|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Validity of the Eucharist and the Intention
|
Felafool
Shipmate
# 270
|
Posted
In my tradition, the service opens with the solemn words "Has the cat been removed from the sanctuary?"
--------------------
I don't care if the glass is half full or half empty - I ordered a cheeseburger.
Posts: 265 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
For those interested in Aquinas's take, here is what he says in De Articulis Fidei (which gets carried over almost verbatim into the decrees of the Council of Florence): quote:
The seven Sacraments have some things which they all hold in common, and some things which are proper to each one. That which is common to all the Sacraments is that they confer grace. It is also common to all the Sacraments that a Sacrament is made up of words and physical acts. And so also Christ, who is the Author of the Sacraments, is the Word made flesh. And just as the flesh of Christ was sanctified, and has the power of sanctifying because of the Word united to itself, so also the Sacraments are made holy and have the power of sanctifying through the words which accompany the action. Thus, St. Augustine says: "The word is joined to the element, and the Sacrament is made."[10] Now, the words by which the Sacraments are sanctified are called the form of the Sacraments; and the things which are sanctified are called the matter of the Sacraments. Water, for example, is the matter of Baptism, and the holy chrism is the matter of Confirmation.
In each Sacrament there is required a minister, who confers the Sacrament with the intention of doing that which the Church intends. If any one of these three requirements is lacking, the Sacrament is not brought into being, viz., if there is lacking the due form of the words, or if the matter is not present, or if the minister does not intend to confer the Sacrament.
So minister is something distinct from form and matter, and intention sort of gets folded into minister.
[ 12. August 2017, 14:26: Message edited by: FCB ]
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
The analogy doesn't work because marriage needs to be recognised by an earthly state so that parental, property and inheritance implications can be defined and protected by a law of the state.
That's a tautology. Marriage has to be recognized by the state so that the state recognizes marriage.
Do you think marriage has any meaning outside its state formalities?
quote:
In the case of the Eucharist, [..]
I don't deny that it matters to those within the church institution who think these things are important. However, since there are so many different church traditions who celebrate Eucharist is so many different ways, I think God might just find all of them valid. Thus it seems to be a human construct which deems 'this is how it should be done'.
And there's the crux of the matter. Yes, God might find all of them valid. That's different from "God does find all of them valid".
Everyone believes that their version of the Eucharist "works". They don't necessarily believe the same about someone else's version.
Some of us think that when the Most Blessed Sacraments are consecrated, an actual change happens. Whether that change happens or not is not a cultural construct - it's a fact. Now, we don't have an objective way of observing that change, so we rely on our traditions, the teachings of our church, and God's promise that if we do X, Y, and Z then that change happens.
Does it happen with X and Y, but not Z? What about X, A, B, and C? We don't know. This is different from "Thus it seems to be a human construct which deems 'this is how it should be done'."
And sure, it's possible that any combination of A, B, C, X, Y, or Z is OK with God. But thinking it's possible is different from thinking it is necessarily true.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
For those interested in Aquinas's take, here is what he says in De Articulis Fidei (which gets carried over almost verbatim into the decrees of the Council of Florence): quote:
The seven Sacraments have some things which they all hold in common, and some things which are proper to each one. That which is common to all the Sacraments is that they confer grace. It is also common to all the Sacraments that a Sacrament is made up of words and physical acts. And so also Christ, who is the Author of the Sacraments, is the Word made flesh. And just as the flesh of Christ was sanctified, and has the power of sanctifying because of the Word united to itself, so also the Sacraments are made holy and have the power of sanctifying through the words which accompany the action. Thus, St. Augustine says: "The word is joined to the element, and the Sacrament is made."[10] Now, the words by which the Sacraments are sanctified are called the form of the Sacraments; and the things which are sanctified are called the matter of the Sacraments. Water, for example, is the matter of Baptism, and the holy chrism is the matter of Confirmation.
In each Sacrament there is required a minister, who confers the Sacrament with the intention of doing that which the Church intends. If any one of these three requirements is lacking, the Sacrament is not brought into being, viz., if there is lacking the due form of the words, or if the matter is not present, or if the minister does not intend to confer the Sacrament.
So minister is something distinct from form and matter, and intention sort of gets folded into minister.
Am I correct in saying that the RCC considers the bride and groom the ministers of the Sacrament of Matrimony? So, based on the quote above, that would make Matrimony the only one of the Seven Sacraments where the ministers are also part of the matter.
In Orthodoxy, though (please correct me if I am wrong), I believe the priest is the only minister of matrimony and not the bride and groom.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
The analogy doesn't work because marriage needs to be recognised by an earthly state so that parental, property and inheritance implications can be defined and protected by a law of the state.
That's a tautology. Marriage has to be recognized by the state so that the state recognizes marriage.
Do you think marriage has any meaning outside its state formalities?
Did you miss the part where Felafool talked about parental, property, and inheritance implications under the law?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
In Orthodoxy, though (please correct me if I am wrong), I believe the priest is the only minister of matrimony and not the bride and groom.
This is correct. As near as I can tell the switch to making the couple the ministers of the sacrament in the RCC was to leave an "out" for annulment -- find something one of the people did wrong and you can say the couple was never really married in the first place. Part of the mindfuck that is annulment.
[ 13. August 2017, 01:57: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
If annulment of marriage is, as Mousethief tells us,'mindfuck',does this mean that a bride or groom who have gone through a ceremony of marriage in front of an appropriate minister of the Orthodox Church are for ever married,even if it turns out that at least one of them had not really given consent to the marriage,or iuf one of them had not really understood who they were being married to ?
Would annulment of a civil marriage by state authorities also be classified as 'mindfuck' ?
I'm intrigued as I have never come across the word 'mindfuck' before and not quite sure what it means.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
Oh, isn't it exciting!
(Sits back in the front row with fried chicken.)
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I am not happy with this notion of the intention of the minister.
What if s/he is going through the motions that day, having presided at two other celebrations that day already and now has a mind on auto-pilot?
What about those going through a crisis of faith, not sure what they believe any more?
What about the priest who no longer believes but is staying put until retirement in a year’s time?
I am happier with the corporate intention of the gathered community to ‘do what the church doe’.
For me, that is full-blown transubstantiation and pleading/offering the sacrifice of Christ to the father.
For others in my community that is to make memorial.
And what about this ‘validly ordained’ notion?
I normality expert an episcopally ordained priest but I aware that the URC has a high view of presbyteral ministry and doesn’t allow any old Tom Dick or Mary to preside.
I cannot say that their Eucharists are invalid.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
In my tradition, the service opens with the solemn words "Has the cat been removed from the sanctuary?"
Presumably chanted in the Tritone or Diabolus in Musica ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am not happy with this notion of the intention of the minister.
...
I aware that the URC has a high view of presbyteral ministry and doesn’t allow any old Tom Dick or Mary to preside.
I cannot say that their Eucharists are invalid.
Excellent post. But what about Baptists etc. where - especially in the absence of a minister - a locally well-respected lay leader may preside?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
If annulment of marriage is, as Mousethief tells us,'mindfuck',does this mean that a bride or groom who have gone through a ceremony of marriage in front of an appropriate minister of the Orthodox Church are for ever married,even if it turns out that at least one of them had not really given consent to the marriage,or iuf one of them had not really understood who they were being married to ?
Would annulment of a civil marriage by state authorities also be classified as 'mindfuck' ?
I'm intrigued as I have never come across the word 'mindfuck' before and not quite sure what it means.
In this case it means pretending not to allow divorce, while actually allowing divorce. It's dishonest and self-deceptive.
The Orthodox allow up to two remarriages, with explicit permission of the bishop. Thus we don't try to pretend we're not allowing divorce and remarriage, we come right out and admit it. The RCC pretends they're not really allowing it, by doing this "annulment" thing -- "well they really weren't married in the first place he he he he." Which has been worked out by making the couples the ministers of the sacrament rather than the priest. You can find lots of things wrong about the couples' preparedness, intentions, and so forth, that you wouldn't be able to find wrong about the priest. Thus giving you a plethora of "reasons" to annul the marriage.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
I understand that for pastoral reasons the Orthodox church allows people to marry more than once while a previous spouse is still living.
However,if I had been more or less forced under duress to go through a ceremony of matrimony presided over by an Orthodox priest (or deacon ?) or if I had gone through a ceremony of marriage with someone who I thought was someone else,would I just go to the priest and say 'I don;t want any mindfuck about an annulment,I'll just try again with number two ? Okay ?
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I understand that for pastoral reasons the Orthodox church allows people to marry more than once while a previous spouse is still living.
However,if I had been more or less forced under duress to go through a ceremony of matrimony presided over by an Orthodox priest (or deacon ?) or if I had gone through a ceremony of marriage with someone who I thought was someone else,would I just go to the priest and say 'I don;t want any mindfuck about an annulment,I'll just try again with number two ? Okay ?
Well duress is not allowed in an Orthodox marriage, although like anything that's sinful it definitely shows up from time to time. But you have it right that remarriage is a matter of ekonomia, a bending of the rules when it is better for the person/people involved than sticking strictly to the rules would be, in the eyes of the bishop (or more than one, if it's a tricky case and they want a "second opinion"). What would happen in any one instance is beyond my ability to forecast; one would set the facts before the bish, and the bish would figure it out. If your priest is going to bat for you, and you're a good little churchgoer, the odds are better (as you can imagine).
In the case of my own remarriage it involved two priests, two bishops, and a passel of kids. One important consideration was the difficulty of raising four kids as a single parent versus as a spouse in a loving marriage. Gushy romantic "but I wuv him" feelings were low on the list of considerations, except inasmuch as one barometer (of several) of the likelihood that the second marriage would be calm and loving and successful. It all sounds rather utilitarian, frankly, but I couldn't be any happier with the outcome.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Felafool
Shipmate
# 270
|
Posted
Leorning Cniht wrote
quote:
That's a tautology. Marriage has to be recognized by the state so that the state recognizes marriage. Do you think marriage has any meaning outside its state formalities?
I agree it is a tautology, because I do think marriage has meaning outside its state formalities. Didn't you yourself suggest that there might be a 'spiritual' dimension to marriage?
So a 'common law' marriage may well be a marriage in every sense except it is recognised by neither the state or possibly any religious group.
I don't believe that either the state or the church 'own' marriage - they can merely ratify it on their own terms, so that everyone involved knows where they stand. Not only does it mean that parenthood, property and inheritance are clearly defined, but it says to the community that these two are joined to each other, so hands off and respect the relationship.
Doesn't Jesus quote the OT about leaving parents and cleaving to another?
Doesn't the Apostle Paul write about two people becoming one flesh? Neither of these imply a religious service or a registrar.
Going back to the OP, a valid (or more correctly, legal) eucharist is a similar construct of an institution, in this case a particular church. As has been elequently argued by others, this means that people in different traditions can clearly recognise that what is happening is, according to a particular tradition, a valid eucharist.
--------------------
I don't care if the glass is half full or half empty - I ordered a cheeseburger.
Posts: 265 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Mousethief I appreciate the fact that you took time to explain your own personal situation. It certainly helps me to understand where you are coming from in describing the Annulment process in the Catholic church as 'mindfuck'.
However my question was about the annulment of marriage in the Orthodox Church.
Here in the UK a civil marriage can be annulled if the conditions of marriage have not been met.
One of these would be the non- consummation of the marriage ceremony in intimate sexual contact.
Our discussions here are about the validity of the eucharist.For Catholics marriage also is a sacrament,on a par with the eucharist. For the marriage to be valid certain conditions have to be met. One of these would be consent to the marriage freely given. Another would be the status of the contracting parties, that they are free (in the eyes of the Church) to marry and that one of them is male and the other female.
Are there no conditions to be met in an Orthodox marriage ceremony, failing which the marriage could be annulled ?
Let me give you an example of one of the spouses pretending to be of the other sex.If in effect a 'same sex' marriage ceremony was carried out without the priest being aware, would it still count as a valid marriage,because the priest had solemnised it ?
I appreciate the Orthodox principle of ekonomia which can be used with regard to the other sacraments also.
In the Annulment process the (Catholic) Church tries to remain true to the idea of marriage being a lifelong contract, but wherever possible to release those who may have entered the marriage state without giving full consent and assent to the teachings of the Church.
If 'mindfuck' means,as I found in an on-line dictionary, 'intentional destabilisation,confusion and manipulation of the mind of another person,this is certainly not the aim of the Annulment process.
It is possible that it may be in some cases a result of it,but one could say that of all religious, and indeed civil injunctions, which seek to limit the absolute freedom of individuals
to do whatever they want to, without thinking of God or neighbour.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Tangent alert
Interesting reflections on marriage. It's a subject the CofE has got itself tied up in knots in over the years, and there isn't a great deal of consistency of opinion. Perhaps it's pay-back for the role of divorce in the break with Rome in the C16.
History would suggest that it has never been the view of the CofE, either before the Reformation or since, that it is of the nature of things that the presence of an ordained priest is essential by the law of God - even in the period between 1753 and 1836 when virtually all marriages had to take place in the established church after due calling of banns etc.
If a couple are married at civil law, whether married in church or before a registrar, then the couple are married. That's it. They are just as married, even if the marriage is one which the church deprecates, possibly regards as sinful, and which some clergy won't fully recognise. That also means the couple owe the obligations of marriage to each other. There is no concept of a civil marriage being some sort of marriage-lite with fewer obligations or that is less permanent.
For this reason, a couple who are already married to each other legally cannot get married in church. The service is a blessing. That is just as much so even if for both of them, it is a first marriage.
I've heard things are different in countries where church weddings do not have legal effect, but it's possible that may only apply if the church wedding takes place on the same day as the registrar's one.
In English law, consent of both parties is an essential for a marriage. However, virtually no weddings are actually dissolved for duress. There's no concept of psychological non-consummation, or failure fully to appreciate the full nature of the marriage commitment. A person of sound mind who goes through a wedding ceremony other than drugged or with a gun pointing at them, will be taken to have understood what they are doing and meaning what they have said.
I think I'm right in saying that those ecclesial communities which do not require the couple expressly, individually and separately to say they take each other (i.e. consent) as part of their ceremony are required to include it if they want to be authorised in England and Wales to carry out marriages at all.
A marriage without the consent of one of the parties is void, a non-event, just as much as a bigamous marriage or an under age one. So such a marriage can be annulled. Theoretically, as it has never happened, doesn't need to be. I don't think though that a registrar or a clergy person would marry someone to someone else, though, without a court decree that the marriage had been annulled.
Marriages can also be annulled if they haven't been consummated, but in those cases, the marriage exists legally until set aside. The CofE, though, in those cases does treat the parties once annulled as never having been married.
Otherwise, a marriage only comes to an end by death or divorce.
[ 14. August 2017, 11:50: 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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It has been found in the past that no marriage took place. But never after a man and woman got married and lived as man and wife for 20 years and had three children. Deciding after 20 years that such a couple isn't "really" married because the woman now wants out and had her fingers behind her back 20 years ago isn't the kind of lie you'll find in Orthodoxy.
If one of the twain was already married, if they weren't a man and a woman, if the priest has been defrocked, then the Church would say no marriage took place.
Living "as brother and sister" (without sex) has a long and honored history in Orthodoxy. It certainly wouldn't be grounds for determining that no marriage took place.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am not happy with this notion of the intention of the minister.
...
I aware that the URC has a high view of presbyteral ministry and doesn’t allow any old Tom Dick or Mary to preside.
I cannot say that their Eucharists are invalid.
Excellent post. But what about Baptists etc. where - especially in the absence of a minister - a locally well-respected lay leader may preside?
My view is probably inconsistent.
I don’t think lay celebration by a Baptist is ‘valid’ but then the Baptists don’t believe in Eucharistic sacrifice or the real presence.
However, I do accept lay celebration in the MCC because its members have been rejected by mainline churches.
I also accept Methodist communion because it is the fault of the C of E that the Bishop of London wouldn’t ordain presbyters for them.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
For this reason, a couple who are already married to each other legally cannot get married in church. The service is a blessing. That is just as much so even if for both of them, it is a first marriage.
I've heard things are different in countries where church weddings do not have legal effect...
Countries such as the UK.
The situation you describe refers only to those churches (i.e. the Church of England and the Church of Scotland) whose clergy are ex officio registrars for the purposes of marriage. Everywhere else, church marriage and civil marriage are discrete things, (except in the cases of individual congregations where someone has applied to be a special person to register marriages).
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Not sure just how correct the above statement is,at least with reference to Scotland.
In the olden days banns of marriage called in a Church of Scotland place of worship counted as acceptable by the state.Marriages by a Church of Scotland minister could be conducted anywhere.This made a Church of Scotland wedding popular not only by those who wished a Church of Scotland religious wedding,but also by those who wanted to be married on the top of a mountain etc.
Banns of marriage for other ceremonies either civil or in other places of religious worship had to be placed in a registrar's office.
Clergy of many,but not all othere religious groups ,could and can solemnise marriages in the name of the state,as long as state conditions were and are fulfilled i.e. a certain form of words to be used and the couple free to marry in the eyes of the state.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
sorry,Scrumpmeister,I thought that you were referring in your post ONLY to clergy of the Church of England and the Church of Scotland.
I see now that you gave these bodies only as examples of authorised clergy.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I was under the impression that in England at least, it's the Anglicans and Quakers alone who don't require registrars - and I seem to recall that Jews don't either for religious weddings, but could be wrong.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by leo:
[qb] I don’t think lay celebration by a Baptist is ‘valid’ but then the Baptists don’t believe in Eucharistic sacrifice or the real presence.
That only works if you believe that there are separate categories to "lay" and "priest." In a similar manner to belief about SMM, the people in the pews have rather different views about the lay/clerical issue than the denominational teaching suggests.
IME most people will accept that the Eucharist is a Eucharist provided they understand the mystery they are sharing in.
I believe in real presence but perhaps not in the sense you do. Even in your own denomination you are in a minority if you see the Eucharist wholly in sacrificial terms -- it's a part of course but there's much more to it than a one thread event. If you see it just in those terms then it is as reductionist as a reformed memorial service.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I was under the impression that in England at least, it's the Anglicans and Quakers alone who don't require registrars - and I seem to recall that Jews don't either for religious weddings, but could be wrong.
No Baptists and Methodists don't either - al least the rule are there to facilitate that. It usually means the local congregation finding a couple of people to act as Registrars for their fellowship. Sometimes the minister is one but I chose not to be - that way I can focus on the service.
The only difference is that, instead of Banns, the couple's details are posted at the local Registry office for 28 days. This satisfies the law which asks for a public notice for all weddings -- this is overcome by the CofE who do the same but it is called "Banns."
There's a lot of confusion/mystique/error around marriage. In essence any venue whether religious or secular has to allow for a prescribed form of words which, when spoken, form the marriage contract. Signing the Register seals the legal process. Whatever else you may do/say - providing it doesn't contradict what you've done with the usual "forms" is mere window dressing in the eyes of the state.
One more thing. Contrary to what many people believe, there's no such thing as common law marriage. You are either married according to the procedures adopted by statute or you are not married at all whatever else you may say or believe. It causes massive headaches where money and property is concerned.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I cannot say that their Eucharists are invalid.
A Eucharist cannot be invalid if you are doing what the church does.
The big question of course is - which church?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Not sure just how correct the above statement is,at least with reference to Scotland.
In the olden days banns of marriage called in a Church of Scotland place of worship counted as acceptable by the state.Marriages by a Church of Scotland minister could be conducted anywhere.This made a Church of Scotland wedding popular not only by those who wished a Church of Scotland religious wedding,but also by those who wanted to be married on the top of a mountain etc.
Banns of marriage for other ceremonies either civil or in other places of religious worship had to be placed in a registrar's office.
Clergy of many,but not all othere religious groups ,could and can solemnise marriages in the name of the state,as long as state conditions were and are fulfilled i.e. a certain form of words to be used and the couple free to marry in the eyes of the state.
The Scottish statutory Registers of Marriages in let's say 1870--1930 provide ample evidence of this. On the same page you'll find "After Banns according the forms of the Established Church of Scotland", "... forms of the Free Church of Scotland","... forms of the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland","... forms of the Episcopal Church of Scotland", "... forms of the Roman Catholic Church". Or the rarer "by declaration before witnesses"---for which the Registrar required the warrant of the Sheriff-Substitute before he could register it. The place where the wedding was celebrated was almost never (among presbyterians) a church, unlike the episcopalians and catholics.
But I don't think banns had to be called in the parish church; there's evidence that Glasgow ministers would haul the happy couple out into the busy street, call the banns, and then marry them at once. And of course banns in Scotland were, by long-standing abuse, called just once: the formula ended "... of which full and final proclamation is hereby made."
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
My view is probably inconsistent.
I don’t think lay celebration by a Baptist is ‘valid’ but then the Baptists don’t believe in Eucharistic sacrifice or the real presence.
However, I do accept lay celebration in the MCC because its members have been rejected by mainline churches.
I also accept Methodist communion because it is the fault of the C of E that the Bishop of London wouldn’t ordain presbyters for them.
Yes, Leo, I agree. I think that view is inconsistent.
Broadly, it seems to me that there are two approaches to this which make sense within themselves. Either
1. The power to consecrate is transmitted by ordination to the priesthood in apostolic succession. So any Eucharist celebrated by a person who is validly so ordained is valid - even if for some other reason it is irregular. But any Eucharist celebrated by someone who is not so ordained is only a pretence.
Or
2. A Eucharist takes its validity from the context where it happens, from being celebrated in accordance with the custom of the ecclesial community in which it takes place. So in the RCC it must be celebrated by a Catholic priest. In a Baptist Church it must be celebrated in whatever way the Baptist Church authorises. Provided it does, then it would only be invalid, to you, if conducted by an ecclesial community which you do not recognise as being part of the Body of Christ.
Both views are found within Christendom, though some holders of view 1 think holders of view 2 are deluding themselves if they think they are within Christendom.
However, I don't think one can pick and choose between the two, primarily believing in 1. but giving a free pass to some in 2 but not others.
I know their ground is called Lord's but when did the Marylebone Cricket Club start celebrating Holy Communion?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Presumably in 1883 when they began venerating the Ashes as a remembrance of the death of English cricket?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Re. Communion: I don't think Baptists would ever talk in terms of a celebration being "valid" or not. We might moan at the way it's been done or say that it was done "properly", but that's not quite the same thing.
A bit of a rumpus blew up in the URC Eastern Synod a few years ago. You need to understand that the rubric at that time was that Communion could be celebrated by Ministers or, "in emergency", by lay people who Synod had duly authorised to do so in the relevant congregation.
Problem was that there were very few ministers; also many congregations had built up relationships with lay preachers who were not "duly authorised" yet led Communion. Mostly coming from a former Congregational background, they weren't bothered at all by this.
One retired Minister, still very active in an ecumenical situation, flagged up the situation as not being right, and pushed for regularisation. Technically he was correct but a lot of folk felt that this was unnecessary. Things did get tightened up but I suspect some "unofficial" Communion still goes on.
On a wider canvas, the whole issue of Authorised Lay People and Communion is being looked at by the denomination as the fall in ministerial numbers has caused something of a crisis in this area.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cathscats
Shipmate
# 17827
|
Posted
Am a Church of Scotland minister. When I conduct a wedding I am not acting as Registrar. Before I may conduct the ceremony the couple have to have a schedule issued by the registrar, who has gathered from them all the relevant information, including that they are free to be married to each other, and in whose premesis (usually in the window) the notices of forthcoming marriages have been displayed - sometimes not very prominently. This is one reason why in Scotland we don't ask if anyone has any objections - the time for that is past!
After the ceremony, or as part of it if I want, that's up to me as minister, we sign the schedule which then has to be returned to the registrar within 3 working days for the marriage to be legal and the marriage certificate to be issued. This is how it works for all the churches, including those groups like the Brethren who apply for one of their members to have a license for a day to conduct a religious ceremony.
And yes, I can conduct said ceremony anywhere, though I discourage standing by waterfalls (too noisy) or indeed outside at all (pretty risky in terms of weather and midges, though on a good day we have just decided to go out!)
--------------------
"...damp hands and theological doubts - the two always seem to go together..." (O. Douglas, "The Setons")
Posts: 176 | From: Central Highlands | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
As American piskie says many, if not indeed most
Church of Scotland weddings in the periods up to the 1940s would have rarely been conducted in a church. They would often be fairly quiet affairs at the manse (minister's house) with a family gathering afterwards.Otherwise they might have been held in a hotel.
Since the man and woman were responsible for the marriage,the commonlaw husband and wife or marriage by habit and repute would often be recognised as a marriage, even without the presence of a clergyman. This would go back to the pre-Reformation and continued Catholic understanding that the man and woman are the 'ministers of the sacrament'
This would also go back to the time when the state did not have any civil marriage ceremonies.
I think that it is from this common enough Scottish custom of marriage not taking place in a church that a similar custom was and possibly is quite widespread in Presbyterian circles in the USA.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Since the man and woman were responsible for the marriage,the commonlaw husband and wife or marriage by habit and repute would often be recognised as a marriage, even without the presence of a clergyman.
Would that count though in legal matters: eg the distribution of effects and property after death? That's the problem EM flagged up earlier.
In the country I lived in in Africa, there was "tribal" marriage, recognised by local society but not legally, and "civil" marriage. Church "weddings" had n legal significance and were really only blessings of the latter.
The Church I served strongly encouraged to get legally married, not for moral reasons, but so that the wife would be protected if her husband were to die. Otherwise his relatives would come along, take possession of everything and send her (and the kids) back to her own family. On one occasion at least, local Christians formed a cordon around a bereaved lady's house to prevent this happening.
[ 18. August 2017, 15:44: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
'irregular' marriages witnessed by a third party were recognised legally in Scotland till 1940.
Marriages recognised as such 'by habit and repute' have not been recognised in law in Scotland since 2006.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roman Cataholic
Apprentice
# 18736
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
the whole issue of Authorised Lay People and Communion is being looked at
If a bishop authorises lay people, then it's kosher. Like a temporary ordination.
A temporary ordination? ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Hebrews 7:17
[ 18. August 2017, 18:29: Message edited by: Roman Cataholic ]
Posts: 30 | Registered: Feb 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I cannot say that their Eucharists are invalid.
A Eucharist cannot be invalid if you are doing what the church does.
The big question of course is - which church?
The church universal i.e. catholic and apostolic i.e. with episcope, usually in the form or bishops.
Hmmm, I can go with the first but not with the second and third. With a catholic understanding, Eucharist in a Baptist church is perfectly licit as Baptist are part of the universal church being Trinitarian and Christocentric.
You have a rather peculiar reason for including the Eucharist at a MCC church as being licit. Since when did being excluded by other churches be the sole reason why you might be acceptable to God?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
the whole issue of Authorised Lay People and Communion is being looked at
If a bishop authorises lay people, then it's kosher. Like a temporary ordination.
The URC doesn't have Bishops, and it's local Synods who authorise lay presidents. In practice the churches send the names of people whom they (via a decision at Church Meeting) wish to authorise. A list is then prepared and made known before a Synod meeting, and a vote taken en bloc. I've not known a name ever being questioned. Authorisation is only for a limited period (?a year) and then has to be renewed.
The wider "looking at" is being done by Mission Council and General Assembly.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If a bishop authorises lay people, then it's kosher. Like a temporary ordination.
If a bishop can authorise a lay person to celebrate and that makes it kosher, then that's clearly placing ones's understanding of validity in approach No 2.
I'm as good as certain that the CofE doesn't envisage any situation under which a bishop could authorise a lay person to celebrate without their being ordained to priest's orders first. As far as the CofE is concerned, to meet the requirements of approach No 2, a person has to meet the requirements of 1 first.
However, it seems to me that to say that an ecclesial community is only part of the Body of Christ if it has bishops or some other form of government that quacks like an episcopos still poses a number of invidious questions. What is it about the way the Methodist Church, which in England emphatically does not have bishops, and the MCC, which is a denomination I don't know anything about, manage their affairs that means they quack, while the Baptist Union only clucks?
I'm as aware as the rest of us that there has been a tendency in church history to enshrine true catholicity in adhering to a form of church government that those seeking to fence it approve of. It is though difficult objectively - rather than merely for purposes of rhetoric - to accept the idea that the mechanisms of ecclesiastical administration are really of the essence of the faith in the way that belief in the Trinity and acknowledging the centrality of the lordship of Christ are.
I'd actually prefer it if a person were to say
'I'd really rather have approach 1, but that with the sad divided state of Christendom, I accept that approach 2 has to be right. Otherwise I'd be forced to regard too many other people's Eucharists as tref, and I accept that they clearly aren't'.
But once one does that, I don't see how one can then decide according to one's own subjective criteria that some Eucharists are kosher but others tref rather than by accepting that what governs this is whether it is celebrated in accordance with the disciplines of the ecclesial community in which it happens.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
I think that it is best not to concentrate on whether a eucharist is valid or not.If it is 'valid' for the participants then it is a way for them to experience God's grace.
As a Catholic I experience God's grace during the celebration of a Catholic eucharist,but I am more than happy to believe that others experience exactly the same during the celebration of the eucharist within their own communities.
God's grace is wider than the organisational confines of Christian communities.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Roman Cataholic:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
the whole issue of Authorised Lay People and Communion is being looked at
If a bishop authorises lay people, then it's kosher. Like a temporary ordination.
A temporary ordination?
Hebrews 7:17
Melchisadech and Christ are priests (hierus) for ever. Ordained 'priests' are never so called by that name in the NT, as Vatican documents point out.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
As near as I can tell the switch to making the couple the ministers of the sacrament in the RCC was to leave an "out" for annulment
Without weighing in for or against anything else MT said about annulment, this is not the case. The "consent" model of marriage (i.e. marriage is effected by the consent of the marrying partners), promoted by the theologians in Paris in the 12th-13th centuries, was prompted by, among other things, a desire to limit the capacity of noble families to preserve dynasties by arranging marriages between unwilling children. Certainly the need for consent also plays a role in determining the validity of a marriage when an annulment is sought, but this was not the motivating cause of the emphasis on consent.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
You have a rather peculiar reason for including the Eucharist at a MCC church as being licit. Since when did being excluded by other churches be the sole reason why you might be acceptable to God?
Bit like the desert island scenario - unable to hold a eucharist otherwise.
In that case, we Baptist are perfectly acceptable. You don't accept us, others don't recognise us ergo we are on a desert island and worthy of recognition.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I think that it is best not to concentrate on whether a eucharist is valid or not.If it is 'valid' for the participants then it is a way for them to experience God's grace.
As a Catholic I experience God's grace during the celebration of a Catholic eucharist,but I am more than happy to believe that others experience exactly the same during the celebration of the eucharist within their own communities.
God's grace is wider than the organisational confines of Christian communities.
Yep with you there 100%. If you truly believe Christ is present and grace is active, then that's all you need.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I think that it is best not to concentrate on whether a eucharist is valid or not.If it is 'valid' for the participants then it is a way for them to experience God's grace.
As a Catholic I experience God's grace during the celebration of a Catholic eucharist,but I am more than happy to believe that others experience exactly the same during the celebration of the eucharist within their own communities.
God's grace is wider than the organisational confines of Christian communities.
A very generous post, and one with which I agree.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
You have a rather peculiar reason for including the Eucharist at a MCC church as being licit. Since when did being excluded by other churches be the sole reason why you might be acceptable to God?
Bit like the desert island scenario - unable to hold a eucharist otherwise.
In that case, we Baptist are perfectly acceptable. You don't accept us, others don't recognise us ergo we are on a desert island and worthy of recognition.
I may not accept Baptist communion as 'regular' but I have often received at Baptist service - both because my mother attended a baptist church towards the end of her life and because, as an RE teacher, I got invited to the baptisms of some of my pupils.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]I may not accept Baptist communion as 'regular' but I have often received at Baptist service - both because my mother attended a baptist church towards the end of her life and because, as an RE teacher, I got invited to the baptisms of some of my pupils.
Regular or irregular - that's one step away from saying regularity is the only qualification for salvation.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
