Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: So, what can I expect at a Church of England service?
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Is "sprinkling" being confused with effusion of water here? Effusion, i.e. pouring of water upon the head, is the more common and recognised form of baptising infants or small children. Sprinkling has been in some doubt, as the principle is that the water must flow -- in sprinkling one needs to get enough water on the target to actually wet it, as opposed to simply slinging droplets around the general vicinity.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Yes. I don't remember ever seeing sprinkling used for baptism.
-------------------- Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
It does raise an interesting point - have any Salvationists or Quakers been refused Communion in recent years? I can't imagine it happening even if it was against the rules for them to receive.
-------------------- 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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Sorry, I picked up the "sprinkling" from the earlier post, and assumed it was meant as a light-hearted reference to effusion - which is our practice - rather than immersion.
-------------------- Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by ken: Yes. I don't remember ever seeing sprinkling used for baptism.
Sprinkling was used by some Methodists (possibly still is), whilst other Methodist ministers baptised by effusion. I was told as a teenager by our vicar - a CofE priest who was serving in TEC - that Anglicans would not automatically recognise Methodist baptisms, since it was necessary to determine whether such had been done by effusion (valid) or by sprinkling (possibly invalid). I would think that must have been a position within the CofE (whether official or not, I don't know) -- I would be surprised if the US Episcopal Church would have been officially so scrupulous, even though Anglicans to my knowledge never baptism with sprinkling (the Methodists who do so use a small aspergillium for the purpose).
For clarification, this was more than 40 years ago.
Here endeth the tangent (I hope).
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
Dropped in a lovely church for the parish's only sunday service- was warmly welcomed.
The rest can be concatenated thus: Lady Vicar NRSV CW, including Pseudo-Hippolytus, notwithstanding which Communion was reverently celebrated Hymns nicely sung and organ top-notch But Most of the church was empty The congregation, grey and bald, but for a lady, three lassies and yours truly, sat in the chancel.
Lady Vicar's sermon was good, and even though she celebrated CW, her sermon was on the merits of the BCP 1922 Lectionary.
Overall, mixed bag, more on the sad side. I'm against WO and CW. But the community was clearly struggling to stay alive and that was touching, and the lady vicar was trying her best. [ 12. February 2014, 15:26: Message edited by: Gottschalk ]
-------------------- Gottschalk Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|