|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Just In
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
What, St. Trudeau has a thread in Eccles now? ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
.
.
.
I'll get my tuque....
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
a bit of African dancing there (what on earth does that have to do with the English Protestant church?)
the English Protestant church that's quite big in Africa?
And not forgetting the very large number of Africans who make up a significant proportion of the congregation in many churches in this country!
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Many people who don't find PSA a big problem ...
With so many (presumably theologically trained) bishops and senior clergy in one place, there should have been plenty about who did!
Yes but about an equal number would have issues with any hymn. Let me be honest now, for those of 39 article persuasion, "And Can it Be" is not without problems. For those who seem to think PSA is modern I had a more explicit reference to it in a hymn written between 530 and 609 AD.
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
... At the Coronation (the ultimate establishment service, surely), only the Queen and Prince Philip communicated.
That was one of the two occasions to which I was referring.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Utrecht Catholic
Shipmate
# 14285
|
Posted
I enjoyed the African dancing during the Enthronement of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
But what is meant by the English Protestant Church ?
Protestant Churches do not have Archbishops, who are vested in Cope and Mitre or who celebrate the Eucharist while using chasuble and incense, as the previous Archbishop Dr.Rowan Williams did.
--------------------
Robert Kennedy
Posts: 220 | From: Dordrecht | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Look Protestant is not a synomyn for Reformed, the Lutherans are definitely Protestant, they seem to use them.
The Lutherans would be most upset if you suggested they were Protestants after all it is Martin Luther who actually put the match to the dry tinder of the Western church that created the Reformation.
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
A couple of things:
1. Discussion as to the nature of Protestantism belongs in Purgatory.
2. We have left the phrase "English Protestant Church" unremarked on so far. However, the atmosphere of respect for different churches and traditions that we seek to engender in Ecclesiantics will normally require that a church or tradition is referred to by the term it uses of itself. So, if you mean the Church of England, say the Church of England.
Please continue to discuss the enthronement service of the new Archbishop of Canterbury.
seasick, Eccles host
--------------------
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
|
|
SyNoddy
Shipmate
# 17009
|
Posted
Well, I watched it with joy and delight.
It was similar to the licencing and installation of your local CofE vicar; lawyer bit, leading to the stall, and at the same time it reflected global Anglicanism; drummers, symbols from various provinces.
Plus it included influences from various musical worship traditions.
I enjoyed the blend of tradition and formality with the more personal choices of ++Justin. Who wants a mindless observance of 'tradition' without some elements reflecting the modern context?
It's a 10 from me
Posts: 53 | From: Somewhere near the Middle | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
The 'lawyer' bit is the bit that jarred, for me. I recall the way parish priests' inductions are (or at least were) dealt with in the diocese of Southwark: all the legal formalities are got out of the way quietly in the vestry beforehand (with the requisite witnesses of course) so that the public service is a celebration of the new ministry. +Justin's legal bit mostly took place in St Paul's a few weeks ago; the bit that remained could surely have been dealt with in a similar way at Canterbury.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Where bishops are elected on the basis of the conge d'elire, it is necessary that there be public recognition that those electing proceeded grateful that they did not have to think hard before casting their vote; thus the lawyerly parts. In the remainder of the communion, the lawyerly bits can be reduced drastically.
[Apologies for the lack of accents - I know deep down how to do them, but not at this hour on a Sunday morning.]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
The service was incoherent and mindless. You did not know what was coming next and it did not hang together at all. I also do not appreciate Anglican bishops dressing like Roman princely prelates. In fact, why was there a round of applause? What theological sense does that make? I witnessed a similar phenomenon at recent adult baptisms - as if they were saying "Well done for getting yourself saved!"
I mourn every day that the 1928 Prayer Book was not legalized by the House of Commons, a most woeful blunder. But since it isn't, they should have set the Enthronement in the context of a 1662 Communion service (in the modern style) and been done with it. When Pope Francis said 'Carnival time is over' he meant it. Justin's sermon was great, if subtle, in chastising our establishment for abandoning God with their wicked schemes, but Christianity is truly in the wilderness in modern England, and we need to start behaving like it.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
I also do not appreciate Anglican bishops dressing like Roman princely prelates.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) Which Anglican bishops were dressed as Roman princely prelates? There were a number of RC bishops so dressed.
quote:
In fact, why was there a round of applause? What theological sense does that make? I witnessed a similar phenomenon at recent adult baptisms - as if they were saying "Well done for getting yourself saved!"
This is a perennial topic in Ecclesiantics. Firstly, it's a natural human response to show joy and welcome. Secondly, it can be justified theologically as an acclamation of God's presence in the newly-instituted, newly-baptised, or whatever. But any arguments for or against tend to be a rationalisation of one's aesthetic instincts about the practice.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Try
Shipmate
# 4951
|
Posted
I liked the enthronement, at least what I've seen of it (no-one has put the full service on Youtube, just a BBC "highlight reel". However, I am disappointed that the Royal Family was represented by Prince Charles and Camilla rather then the Queen herself, or one of the younger princes. Quite frankly I think that Charles' continued relationship with Camilia ought to lead him to renounce any claim to the throne. Even if he doesn't, the Royal Family ought to have the good taste to not let him do any of the bits involving the Church. If the Queen could not come herself, she could have sent one of her grandsons.
--------------------
“I’m so glad to be a translator in the 20th century. They only burn Bibles now, not the translators!” - the Rev. Dr. Bruce M. Metzger
Posts: 852 | From: Beautiful Ohio, in dreams again I see... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
Quite frankly I think that Charles' continued relationship with Camilia ought to lead him to renounce any claim to the throne.
Why? If you believe in a hereditary monarchy (which I don't) you can't pick and choose; you have to accept the one next in succession. If a monarch has to be subjected to popular approval why not go the whole hog and have a proper democratic election for the head of state?
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
I think Charles has a long way to go before he'll reach, say, Henry VIII's standard on such things...
--------------------
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
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
I found the service rather over-long, considering it was not a Eucharist and it was the pageantry that made it all. But it was powerful enough in its own way and the sermon was equally powerful and inspiring and time will tell, how this sermon is lived up to.
I recall that the Filioque clause was dropped when ++Robert Runcie was installed on 25 March 1980 (presumably for the first time). This was an ecumenical gesture because of his involvement with the Eastern Orthodox churches. I do not recall whether this happened when ++George Carey was installed c1990.
I will find out in due course whether or not the quarter-peal attempt of gransire cinques was successful.
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ˇFelices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
Charles' continued relationship with Camilia
You do realise they are married?!
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
... However, I am disappointed that the Royal Family was represented by Prince Charles and Camilla rather then the Queen herself, or one of the younger princes. Quite frankly I think that Charles' continued relationship with Camilla ought to lead him to renounce any claim to the throne. Even if he doesn't, the Royal Family ought to have the good taste to not let him do any of the bits involving the Church. If the Queen could not come herself, she could have sent one of her grandsons.
I realise this might be pushing the limits of Ship rules, but I can't let that affront to my sovereign and her family pass unremarked. Permit me to ask.
Are you a subject of HM Queen Elizabeth II? If not, for those of us that are, it's a fair question whether Prince Charles's choice of life partner is, for you, a matter of any legitimate concern whatsoever.
[ 27. March 2013, 23:03: 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. Rob
Shipmate
# 5823
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
It was a little bit incoherent and all over the place. A bit of Cranmer here, a bit of African dancing there (what on earth does that have to do with the English Protestant church?) ...
Are you not aware that the archbishop of Canterbury is much more than an English metropolitan archbishop?
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
He holds a unique place of honor within the
worldwide Anglican Communion of churches. Among those churches, of course, are the African national provinces. So it was very much in keeping with the nature of the enthronement to have music from Africa and other parts of the Anglican Communion.
*
Posts: 862 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Try
Shipmate
# 4951
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Try:
[qb]... I realise this might be pushing the limits of Ship rules, but I can't let that affront to my sovereign and her family pass unremarked. Permit me to ask.
Are you a subject of HM Queen Elizabeth II? If not, for those of us that are, it's a fair question whether Prince Charles's choice of life partner is, for you, a matter of any legitimate concern whatsoever.
Well, I certainly didn't want to offend anyone, and I'm sorry if I appeared to be rude to the Queen. I have more to say but I don't want to start a tangent in Ecclesiantics.
--------------------
“I’m so glad to be a translator in the 20th century. They only burn Bibles now, not the translators!” - the Rev. Dr. Bruce M. Metzger
Posts: 852 | From: Beautiful Ohio, in dreams again I see... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
Not a problem, Try, and possibly a topic worthy of consideration elsewhere - but indeed tangential to this discussion!
Let's see if we can draw a line under the matter now...
dj_ordinaire, Eccles host
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
Charles' continued relationship with Camilia
You do realise they are married?!
Define 'married'.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
However, I am disappointed that the Royal Family was represented by Prince Charles and Camilla rather then the Queen herself, or one of the younger princes.
The Monarsch never attends the Archbishop's enthronement as it is regarded as taking away his limelight. Traditionally, it is the Prince of Wales who attends on the Monarch's behalf.
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
Charles' continued relationship with Camilia
You do realise they are married?!
Define 'married'.
In the eyes of the Law.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
Charles' continued relationship with Camilia
You do realise they are married?!
Define 'married'.
In the eyes of the Law.
"For be ye well assured, that so many as are coupled together otherwise than God's Word doth allow are not joined together by God; neither is their Matrimony lawful."
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
May I draw your attention to my esteemed hostly colleague's post above? The validity or otherwise of the marriage of their Royal Highnesses is not a subject for this thread.
seasick, Eccles host
[ 30. March 2013, 23:39: Message edited by: seasick ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Printer-friendly view
