|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Just who DOES identify as Protestant?
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And if you don't believe me, look up "manducatio indignorum," which is the Lutheran doctrine that even unbelievers who receive the Lord's Supper (another sacrament!) do in fact receive Jesus' real body and blood just as believers do.
Well, I think that's interesting even if no-one else does. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
It does suggest the average Lutheran has a higher view of the Eucharist than the average Anglican - people like leo, take note.
Maybe in reference to the CofE with its large evangelical wing. Confession of the objective Real Presence is likely more widespread in TEC, even if many communicants don't have a very clear theology of the Eucharist.
[ 23. June 2014, 21:41: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Et tu? I'm Reformed too and I do not agree at all with that point, Nick Tamen.
Again, per the UCCan's Basis of Union, Article 2.16:
quote:
We acknowledge two sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, which were instituted by Christ, to be of perpetual obligation as signs and seals of the covenant ratified in His precious blood, as a means of grace, by which, working in us, He doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and comfort our faith in Him, and as ordinances through the observance of which His Church is to confess her Lord and be visibly distinguished from the rest of the world.
Relevant clauses italicized. The Basis of Union was drawn up in 1908 so it's not some new-wave thing.
Perhaps I'm missing the precise point you're not agreeing with, but I don't see how what you've italicized, or most of the rest of what you've quoted, disagrees with what I said.
--------------------
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
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
That a sacrament is not a display of faith and this is somehow alien to Reformed theology.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I think the reasoning is that the Church of England split from the Pope for different reasons than the reasons in Europe, and not directly or indirectly because of Luther.
Our reasons are more embarrassing, frankly.
I grew up thinking I was Anglican and therefore Protestant. The emphasis may well be different in different parts of the world.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
That a sacrament is not a display of faith and this is somehow alien to Reformed theology.
I think you need to explain what you mean by "display of faith."
--------------------
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
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
By "Display" I mean a sign, a public act, observances by which the Church confesses her Lord and is distinguished from the rest of the world (per my quote).
What did you think I meant?
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
By "Display" I mean a sign, a public act, observances by which the Church confesses her Lord and is distinguished from the rest of the world (per my quote).
What did you think I meant?
Not that, exactly. Based on your disagreement with what LC was saying, I took you more to be saying that a sacrament is a way in which the recipient of the sacrament declares his or her faith—more like the traditional Baptist understanding that baptism is an ordinance by which one, in obligation to Christ's command, testifies to his faith by submitting to baptism.
But I have to say that the sense you mean is somewhat alien to anything I have been taught in my lifetime (50+ years) as a Presbyterian. Yes, I would agree that in the broader context of the celebration of a sacrament as in all worship, and in response to God's grace, the church confesses what it believes. But in the sacrament itself, it is God, not the church and not the recipient, who acts. And I think that's what LC was getting at. It's what I was getting at.
For example, when the church celebrates a baptism, the parents typically join in confessing the faith of the church, though as the recipient is typically an infant, the one actually receiving the baptism does not. But that declaring of the church's faith is not the baptism; it is essentially part of the request for baptism. The sacrament of baptism is the washing with water in the name of the triune God. And in the sacrament of baptism, it is God who cleanses, God who signs and seals, God who claims and God who regenerates. We receive.
And while unlike LC I have never had people in other (Protestant) traditions tell me that Presbyterians are not Protestants for believing this, I have had some of those folks suggest we aren't really Christian because of it.
--------------------
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
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
This seems like an interesting point in this thread to discuss the growing trend in the Southern Baptist Church and in various nondenominational evangelical churches in the US for ministers to embrace Calvinism/Reformed doctrine. This is such a phenomenon that congregations that aren't crazy about Calvinism are being warned by other congregations to look out for hotshot young ministers interviewing for a post as pastor who answer theological questions diplomatically and then once in position try to reshape the church on Calvinist lines. Since most of these churches practice believers' baptism, I'm not sure whether their definition of Calvinist/Reformed theology extends also to baptism or whether it merely covers soteriology (TULIP). Not sure whether, regarding Holy Communion, they are memorialist or whether they believe in a pneumatic presence for believers only. If some of them are memorialist, I am not sure whether that counts as a Reformed belief or not.
I have heard that "Calvinist Baptists" were quite common in the UK in the 19th century - is this the tradition that these people are drawing from?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
But I have to say that the sense you mean is somewhat alien to anything I have been taught in my lifetime (50+ years) as a Presbyterian. Yes, I would agree that in the broader context of the celebration of a sacrament as in all worship, and in response to God's grace, the church confesses what it believes. But in the sacrament itself, it is God, not the church and not the recipient, who acts. And I think that's what LC was getting at. It's what I was getting at.
It's not about our will vs. God's Will in some either/or thing. It is not about salvation but about sanctification and what God calls us to do through faith.
Perhaps we are talking past one another; you and LC are talking about salvation when I am speaking of sanctification.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
It's not about our will vs. God's Will in some either/or thing. It is not about salvation but about sanctification and what God calls us to do through faith.
Perhaps we are talking past one another; you and LC are talking about salvation when I am speaking of sanctification.
I think we are talking past each other, but I'm frankly not sure about what. I'm not talking about salvation or about human will vs God's will. I'm talking about the traditional Reformed understanding of what a sacrament is.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Perhaps we are talking past one another; you and LC are talking about salvation when I am speaking of sanctification.
Aren't they essentially the same thing, that salvation is a process of sanctification, or as we in the East call it, theosis?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Considered as a branding exercise, "Protestant" is a bad label. By and in itself it indicates a dependence on another, namely the RCC against which this protest was/is raised. There is a psychological difference between saying "they are wrong" and "I am right", even if that has the same doctrinal content. The latter is the message that you want for a religious sales pitch.
"Lutheran" and "Calvinist" are also less than ideal. They indicate a dependence on a historical person, rather than on eternal truths. Of course, one can have a single name standing for eternal truths, as indeed in the label "Christian". But since that spot is taken in Christianity, there is not really room for putting another person forward. I note furthermore that even if we identify a person with eternal truths, it is often done via an "abstract" title given to that person. So we have "Christianity" not "Jesuism", and "Buddhism" not "Gautamaism". This is correct sales psychology, it points to the role of that person as truth bringer rather than simply to their individuality.
Looking further, "Anglican" is a bad label since it indicates a specific nationality / culture. It perhaps gets saved over time by people forgetting what it meant, but one doesn't really want to start off on the wrong foot in adervtising. "Reformed" suffers from the same borrowed identity problem as "Protestant", because it refers to the RCC as that which had to be reformed.
Ideal labels from a sales point of view are those which rely on themselves, are not limited in their scope and indicate something grand and desirable. So "Catholic" is great ("Roman Catholic" less so, which is why the RCC refers to itself only as "Catholic"), it's the universal Church. Likewise "Orthodox" is an excellent label, it's the rightly believing church.
So "Evangelical" is probably the best general label for the Reformation churches. One really wants to be the good news church, after all. By the same principle labels like "Charismatic" or "Puritan" are excellent. Of course, "Puritan" has acquired bad connotations, but that is a matter of history not of advertisement psychology. Conceptually it is a good label to apply to your sect. I'm less convinced by "Ana/Baptist". From an advertisement point of view that is far too specific and "practical". It doesn't have visionary appeal, or at least it does not do so unless you are already deep into Christian specifics. "Methodist" sort of works, but is too uninspiring. Methodological people get the job done, I guess, but so does double-entry bookkeeping.
Overall, I think the German Lutherans did the right thing in adopting "Evangelical" as their name. It is a good advertisement label, and in fact it expresses something about the movement - namely the idea of putting the "good news" of scripture ahead of everything else. It is much better than "Protestant".
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Looking further, "Anglican" is a bad label since it indicates a specific nationality / culture. It perhaps gets saved over time by people forgetting what it meant, but one doesn't really want to start off on the wrong foot in adervtising.
Au contraire. I think "Anglican" is a good label, precisely because it does reflect a specific nationality and culture. The culture from which Anglican comes reflects intellectualism, tradition, history and tolerance of differences of opinion and theology.
I think the British have been forward thinking in a good way in lots of things ( e.g. Act of Toleration 1689 - and ensuing amendments, Queen Elizabeth's stances of moderation and the Glorious Revolution contra the French) and this comes through in our faith.
Admittedly not always, but it is there IMV.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
So "Evangelical" is probably the best general label for the Reformation churches. One really wants to be the good news church, after all.
Lord have mercy no. In theory perhaps, but in reality the term has been hijacked by cruci-centric nutcases. Heaven forbid I would call myself an Evangelical.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
[I think the British have been forward thinking in a good way in lots of things ( e.g. Act of Toleration 1689 - and ensuing amendments, Queen Elizabeth's stances of moderation and the Glorious Revolution contra the French) and this comes through in our faith.
I'm actually quite speechless at this. But then being English and given the standard of History teaching in British schools you probably actually believe it.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
I'm actually quite speechless at this.
Good. Because it's true compared to other histories of a similar calibre.
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
But then being English and given the standard of History teaching in British schools you probably actually believe it.
Yes I do.
But I've never lived in Britain.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
[I think the British have been forward thinking in a good way in lots of things ( e.g. Act of Toleration 1689 - and ensuing amendments, Queen Elizabeth's stances of moderation and the Glorious Revolution contra the French) and this comes through in our faith.
I'm actually quite speechless at this. But then being English and given the standard of History teaching in British schools you probably actually believe it.
You apparently haven't received a good enough education to read that Evensong is located in Australia, not Britain.
I disagree with her totally, but is it really so hard to read a post properly?
[ 24. June 2014, 11:18: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]
--------------------
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Hell call for CL. Not very hellish, to be honest, and it's in the TICTH thread as I didn't think it merited a thread of its own.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Well I am British Jade. But I grew up in Indonesia and have lived in Australia for the second half of my life. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[x-posted with SCK]
[ 24. June 2014, 11:24: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
This seems like an interesting point in this thread to discuss the growing trend in the Southern Baptist Church and in various nondenominational evangelical churches in the US for ministers to embrace Calvinism/Reformed doctrine. This is such a phenomenon that congregations that aren't crazy about Calvinism are being warned by other congregations to look out for hotshot young ministers interviewing for a post as pastor who answer theological questions diplomatically and then once in position try to reshape the church on Calvinist lines. Since most of these churches practice believers' baptism, I'm not sure whether their definition of Calvinist/Reformed theology extends also to baptism or whether it merely covers soteriology (TULIP). Not sure whether, regarding Holy Communion, they are memorialist or whether they believe in a pneumatic presence for believers only. If some of them are memorialist, I am not sure whether that counts as a Reformed belief or not.
In my experience and from what I've seen, it's primarily a matter of embracing Calvinist soteriology and concepts like the sovereignty of God. I have not heard of any that embrace a Reformed understanding of the sacraments, particularly baptism.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Looking further, "Anglican" is a bad label since it indicates a specific nationality / culture. It perhaps gets saved over time by people forgetting what it meant, but one doesn't really want to start off on the wrong foot in adervtising.
Au contraire. I think "Anglican" is a good label, precisely because it does reflect a specific nationality and culture. The culture from which Anglican comes reflects intellectualism, tradition, history and tolerance of differences of opinion and theology.
I think the British have been forward thinking in a good way in lots of things ( e.g. Act of Toleration 1689 - and ensuing amendments, Queen Elizabeth's stances of moderation and the Glorious Revolution contra the French) and this comes through in our faith.
Admittedly not always, but it is there IMV.
I rather think Ingo's point is that liking the connotation involves liking the English. Which might work fine for you (and indeed for me), but it's inherently limiting on a basis which is not about the church's theology, but its geography. There may well be people from different cultural backgrounds who would be a bit mystified as to why they would join an 'English' church.
It's significant that here in Australia it is quite definitely now the 'Anglican Church of Australia', and not, as it once was, ever described as 'the Church of England', as if it was somehow the spiritual equivalent of a national embassy. To me it signifies a conscious attempt to loosen the national association a little.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
[I think the British have been forward thinking in a good way in lots of things ( e.g. Act of Toleration 1689 - and ensuing amendments, Queen Elizabeth's stances of moderation and the Glorious Revolution contra the French) and this comes through in our faith.
I'm actually quite speechless at this. But then being English and given the standard of History teaching in British schools you probably actually believe it.
It's worth remembering that Voltaire's Treatise on Tolerance, which is generally taken as evidence of what a liberal advocate for freedom he was, in reality takes the pre-Emancipation England of his day as one of its models for a tolerant society. England, as we both know, was not very tolerant but it was more tolerant than most places.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Maybe in reference to the CofE with its large evangelical wing. Confession of the objective Real Presence is likely more widespread in TEC, even if many communicants don't have a very clear theology of the Eucharist.
Actually I was going by my faulty memory of the 39 Articles, which was silly because a. I'd misremembered what they say, b. most Anglicans never think about them, c. most of those who do don't regard them as binding.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
catholic me.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ORGANMEISTER
Shipmate
# 6621
|
Posted
Lambchopped, You've done an excellent job of explaining the Lutheran understanding of Baptism and the Eucharist. However, the baptismal liturgy asks the person to be baptised, the sponsors, and the congregation to recite the Nicene Creed...." the faith in which we baptize".
I suppose Lutherans are Protestant in the sense that they are not part of the RCC. However, if memory serves.....when the ELCA was originally constituted it had been proposed that it be called the Evangelical Catholic Church.
Posts: 3162 | From: Somerset, PA - USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And if you don't believe me, look up "manducatio indignorum," which is the Lutheran doctrine that even unbelievers who receive the Lord's Supper (another sacrament!) do in fact receive Jesus' real body and blood just as believers do.
Well, I think that's interesting even if no-one else does.
It does suggest the average Lutheran has a higher view of the Eucharist than the average Anglican - people like leo, take note.
I worked in a local ecumenical project with Lutherans - we tried very hard to stop them pouring consecrated wine down the sink after the eucharist finished - they do not believe in the real presence as permanent.
Note that it is mandatory in the C of E to consume the consecrated remains - though, sadly, very few evangelicals do so any more.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I've seen them chuck the bread out for the birds or into the bins and pour the wine away at our local evangelical Anglican parish.
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
As an Anglican, I loathe the word protestant.
You will not find the word 'protestant' anywhere in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.
I'm always amused by the way that a certain type of Anglo-Catholic who wouldn't be seen dead in a field with the theology or liturgy of the Prayer Book regards it as nigh on infallible when it fails to describe the C of E as protestant at any point.
It might be added, of course, that the words 'Incarnation' and 'Trinity' cannot be found in the New Testament.
The NT isn't an authority in itself - the tradition of the church defined incarnation and trinity as legitimate understandings of scripture - e.g. John 1, Mat 28.
As for the theology and liturgy of the BCP, I am closer to what used to be called 'Prayer Book Catholic' than to Anglo-papalist.
For many years, I was used to BCP (albeit with some 1928 bits thrown in) and regarded it as capable of a catholic interpretation.
--------------------
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
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Considered as a branding exercise, "Protestant" is a bad label. By and in itself it indicates a dependence on another, namely the RCC against which this protest was/is raised. There is a psychological difference between saying "they are wrong" and "I am right", even if that has the same doctrinal content. The latter is the message that you want for a religious sales pitch.
"Lutheran" and "Calvinist" are also less than ideal. They indicate a dependence on a historical person, rather than on eternal truths. Of course, one can have a single name standing for eternal truths, as indeed in the label "Christian". But since that spot is taken in Christianity, there is not really room for putting another person forward. I note furthermore that even if we identify a person with eternal truths, it is often done via an "abstract" title given to that person. So we have "Christianity" not "Jesuism", and "Buddhism" not "Gautamaism". This is correct sales psychology, it points to the role of that person as truth bringer rather than simply to their individuality.
Looking further, "Anglican" is a bad label since it indicates a specific nationality / culture. It perhaps gets saved over time by people forgetting what it meant, but one doesn't really want to start off on the wrong foot in adervtising. "Reformed" suffers from the same borrowed identity problem as "Protestant", because it refers to the RCC as that which had to be reformed.
Ideal labels from a sales point of view are those which rely on themselves, are not limited in their scope and indicate something grand and desirable. So "Catholic" is great ("Roman Catholic" less so, which is why the RCC refers to itself only as "Catholic"), it's the universal Church. Likewise "Orthodox" is an excellent label, it's the rightly believing church.
So "Evangelical" is probably the best general label for the Reformation churches. One really wants to be the good news church, after all. By the same principle labels like "Charismatic" or "Puritan" are excellent. Of course, "Puritan" has acquired bad connotations, but that is a matter of history not of advertisement psychology. Conceptually it is a good label to apply to your sect. I'm less convinced by "Ana/Baptist". From an advertisement point of view that is far too specific and "practical". It doesn't have visionary appeal, or at least it does not do so unless you are already deep into Christian specifics. "Methodist" sort of works, but is too uninspiring. Methodological people get the job done, I guess, but so does double-entry bookkeeping.
Overall, I think the German Lutherans did the right thing in adopting "Evangelical" as their name. It is a good advertisement label, and in fact it expresses something about the movement - namely the idea of putting the "good news" of scripture ahead of everything else. It is much better than "Protestant".
I agree that "Anglican" has connotations of "British Empire" in many parts of the world that are not exactly positive. However, it is worth pointing out that Anglicanism going all the way back to the Elizabethan Settlement has been rather unique among major strands of Christianity in that it has always regarded itself as part of the big-c Church but not as encompassing all of the "true" Church or even as encompassing all of the part of the Church that believes the correct version of the truth. So it is more appropriate for Anglican churches to have names that seem specific to a culture or country - because the denomination does not make the same claims to exclusive ownership of universality or orthodoxy that other denominations make (or made in the past). Other denominations now exist that are happy being "part of" the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and that do not feel like they are more correct in their beliefs than everyone else, but back in the late 1500s to 1700s this was a pretty unique thing about Anglicanism.
(Big caveat) I do not mean in any way to claim that Anglicanism was tolerant of all other forms of Christianity or that it did not employ violent and brutal means to force itself upon subjects of the Crown for much of its history. I was referring more specifically to Anglicanism's historical view of itself in relation to other Christian denominations (as long as they were not Roman Catholic, and as long as they did not try to persuade people in the C of E to oppose the religious conformity that was equated with loyalty to the Crown).
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've seen them chuck the bread out for the birds or into the bins and pour the wine away at our local evangelical Anglican parish.
When I was a frequent visitor to the vicarage, the leftover wine was served with Sunday lunch.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
It's perfectly possible for Anglicans, Lutherans, etc., to identify as both Protestant AND Catholic. The question is whether denominations that can trace their roots back to the Reformation (and to nondenominational Christians who if they put some thought into things would realize their theology and worship practices also can be traced back to the Reformation) would still identify as Protestant.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
Which others label would work? (given history etc)
Evangelical, Pentcostal etc seem to be subsets of Protestant. Reformed would either be another word for Protty or the more Genevan side depending.
Liberal, Progressive, Emerging could in theory apply to some RC's and Orthodox as well....
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I worked in a local ecumenical project with Lutherans - we tried very hard to stop them pouring consecrated wine down the sink after the eucharist finished - they do not believe in the real presence as permanent.
Inaccurate about Lutherans as a whole (though God only knows about the ones you met)--
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
in fact, as with so many others things, we simply don't know, and don't claim to know. This leads most of us (would that it were all!) to treat the remaining elements with great respect. They are normally consumed.
Organmeister, is that an ELCA liturgy? Because the one we use (LSB, when not Vietnamese) has no such passage.
I did find Luther's Flood prayer included in ours, which specifically asks God to give faith to the candidate, implying that it may not be present yet.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I know of an ELCA parish that regularly reconsecrates the leftover consecrated hosts from last Sunday in the following Sunday service. Is this allowed? Does standard Lutheran eucharistology support it?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Well, I dunno about the ELCA--it makes me go Mwwwmmmwwmmwwwmmwwmwmwmbl--but then, if we run out of bread/wine halfway through the communion, we (any of my past churches) don't carefully set aside what remains of the original consecration before consecrating the new batch. I don't know what the blast radius on the Eucharist is...
Seriously, this is why the Lutherans of my acquaintance generally stay away from things like reservation, re-consecration, etc. and instead Eat.It.All.Eat.It.Now to avoid the issue. Otherwise we're forced to take a stand, at least an implied one, on matters we really don't understand.
[ 25. June 2014, 00:38: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've seen them chuck the bread out for the birds or into the bins and pour the wine away at our local evangelical Anglican parish.
When I was a frequent visitor to the vicarage, the leftover wine was served with Sunday lunch.
But was this consecrated wine left over in the chalice? In which case it is not only sacrilege but very unhygienic - all that lipstick and spit.
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I know of an ELCA parish that regularly reconsecrates the leftover consecrated hosts from last Sunday in the following Sunday service. Is this allowed? Does standard Lutheran eucharistology support it?
In catholic (Roman or Anglo) catholic thought, no eucharist takes place if bread isn't consecrated.
Since that bread had already been consecrated, no consecration had taken place in that eucharist so it was 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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I worked in a local ecumenical project with Lutherans - we tried very hard to stop them pouring consecrated wine down the sink after the eucharist finished - they do not believe in the real presence as permanent.
Inaccurate about Lutherans as a whole (though God only knows about the ones you met)--
Six different Lutheran pastors over a fairly long period of time - all from Bavaria because our diocese has some twinning arrangement with 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
|
|
ORGANMEISTER
Shipmate
# 6621
|
Posted
Lambchopped, check out the baptismal liturgy in LBW. We are still using LBW, aka "the green book".
Posts: 3162 | From: Somerset, PA - USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
When I was a frequent visitor to the vicarage, the leftover wine was served with Sunday lunch.
But was this consecrated wine left over in the chalice? In which case it is not only sacrilege but very unhygienic - all that lipstick and spit.
I've no idea what they used by way of drinking vessels in the church, I never went to the actual services, just the vicarage. What we had was the leftover wine, poured out of a bottle.
On the occasions I have been to anglican communion I've usually seen the vicar(s) knock it back which usually means they end up a little tipsy by the time it comes to having a chat after the service.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I know of an ELCA parish that regularly reconsecrates the leftover consecrated hosts from last Sunday in the following Sunday service. Is this allowed? Does standard Lutheran eucharistology support it?
In catholic (Roman or Anglo) catholic thought, no eucharist takes place if bread isn't consecrated.
Since that bread had already been consecrated, no consecration had taken place in that eucharist so it was invalid.
I think the already-consecrated hosts were combined with unconsecrated hosts to be consecrated in the following weeks' service.
What is the standard Lutheran opinion on this?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I worked in a local ecumenical project with Lutherans - we tried very hard to stop them pouring consecrated wine down the sink after the eucharist finished - they do not believe in the real presence as permanent.
Inaccurate about Lutherans as a whole (though God only knows about the ones you met)--
Six different Lutheran pastors over a fairly long period of time - all from Bavaria because our diocese has some twinning arrangement with them.
Iirc German Lutherans are much 'lower' than Scandinavian Lutherans, and ELCA Lutherans at any rate tend to have Scandinavian heritage. Most Lutherans in the UK (there are very few) are German-based ones.
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
When I was a frequent visitor to the vicarage, the leftover wine was served with Sunday lunch.
But was this consecrated wine left over in the chalice? In which case it is not only sacrilege but very unhygienic - all that lipstick and spit.
I've no idea what they used by way of drinking vessels in the church, I never went to the actual services, just the vicarage. What we had was the leftover wine, poured out of a bottle.
On the occasions I have been to anglican communion I've usually seen the vicar(s) knock it back which usually means they end up a little tipsy by the time it comes to having a chat after the service.
If it's from the bottle, there is absolutely no problem and it is irrelevant to this discussion.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
What we had was the leftover wine, poured out of a bottle.
Which would suggest it was leftover in the sense of not having been poured into the chalice for consecration, rather than in the sense of having been consecrated but unconsumed.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
My understanding, as a CoE priest, is that consecrated bread and wine should be consumed. However, when I was Australia the practice seemed to be to give the remains of the wafers to the birds, and the wine watered the roses outside the vestry. Being a guest, I didn't like to make a fuss, but I wondered if this was official CoA policy or just a local practice.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
In the TEC, leftover consecrated wine is poured on the ground. Some sacristies have drains that lead straight to the ground.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
In the TEC, leftover consecrated wine is poured on the ground. Some sacristies have drains that lead straight to the ground.
Moo
Uh, no. -- at least nowhere I'vd ever served. The celebrant, sacred ministers snd/or other lay servers in the sanctuary consume the Body and Blood. Only the remants of the ablutions - the bit not consumed already - would go to earth, most appropriately down the sacrarium. Consecrated hosts normally are placed in the tabernacle (on a ciborium). The stuff from the chalice that goes to earth I'd almost entirely water used to cleanse the chalice after ablutions at the altar.
[ 27. June 2014, 01:46: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Uh, yes. For the leftover wine in the chalice. Depending on the practice of the celebrant.
[ 27. June 2014, 03:02: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
Here is my own position: As an Episcopalian (in communion with C of E), I understand us to be Catholic but not Roman. If I didn't think we were Catholic (with Apostolic Succession, "valid" Sacraments, etc.) then I would find another church.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
I would expect that all denominations believe their sacraments are valid, and, as far as I can tell on the Ship, all believe that they are in proper succession to the apostles.
Could you say more about what you mean by valid, and by apostolic succession?
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I would expect that all denominations believe their sacraments are valid, and, as far as I can tell on the Ship, all believe that they are in proper succession to the apostles.
Um... actually... no, not really. For a lot of churches, the notion of a "valid sacrament" is, in itself, well, heresy or even idolatry. They consider the bread and wine to be solely and exclusively symbolic, and that those of us who believe there is more than that to be, at very best, wrong.
quote:
Could you say more about what you mean by valid, and by apostolic succession?
All "as I understand it to be":
Re valid communion: That Jesus is really definitely in there somewhere, though I believe He can be in other churches' sacraments as well as He wishes. It's more that with a priest in genuine Apostolic Succession, the bread and wine definitely in some sense become His body and blood, not "possibly" or "probably." When I take communion at a different kind of church, I do pray that Jesus will be present in it, rather than just trusting that He already is, if that makes sense.
Re Apostolic Succession: That the priests and bishops do indeed, via a line of laying down of hands from the original Apostles, have "valid" ordination and thus "valid" sacraments, basically. My understanding of this is that this applies to the Anglican, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic churches, and also to some very small Latvian and Estonian Lutheran churches--in the US, the Episcopal church has come into communion with the US Lutheran church, but new Lutheran clergy apparently have to be ordained with at least one Episcopal bishop involved (this was the way I understood things to be some years ago, at least), which arguably opens up all kinds of issues about whether this straight-out says that apart from that, the Lutherans didn't have AS before, which I think makes things awkward at best on both sides, and I'm not entirely sure what the point was of full communion given all of that.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
