and the traditions of the CofE, that's the one charge in this argument which I don't really think it's open to the Guardians of the Shrine et al to put. People may have tried. They may even think they have persuaded themselves. But it really is impossible to argue that the 39 Articles are anything other than a fundamentally Protestant document, or that the whole recreation of Walsingham is compatible with the traditions of the CofE as it was from 1558 until at least two generations after 1833.
One can argue that the movement in the C19 out of which Walsingham derived was a good innovation or a travesty. What one can't argue is that it is compatible with either what the post-Reformation CofE stood for, or the 39 Articles.
It;s strange though, that despite the 39 Articles being profoundly anti-Presbyterian/Reformed, nobody protests outside of these churches or their conferences/shrines. Many have argued in the past and still do today, that the 39 Articles are much more vociferous in their denunciation of Presbyterianism/Reformed than they are of Roman Catholicism. Being a former Presbyterian I can say it does tend to slap you up the face when you read it from this perspective.
I knew a priest once who saw the 39 Articles as representing the true Via Media of Anglicanism - the middle way, not between Protestant and Catholic, but between Lutheranism and Calvinism.
--------------------
"I prefer neurotic people; I like to hear rumblings beneath the surface." Stephen Sondheim
Posts: 386 | From: Between two big lakes | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
I was all set to say as others have said, that the 39 Articles steer a middle course between Roman Catholicism on the one hand, and Calvinism on the other. One word in any part of the BCP you will not find is PROTESTANT. But CATHOLIC (not Roman Catholic) - yes!
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ˇFelices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
You can see here one of the protesters describing the day from their perspective.
The protesters' account of the day
The writer is Pastor David Carson, Pastor of Zion Tabernacle, Chester and he is also Chairman of the United Protestant Council. He may well be in overall charge of the Walsingham protesters, as he is seen to be the most dominant amongst them.
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ˇFelices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Interesting to see how the Fr Jack style priests (think 'Father Ted') reinforce his stereotype by drinking gin and telling him to fuck off ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Interesting to see how the Fr Jack style priests (think 'Father Ted') reinforce his stereotype by drinking gin and telling him to fuck off ...
Why do I think that it's a rather dubious paraphrase to say that the priest "complained about us disturbing his gin drinking every year?"
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ha ha ...
Of course, the priest will only imbibe once a year during his annual pilgrimage to Walsingham ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
I went into the shrine grounds before it started and there were quite a lot of priests drinking coffee, but none who reminded me of Father Jack. The ones I saw were full of bonhomie, very effusive in greeting each other.
I think it is perhaps a bit of a clergy day out as the proportion of the total attendance who are priests seemed quite high.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Yes, it is something of a clergy day out. Bear in mind that many of the 'traditionalist' A-C clergy know each other, but their parishes are spread rather thinly across the country, so they don't often get much of a chance to meet n'greet. Same goes for the faithful laity too, of course.
BTW, the correct term for the favoured beverage is GIN.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
The 39 Articles are only anti-reformed in that they state rule by Bishops.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
The 39 Articles are only anti-reformed in that they state rule by Bishops.
Right. They're anti-presbyterian polity. But when it comes to things like sacramental theology, they're pretty consistent with Reformed positions.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
It's also a bit odd that the protesters aren't themselves CofE. Pastor David Carson appears to be the pastor of an independent chapel in Chester. So presumably he thinks there shouldn't be a CofE at all, not even a fiercely proddy one at which all services are 1662, the Quicunque Vult said when it should be said, and the only hymns sung are metrical psalms from Sternhold and Hopkins.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It's also a bit odd that the protesters aren't themselves CofE. Pastor David Carson appears to be the pastor of an independent chapel in Chester. So presumably he thinks there shouldn't be a CofE at all, not even a fiercely proddy one at which all services are 1662, the Quicunque Vult said when it should be said, and the only hymns sung are metrical psalms from Sternhold and Hopkins.
Or to be fair to him, maybe he wouldn't need to belong to an independent chapel if the whole C of E was like that.
But of course I am so glad it isn't.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
Not all independent evangelical churches are anti-Catholic, and my nearest place of worship round the corner from my home is one such church and not a bit anti-Catholic. For the pastor who has just retired, negotiated on friendly terms, with a local Roman Catholic Church about a total-immersion font, for his new church building.
Not to be overlooked, is the existence of The Westminster Confessions of Faith similar to the 39 Articles and I believe these were devised for the Presbyterians. I have taken a cursory glance, and one of these contains red-hot words condemning the pope in no uncertain terms!
As I indicated, Walsingham Witness started for low church evangelical protestant members of the C of E. But others, including Pastor David Carson, have jumped the bandwagon, if you like!
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ˇFelices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
Not to be overlooked, is the existence of The Westminster Confessions of Faith similar to the 39 Articles and I believe these were devised for the Presbyterians. I have taken a cursory glance, and one of these contains red-hot words condemning the pope in no uncertain terms!
Well, you should learn what the anti-Christ language means in 16th Century theological language. It is terminology used of those institutions that usurp the power of Christ. So it is the claim that the Pope is head of the Church Universal and all Christians owe him obedience. In other words if you want to reject that you really should be arguing that the CofE should rejoin the Roman Catholic Church. I somehow do not think the 16th Century divines who wrote the 39 articles meant that. It is a difference in the language not in understanding.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by JJ:
quote:
The 39 Articles are only anti-reformed in that they state rule by Bishops.
I think it would be possible to say that if you didn't see the puritatnism of the age feeding in in any way into Presbyterianism. I believe it does, and in this light the 39 Articles when written had a lot more to say to that sphere than simply, 'let's have bishops'. In fact the debates raged to such an extent that even towards the end of Henry's reign and consistently throughout Elizabeth's reign the 39 Articles were continuously appealed to as a form of tract almost, in opposition to puritanism. Many tracts and apologies were produced during this period to this effect and many still survive. It didn't end with Elizabeth though; it continued (albeit to a lesser extent) into the period of the Restoration. These ones are quite crucial to understanding the anti-Presbyterian sentiment as they appealed to the 39 Articles as a kind of tract of defines for the restoration itself linked to a/the church and as a rejection of the Presbyterian concept of the equality of all people before God, which rightly or wrongly would have probably been considered a threat to the crown at the time.......but I digress.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Puritanism divides in the 17th Century. Half of it remains within the Church of England and half of it goes with the Separatists into Non-Conformity. The Westminster Confession in 1646. Presbyterianism already had the Scots Confession of 1560.
Alright, some political history and why I see Presbyterianism feeding into Puritanism and not the other way around. The Westminster Assembly which is responsible for the Westminster Confession and many other Westminster documents was brought about at the behest of the Scots who Oliver Cromwell had made peace with. One of the conditions was that the English should choose their own church and this was the mechanism by which Oliver Cromwell sought to bring it about. The Westminster Assembly was a mixture of Divines from a variety of persuasions. Some would be low church Anglicans, some would be Puritans (or those who wanted to purify the C of E more towards the lines of the Continental Magisterial Reformation), Some would be Scots Presbyterians (as Scottish Presbyterianism is already a highly codified take on the Continental Reformation and some would be Separatist (who are about as theologically diverse a group of Protestants you can possibly get and largely Congregationalist in polity).
What needs to be remembered is the dominant group in the Westminster Assembly was eventually not the Puritans and the Scots but the Separatists. When they withdrew and put out instead the Savoy Declaration the Westminster Assembly was basically dead in the water. So the only time the English were given the choice of church polity they chose Congregationalism. Some may argue it just took 400 years for the CofE to catch up with what was instituted under Cromwell. Let me quote you from Christ Church Purely Reformed by Philip Benedict which is an examination of Weber's thesis that the Reformation made possible a new type of human:
quote:
While it lasted the Cromwellian church order conferred a uniquely broad, decentralised and antihierarchical disposition on both England and Scotland.
That is a problem to any group who think that polity is divinely inspired whether Presbyterian or Episcopalian. This meant the Puritans were somewhere in between at the Restoration.
When the return of Charles II the Puritan party split. There are several recognised Puritans in the Church of England after that date, most famously Lewis Bayly and J C Ryle.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
You can see here one of the protesters describing the day from their perspective.
The protesters' account of the day
Their pastoral skills seem to be amazing:
quote:
The police sergeant in charge of the policing over thirty years ago and who was always very fair to us came up to renew acquaintance. He retired twenty nine years ago but he often comes specifically to speak to us. We had a long conversation with him about his spiritual condition. He wanted to know where God was when the Manchester bombing took place. He was informed of what Christ said to the disciples said when they informed Him of two tragic events. We told him that the wonder is how God withholds His judgement His judgement in view of the wicked laws that have been passed and the murderous activities of the abortionists.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Let's hope the Walsingham Pilgrimage isn't banned as part of the negotiations between the Prime Minister and the DUP.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
It'll still be allowed, but it'll move to the 12th of July and the banners will be rather different.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Let's hope the Walsingham Pilgrimage isn't banned as part of the negotiations between the Prime Minister and the DUP.
That would be ironic.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Let's hope the Walsingham Pilgrimage isn't banned as part of the negotiations between the Prime Minister and the DUP.
That would be ironic.
I am sure it won't be banned for the reason you give. It was banned in 2001 due to foot-and-mouth. Otherwise, it was banned by Hitler during the WW2 years, about which I am too young to remember.
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ˇFelices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Don't you mean it was banned (or perhaps temporarily suspended) because of Hitler and his shenanigans?
I wasn't aware that the Fuehrer ever actually had any jurisdiction within this realm of England...
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
I've learned that there are ordinands at Ridley Hall who made a point of refusing communion at Little St Mary's (what were they doing there at all, I ask? Some kind of school trip?) calling upon the 39 Articles as their justification.
This same bunch of 39 Articles fanatics, operating in their own chapel, have refused to allow the ordinand who's been looking after the babies in the creche to have a portion of the consecrated Host reserved, on the grounds that that is a violation of said Articles.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Don't you mean it was banned (or perhaps temporarily suspended) because of Hitler and his shenanigans?
I wasn't aware that the Fuehrer ever actually had any jurisdiction within this realm of England...
IJ
I stuck to the word banned as set by the previous poster, perhaps unwisely.
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ˇFelices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
I've learned that there are ordinands at Ridley Hall who made a point of refusing communion at Little St Mary's (what were they doing there at all, I ask? Some kind of school trip?) calling upon the 39 Articles as their justification.
This same bunch of 39 Articles fanatics, operating in their own chapel, have refused to allow the ordinand who's been looking after the babies in the creche to have a portion of the consecrated Host reserved, on the grounds that that is a violation of said Articles.
I am unclear, exactly what it is you are saying. I presume you mean Little St. Mary's Cambridge, rather than St. Mary's Little Walsingham and both are anglo-catholic. How long ago did this incident occur? Were the victims refused to give communion, or refused to receive communion? Which of the 39 Articles was supposedly violated?
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ˇFelices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
I've learned that there are ordinands at Ridley Hall who made a point of refusing communion at Little St Mary's (what were they doing there at all, I ask? Some kind of school trip?) calling upon the 39 Articles as their justification.
This same bunch of 39 Articles fanatics, operating in their own chapel, have refused to allow the ordinand who's been looking after the babies in the creche to have a portion of the consecrated Host reserved, on the grounds that that is a violation of said Articles.
Ordinands from Ridley often do a placement at Little St Mary, to give them a taste of that to which they are probably not used. The tale sounds like a bunch of bollocks.
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
How could ordinands determine who could have access to the reserved host? Presumably all of them would have had to have had the reserved host, no?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Utrecht Catholic
Shipmate
# 14285
|
Posted
I would like to send these Ridley ordinands to Westminster Abbey or to St.Paul;s where they can learn how the Eucharist should be celebrated.
Both churches have the Reservation of the Sacrament.
--------------------
Robert Kennedy
Posts: 220 | From: Dordrecht | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
I would like to send these Ridley ordinands to Westminster Abbey or to St.Paul's where they can learn how the Eucharist should be celebrated.
Both churches have the Reservation of the Sacrament.
If you don't mind my saying this UC, you are being as dogmatic as they are. There are as much right ways and wrong ways of celebrating the Eucharist as a traditional north end BCP Holy Communion or as a low church Common Worship Order 1 celebration or in a village church, without all the things you might like to see there as there are right and wrong ways of doing so in a cathedral, abbey or minster.
If, though, you were to say that it is a pity if these ordinands cannot use their training as an opportunity to see what might be right or wrong that's outside the comfort zone of the churches they came from before they started their training, and why, then I would agree with you.
[ 13. June 2017, 09:30: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
That being said, I'd still like an explanation of exactly how ordinands can refuse to offer the reserved host to another ordinand. Under what authority can they make that decision?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Yes, I was puzzled by that. If that's really true, rather than that one person criticised another person for doing that, it would be good to know what the context was, and what line the college authorities took.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
The ordinands in question, visiting LSM (Cambridge, not Walsingham), made a point of not receiving the sacrament.
I was told this by a Ridley ordinand who was there, and who did receive. They're a little group within RH right now who are very keen to uphold a Protestantism more conservative than that of the rest of the ordinands, or the current ethos of the Hall. Hence also making the point that nobody who is not present for the distribution of communion in the Ridley Chapel may have it reserved to receive later. This I heard from the ordinand who was in charge of the creche, who would have liked to have been able to receive communion as well as look after babies.
It is possible, David Goode, that despite being in town and at the Faculty, you don't know everything that goes on in Cambridge.
[ 13. June 2017, 13:29: Message edited by: Amos ]
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
The Host at the Lord's Supper at Ridley would only be 'reserved' in the sense that a bit would--or would not-- be saved for the person looking after the creche to have when they came in at the end of the service.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
I've learned that there are ordinands at Ridley Hall who made a point of refusing communion at Little St Mary's (what were they doing there at all, I ask? Some kind of school trip?) calling upon the 39 Articles as their justification.
This same bunch of 39 Articles fanatics, operating in their own chapel, have refused to allow the ordinand who's been looking after the babies in the creche to have a portion of the consecrated Host reserved, on the grounds that that is a violation of said Articles.
Neither the Pope nor Hitler have jurisdiction within this realm of England, but it looks rather like the DUP are claiming to exercise it.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
The Host at the Lord's Supper at Ridley would only be 'reserved' in the sense that a bit would--or would not-- be saved for the person looking after the creche to have when they came in at the end of the service.
So there was a priest officiating who had no opinions as to whether the host could or should be reserved?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Utrecht Catholic
Shipmate
# 14285
|
Posted
Are those Evangelical ordinands at Ridley Hall not just as fundamentalistic as their bretheren of the Society of Peter and Paul ?
As if Christ/the Apostles have drawn up the 1662 Communion service or the Tridentine Mass ?
Both liturgies have their merits,however let us be glad and grateful that we are now using rites which are richer and far more in line with the faith of the Undivided Church.
--------------------
Robert Kennedy
Posts: 220 | From: Dordrecht | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
The Host at the Lord's Supper at Ridley would only be 'reserved' in the sense that a bit would--or would not-- be saved for the person looking after the creche to have when they came in at the end of the service.
So there was a priest officiating who had no opinions as to whether the host could or should be reserved?
Apparently: or one who was opposed to reservation.
I can think of at least one Cambridge Dean of Chapel who would not permit the host to be reserved.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Apparently: or one who was opposed to reservation.
I can think of at least one Cambridge Dean of Chapel who would not permit the host to be reserved.
So, just to get the story straight; you claim that there is a chapel at an Anglican theological college that is exclusively used by a subset of ordinands - who happen to believe that they cannot reserve the sacrament, even to the extent of refusing to give it to someone who is in the creche.
If there was a priest in attendance, why did the host need reserving?
I don't believe this story.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
I've learned that there are ordinands at Ridley Hall who made a point of refusing communion at Little St Mary's (what were they doing there at all, I ask? Some kind of school trip?) calling upon the 39 Articles as their justification.
This same bunch of 39 Articles fanatics, operating in their own chapel, have refused to allow the ordinand who's been looking after the babies in the creche to have a portion of the consecrated Host reserved, on the grounds that that is a violation of said Articles.
Neither the Pope nor Hitler have jurisdiction within this realm of England, but it looks rather like the DUP are claiming to exercise it.
Hitler is no more, but the pope (papacy) is alive and well! "No jurisdiction in this realm of England" - (quotation marks needed, in my opinion) - so says one of the 39 Articles. As I have posted elsewhere, these Articles are not of faith, but statements about how Anglicans felt about the religious state of affairs in one period of history, now long passed.
Firstly, how can a deceased Hitler "have jurisdiction"!? Secondly,in modern times, two popes have visited England and other parts of the UK and both popes were very welcome.
My reference to Hitler banning the pilgrimage, was a bit tongue-in-cheek, as I was sticking to the word banned as set by another poster.
Now I come to think of it, one of the 39 Articles refers to a ban (that word again!) of reservation of the MBS.
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ˇFelices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
DUP having jurisdiction - how ironic! - as I omitted to say above.
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ˇFelices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
... "No jurisdiction in this realm of England" - (quotation marks needed, in my opinion) - so says one of the 39 Articles. As I have posted elsewhere, these Articles are not of faith, but statements about how Anglicans felt about the religious state of affairs in one period of history, now long passed.
...in modern times, two popes have visited England and other parts of the UK and both popes were very welcome.
Well, yes, but various forign monarchs aand presidents have visited too, and nobody is suggesting that e.g. the President of Mexico has any jurisdiction here.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
