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


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Ecclesiantics   » Protestant Objectors at Walsingham (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Protestant Objectors at Walsingham
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Neither the Pope nor Hitler have jurisdiction within this realm of England, but it looks rather like the DUP are claiming to exercise it. [/qb]
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.[/QUOTE]

Irony meter need recalibrating?

quote:


Now I come to think of it, one of the 39 Articles refers to a ban (that word again!) of reservation of the MBS.

Doesn't it just say 'the sacrament of the Lord's supper was not
by Christ's ordinance reserved...' (quoting from memory. There's a lot of things we do that Jesus didn't say anything about.

Posts: 12891 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745

 - Posted      Profile for Ecclesiastical Flip-flop   Email Ecclesiastical Flip-flop   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
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.
Irony meter need recalibrating?

quote:


Now I come to think of it, one of the 39 Articles refers to a ban (that word again!) of reservation of the MBS.

Doesn't it just say 'the sacrament of the Lord's supper was not
by Christ's ordinance reserved...' (quoting from memory. There's a lot of things we do that Jesus didn't say anything about. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Quite so Angloid. I was indulging in a bit of an anachronism, with a touch of humour.

Posts: 1914 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745

 - Posted      Profile for Ecclesiastical Flip-flop   Email Ecclesiastical Flip-flop   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
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.
OK the mention of two popes is an example and what you say is fair enough.
Posts: 1914 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
EFF, Article XXVIII relevantly says:

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.


At the most, the Article does not prohibit the practice but simply makes clear that there is in the ultimate no Biblical support for it. OTOH, none of the Articles says that Tradition is wrong but rather that Scripture has the ultimate primacy. So if Scripture says no, a practice is out. If Scripture is silent, then there is nothing contrary in this Article in following Tradition.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6616 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And the tradition of the early church, it seems, was for some of the consecrated Sacrament to be 'reserved' in order to be taken, straight after the Eucharist, to those unable to be present.

Somehow, the Reformers in Cranmer's time lost sight of this godly custom. OK, sometimes people's personal circumstances make it necessary to defer taking the Sacrament to them until later in the week, but it's common practice now in the C of E.

IJ

--------------------
The future is another country - they might do things differently there...

Posts: 8716 | From: With The Glums At The Bus Stop | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That is to elide two things. The reserving of the sacrament often used as an intensifier of the sacred in time/space. The distribution of the sacrament to the sick/housebound can happens regardless of that. It is seen as no more than delivering a piece of wedding cake to those unable to attend a wedding celebration.

Jengie

--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge

Walking 18 miles to help Refugees get an education.

Posts: 20573 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, indeed, but I guess the use of the Sacrament as an intensifier of the sacred in time and space (and I do love the way you put that) came a little later in church history.

Point taken, though.

IJ

--------------------
The future is another country - they might do things differently there...

Posts: 8716 | From: With The Glums At The Bus Stop | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Posted by Bishop's Finger:
quote:

Somehow, the Reformers in Cranmer's time lost sight of this godly custom.

Had they really? I was taught that the scruples to do with the physicality of the host were the problem, linked as that was to the concept of the 'mass runs'. So the idea that somehow seeing three elevations (and presumably being suitably adoring) was somehow just as efficacious (if not more so) than taking part in one full service of the Eucharist and partaking of the Eucharist itself (having made the required preparation). It's easy to understand how such a superstition around the physicality of 'seeing' the host arose, especially if you didn't understand the language of the liturgy. In some sense there was always going to be a significant element of the people who would 'see' the activity of the Eucharist in a superstitious and almost magical sense.

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5165 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745

 - Posted      Profile for Ecclesiastical Flip-flop   Email Ecclesiastical Flip-flop   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
EFF, Article XXVIII relevantly says:

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.


At the most, the Article does not prohibit the practice but simply makes clear that there is in the ultimate no Biblical support for it. OTOH, none of the Articles says that Tradition is wrong but rather that Scripture has the ultimate primacy. So if Scripture says no, a practice is out. If Scripture is silent, then there is nothing contrary in this Article in following Tradition.

Thanks Gee D. I had some idea of the wording of the relevant Article and I could have looked this up in BCP 1662 if I wanted to. But normally, what I post as a shipmate is off the top of my head. Obviously, all of this pre-dates the Oxford Movement from 1833 onwards.

I don't altogether agree with your logic that if Scripture says no, then a practice is out. To give just one example, Scripture says no to a woman going bareheaded in the assemblies (or whatever is the exact wording). But nowadays, in most places, the majority of women are bareheaded with no compulsion to wear a hat, except in a minority of fundamentalist churches.

Posts: 1914 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I love everything about Walsingham. My last visit, two years ago started at the Roman Catholic Shrine and the Slipper Chapel, which has been made a Minor Basilica by Pope Francis. I then went to Mass at the National Shrive and stayed for sprinkling from the Holy Well. It tick all the right boxes for me. But to members of the Church of England (Continuing) who see themselves as a remnant of the C of E's most Protestant times, most of what goes on there is Popish hocus pocus. That doesn't, in my opinion, give them the right to obstruct how others choose to worship, but the Shrine's Marian devotions are a long way removed from the Book of Common Prayer and its 39 Articles of Religion.

In fact it's a long way removed from most of what the real Church of England does, a place where female clergy can't celebrate Mass. Given the furore over the prospective appointment of Bishop Philip North, once Priest Administrator at Walsingham, as Bishop of Sheffield, I'm surprised there isn't more protest. But Holy Shrines and Marian devotions are really a Catholic thing, quite at odds with the C of E as we now find it. Anglo-Catholicism is shrinking within the C of E due to several factors. In terms of shrines I've visited, I would put Walsingham on a par with Czestochowa in Poland, and far above Knock in Ireland for beauty and holy atmosphere, but I know of no other such place which isn't part of the Catholic Church. Which is what the Church of England (Continuing) is aggrieved by.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6383 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:

I don't altogether agree with your logic that if Scripture says no, then a practice is out. To give just one example, Scripture says no to a woman going bareheaded in the assemblies (or whatever is the exact wording). But nowadays, in most places, the majority of women are bareheaded with no compulsion to wear a hat, except in a minority of fundamentalist churches.

Not my logic, nor quite the logic of the Articles in general. The Articles rest on the primacy of Scripture over Tradition.

[ 14. June 2017, 20:40: Message edited by: Gee D ]

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6616 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745

 - Posted      Profile for Ecclesiastical Flip-flop   Email Ecclesiastical Flip-flop   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As the shipmate who wrote the OP, I wrote at some length about a persuasion of which I am not an adherent, but which I have made a study of, as a curiosity of mine.

It would seem that my contributions to this thread, have become a mixture of my own outlook, as it really is and of the protestant, low church, and evangelical C of E, believing in the fundamentalist and literal interpretation of the XXXIX Articles and of Scripture alone.

Perhaps that was the stance that Gee D was adopting.

Posts: 1914 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Not really Gee D is taking a very Reformed attitude to the 39 Articles. That is that they are basically a cairn set up on our journey of faith at specific times in specific places. They should be read as those. Thus he is looking to explain the understanding held by the people who wrote them.

It is not his opinion, nor that of anyone alive today but the guess of scholars at the attitude of the writers. It is important to remember that they also feared a Roman Catholic sponsored invasion. They also feared an overthrow of the crown from extreme Protestants.

Jengie

--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge

Walking 18 miles to help Refugees get an education.

Posts: 20573 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

Not my logic, nor quite the logic of the Articles in general. The Articles rest on the primacy of Scripture over Tradition.

I'm still puzzling over this idea. It seems to me that there are many things that go on in Anglican churches which are not prescribed "in scripture" and there are many things which (one might think) are prescribed which don't go on in Anglican churches.

The Articles are obviously a reaction against very specific targets - in particular a side-swipe at some Roman Catholic practices and non-conformists (inaccurately labeled anabaptists) - but it is hard to see that this left an Anglican church with practices which were only derived from scripture.

--------------------
overheard on a Welsh bus-stop: Jesus don't care about you, he's only interested in your soul

Posts: 9830 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Not really Gee D is taking a very Reformed attitude to the 39 Articles. That is that they are basically a cairn set up on our journey of faith at specific times in specific places. They should be read as those. Thus he is looking to explain the understanding held by the people who wrote them.

It is not his opinion, nor that of anyone alive today but the guess of scholars at the attitude of the writers. It is important to remember that they also feared a Roman Catholic sponsored invasion. They also feared an overthrow of the crown from extreme Protestants.

Jengie

All that I was doing was to quote Article XXVIII to cover ground half-referred to by EFF; I then went back to Article VI which I then paraphrased. I was not expressing an opinion on either of these Articles as good, bad or indifferent. Nor was I saying that if a course of action was not derived from Scripture, then it was out (to use EFF's phrase). I would not allow that Scriptural derivation is necessary for a belief to be permitted teaching (eg the Assumption of Our Lady appears nowhere in scripture, is derived from ancient Tradition, and is a feast that I consider is properly observed).

For what it's worth, I don't consider that XXVIII prohibits reservation or benediction. The opinion in the Sydney clique is that it certainly prohibits benediction, and some allow that the sacrament may be reserved for such purposes as taking to those unable to attend church.

[ 16. June 2017, 11:36: Message edited by: Gee D ]

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6616 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745

 - Posted      Profile for Ecclesiastical Flip-flop   Email Ecclesiastical Flip-flop   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Not really Gee D is taking a very Reformed attitude to the 39 Articles. That is that they are basically a cairn set up on our journey of faith at specific times in specific places. They should be read as those. Thus he is looking to explain the understanding held by the people who wrote them.

It is not his opinion, nor that of anyone alive today but the guess of scholars at the attitude of the writers. It is important to remember that they also feared a Roman Catholic sponsored invasion. They also feared an overthrow of the crown from extreme Protestants.

Jengie

I thought I had made my position quite clear, but obviously, I haven't. Jengie Jon, I have no quarrel with what you are saying and I wholeheartedly agree with your above remarks. I stand to be corrected in suggesting what Gee D says, is his opinion and I fully understand he is writng from the 39 Article perspective.
Posts: 1914 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I was not writing from a 39 Article perspective, or any other one for that matter - I was simply quoting the relevant one, which you had paraphrased, and paraphrasing VI. Please read what I have written.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6616 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745

 - Posted      Profile for Ecclesiastical Flip-flop   Email Ecclesiastical Flip-flop   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I was not writing from a 39 Article perspective, or any other one for that matter - I was simply quoting the relevant one, which you had paraphrased, and paraphrasing VI. Please read what I have written.

I thought I did read what you had written, but perhaps I could have phrased it better.
Posts: 1914 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Aravis
Shipmate
# 13824

 - Posted      Profile for Aravis   Email Aravis   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I went to the Walsingham National Pilgrimage nearly 30 years ago and happened to be standing near the protesters. They launched into a rousing rendition of "Onward Christian Soldiers" as the official procession approached. As the procession drew nearer the protesters realised they happened to be singing the same hymn...
I'm not sure whether Jesus laughed or wept. Both groups tried to pretend it wasn't happening.

Posts: 643 | From: S Wales | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745

 - Posted      Profile for Ecclesiastical Flip-flop   Email Ecclesiastical Flip-flop   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
I went to the Walsingham National Pilgrimage nearly 30 years ago and happened to be standing near the protesters. They launched into a rousing rendition of "Onward Christian Soldiers" as the official procession approached. As the procession drew nearer the protesters realised they happened to be singing the same hymn...
I'm not sure whether Jesus laughed or wept. Both groups tried to pretend it wasn't happening.

This happened much more recently (but not this year) over the use of the hymn, "There is Power in the Blood". This was intentionally included in the service booklet, knowing it to be a favourite hymn of the objectors and was sung as the procession passed close by this group.

I did not go last year, but I was there the year before, when I think this hymn was used.

Posts: 1914 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You could have some fun with some alternative words, couldn't you? Not a hymn, I know, but off the top of my head, here's one for the Ulstermen:

It was old but it was beautiful and the colours they were fine
It was worn at Benediction when we packed into the Shrine
It was worn by Blessed Father Tooth in the glorious days of yore
And at Walsingham I love to wear the tat that Father wore

--------------------
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: 6423 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
I went to the Walsingham National Pilgrimage nearly 30 years ago and happened to be standing near the protesters. They launched into a rousing rendition of "Onward Christian Soldiers" as the official procession approached. As the procession drew nearer the protesters realised they happened to be singing the same hymn...
I'm not sure whether Jesus laughed or wept. Both groups tried to pretend it wasn't happening.

This happened much more recently (but not this year) over the use of the hymn, "There is Power in the Blood". This was intentionally included in the service booklet, knowing it to be a favourite hymn of the objectors and was sung as the procession passed close by this group.

I did not go last year, but I was there the year before, when I think this hymn was used.

I love it! [Axe murder]

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21258 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Chorus (to Albertus' verse, above):

Glory, glory, Hallelujah!
Glory, glory, Hallelujah!
Glory, glory, Hallelujah!
And the leading Thurifer jumped right over the Protesters' Pastor's head....

The tune is, of course, that commonly used for that cheerful ditty John Brown's Body.

IJ

--------------------
The future is another country - they might do things differently there...

Posts: 8716 | From: With The Glums At The Bus Stop | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged



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

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools