|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Reservation and the CofE
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
This is a mistake: the rite of Communion is an interpolation or addition, and not a necessary part of the Sacrifice, which is completed when the priest receives the Body and Blood.
I doubt that this view is the norm among mainstream Roman Catholics. It is certainly not the Anglican view which is the only one relevant to this thread.
--------------------
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
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
This is a mistake: the rite of Communion is an interpolation or addition, and not a necessary part of the Sacrifice, which is completed when the priest receives the Body and Blood.
I doubt that this view is the norm among mainstream Roman Catholics. It is certainly not the Anglican view which is the only one relevant to this thread.
As far as I am concerned, it is a statement of fact (historical and theological), which was offered to explain why communicating from the reserved sacrament need not be anathema.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Is a non-communicating Mass canonically or rubrically allowed in either the C of E, other Anglican Provinces, or the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite? (I think it is still allowed in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.) What about in Orthodoxy?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liturgylover
Shipmate
# 15711
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Is a non-communicating Mass canonically or rubrically allowed in either the C of E, other Anglican Provinces, or the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite? (I think it is still allowed in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.) What about in Orthodoxy?
I am not sure about canonically, but I think that even when non-communicating High Mass existed in the CofE, there would always have been a few infirm people who would have received - those who were not able to get to the 8am service. Apart from them - everyone stayed in their seat.
Posts: 452 | From: North London | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Is a non-communicating Mass canonically or rubrically allowed in either the C of E, other Anglican Provinces, or the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite? (I think it is still allowed in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.) What about in Orthodoxy?
Nothing I can find in Common Worship forbids it, nor (oddly) in the Canons, though the BCP does (IIRC).
The GIRM has an explicit section for masses sine populo, so it's definitely allowed: it does presume that where there is a congregation, there will be some who receive, but this isn't, I think, proscriptive.
It is more than "allowed" in the EF: this was the normal shape of the Mass for over a thousand years...
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
This is a mistake: the rite of Communion is an interpolation or addition, and not a necessary part of the Sacrifice, which is completed when the priest receives the Body and Blood. There are different graces to be received from hearing Mass and from Communicating, though we felicitously combine them these days. It can even exist independent of the offering of the Sacrifice, as at Orthodox liturgies of the presanctified, or the giving of the viaticum, or the Good Friday liturgy (where the people receive as well): I agree that the ideal would be to receive from the Hosts consecrated at the same Mass, but this is usually impractical. The Sanctissimum is the Sanctissimum is the Sanctissimum, as far as catholic theology is concerned, so reception of it confers the same graces regardless of when it was consecrated.
I'm not quite sure which of the subsequent posts also to quote, but I am fairly convinced that the above is not correct.
There is a long standing tension over the centuries between those who emphasise the sacrificial element of the Eucharist, that which it derives from Christ's fulfilment of the OT sacrifices, and those who emphasise the supper elements, that which it derives from the Last Supper and Passover. Much of the Catholic criticism of the Protestant understanding is that it ignores the former and only seems to recognise the latter. However, I do not think that however Catholic a person may be, they can actually throw off completely any element of the Last Supper/Passover understanding of the Eucharist.
Nor and this is very fundamental theology, are there different sorts of graces, either as a general principle or as imparted by different parts of the sacrament. That really is a very erroneous idea.
Obviously, I cannot speak for my own, yet alone other ecclesial communities. However I would be surprised to discover that there is any ecclesial community that takes a different view on either of the last two paragraphs.
Furthermore, if one accepts the concepts of benediction and adoration of the sacrament, which is not universal in Christendom, this is because the elements are the body and blood of Christ in the Mass. Adoration and benediction derive from that fact. They are secondary consequences of it, not something that exists independently of it.
I have not got time or access to the right resources at the moment, but I'm under the fairly certain impression that so far as the Church of England is concerned, services of holy communion where either no one or only the priest communicates are not permitted. That is not to say they may have never happened. Clearly in some circles they have. However, they are not supposed to have done. They are also definitely alien to the 'normal' C of E way of doing things. My recollection is that it is the combined effect of the various rubrics in the BCP that if there is nobody else to receive, the service has to stop at the end of ante-communion.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I have not got time or access to the right resources at the moment, but I'm under the fairly certain impression that so far as the Church of England is concerned, services of holy communion where either no one or only the priest communicates are not permitted.
They are certainly not encouraged. You are right that the BCP rubrics forbid the practice. I imagine that the reason that the rubrics of the new rites don't mention it is that non-communicating celebrations were virtually non-existent by the time they were drawn up. I don't know what canon law says on the matter.
However, there is a distinction between actually prohibiting the laity from receiving (which I guess rarely happened, even if they were discouraged, in the bad old days) and prohibiting the celebration of the eucharist in the absence of communicants. If there is a congregation, and the priest gets as far as the communion, it's a fait accompli anyway even if nobody comes up to receive.
I attended a most bizarre eucharist recently (not in an extreme anglo-catholic church) where the priest explained, in deference to the large number of Muslims present, that only he would receive communion. ![[Confused]](confused.gif) ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) That begs so many questions.
--------------------
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
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
But the priest always receives. He must, to make the Sacrifice complete (which is why a bell is sometimes rung at that moment). Doing so he represents, as in so much else, the whole plebs sancta Dei. How else are private Masses allowed? You may say that they aren't, or shouldn't be, but they are the constant practice of the Western Church for centuries.
In re the CofE: the rubrics of the BCP do not bind universally, unless using that book, I think. And as I say, I can't find a prohibition in the canons (which surprised me as well): perhaps I'm not looking hard enough.
I was perhaps too hasty when I spoke of different graces: what I meant was that one can receive grace by hearing the Mass. Since we know that the reception of the sacrament also effects grace (ex opere operato if you like), then we have discerned two modes of God's operation in respect to the Holy Sacrifice. Inextricably bound up, yes, but distinct.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Is a non-communicating Mass canonically or rubrically allowed in either the C of E, other Anglican Provinces, or the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite? (I think it is still allowed in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.) What about in Orthodoxy?
Nothing I can find in Common Worship forbids it, nor (oddly) in the Canons, though the BCP does (IIRC).
The GIRM has an explicit section for masses sine populo, so it's definitely allowed: it does presume that where there is a congregation, there will be some who receive, but this isn't, I think, proscriptive.
It is more than "allowed" in the EF: this was the normal shape of the Mass for over a thousand years...
I think the GIRM for the Ordinary Form does not allow it. A Mass Sine Populo is exactly what it sounds like - there is no congregation so there is no question about offering communion to them.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
For Roman Catholics, it's not a matter of rubric, but of canon law: you can only prevent someone from receiving communion at Mass if they are obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin. Unless everyone in the congregation is in this condition, you can't plan to have a Mass in which you don't offer communion. Now, if the people spontaneously all chose to refrain from receiving, that's another story.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
For Roman Catholics, it's not a matter of rubric, but of canon law: you can only prevent someone from receiving communion at Mass if they are obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin. Unless everyone in the congregation is in this condition, you can't plan to have a Mass in which you don't offer communion. Now, if the people spontaneously all chose to refrain from receiving, that's another story.
Does this currently apply to the Extraordinary Form as well?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
But the priest always receives. He must, to make the Sacrifice complete
I have been present when a priest consecrated bread and wine for lay servers to take to sick parishioners, and no-one ate or drank at that time. As the priest was not one of those intending to take the sacrament to the sick that day, I am pretty sure they did not communicate themselves. I think I've seen that more than once.
As I said before I'd prefer that we used bread and wine from the normal Sunday celebration for this rather than have a little private ceremony in the vestry or the vicarage, but I know that isn't always practical. (It probably would have been practical in this case but some of the priests at the church I am thinking of seem to have very little sense of the sacramental. Some people just don't "get" music or poetry or painting opr sport or some other art form - these clergy don't seem to "get" ritual or drama or sacrament. Just not part of their personal makeup)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
Yes, it's in the Code (915), so binding on all Latin Rite Roman Catholics regardless of which form of that rite they're celebrating. It may well be different in other rites, I don't know.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
But the priest always receives. He must, to make the Sacrifice complete
I have been present when a priest consecrated bread and wine for lay servers to take to sick parishioners, and no-one ate or drank at that time. As the priest was not one of those intending to take the sacrament to the sick that day, I am pretty sure they did not communicate themselves. I think I've seen that more than once.
That is definitely irregular in the C of E. Both the BCP and Common Worship say that the priest must receive the sacrament on every occasion.
quote:
As I said before I'd prefer that we used bread and wine from the normal Sunday celebration for this rather than have a little private ceremony in the vestry or the vicarage, but I know that isn't always practical. (It probably would have been practical in this case but some of the priests at the church I am thinking of seem to have very little sense of the sacramental. Some people just don't "get" music or poetry or painting opr sport or some other art form - these clergy don't seem to "get" ritual or drama or sacrament. Just not part of their personal makeup)
I think this is what some of us are getting at when we suggest that many modern evangelicals in the C of E are just not in the Anglican tradition. Anglicanism has always 'got' liturgy and sacraments even when these were celebrated in a very simple and minimalist way.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
Yes, it's in the Code (915), so binding on all Latin Rite Roman Catholics regardless of which form of that rite they're celebrating. It may well be different in other rites, I don't know.
I have a copy of the 2nd edition of Fortescue's book and he says "any Catholic has normally a right to present himself for Communion at any Mass, on condition that he is in a state of grace and fasting from midnight" so I would surmise that while non-communicating masses were customary they were not law.
--------------------
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
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
But the priest always receives. He must, to make the Sacrifice complete
I have been present when a priest consecrated bread and wine for lay servers to take to sick parishioners, and no-one ate or drank at that time. As the priest was not one of those intending to take the sacrament to the sick that day, I am pretty sure they did not communicate themselves. I think I've seen that more than once.
As I said before I'd prefer that we used bread and wine from the normal Sunday celebration for this rather than have a little private ceremony in the vestry or the vicarage, but I know that isn't always practical. (It probably would have been practical in this case but some of the priests at the church I am thinking of seem to have very little sense of the sacramental. Some people just don't "get" music or poetry or painting opr sport or some other art form - these clergy don't seem to "get" ritual or drama or sacrament. Just not part of their personal makeup)
When I have consecrated for home communions, I've always done so as part of a public celebration of the Eucharist (usually but not always in church on Sunday). I would never want to do such a consecration separately from a full celebration of the Eucharist, which necessarily includes the communion of at least the presiding minister.
--------------------
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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
[QB] But the priest always receives. He must, to make the Sacrifice complete [QB]
That assumes you believe that it is a sacrifice. Many Anglicans don't.
In any event the sacrifice was complete on the cross.
[ 10. January 2014, 22:36: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
[QB] But the priest always receives. He must, to make the Sacrifice complete [QB]
That assumes you believe that it is a sacrifice. Many Anglicans don't.
In any event the sacrifice was complete on the cross.
The joke's on them, then, since the word "sacrifice" appears at least twice in the BCP communion service.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Quam Dilecta
Shipmate
# 12541
|
Posted
The Roman Catholic canon which requires that any Catholic present and properly prepared to receive the Sacrament has the right to do so is not new. It is mentioned in Fortescue's Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Explained, first published in 1917. (My copy is a later edition, so I cannot be entirely certain as to the date of the canon.)
--------------------
Blessd are they that dwell in thy house
Posts: 406 | From: Boston, Massachusetts, USA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
A St Paul deals with Christians at Corinth who do not want to eat meat offered to idols. Which means that the meat of animals offered in sacrifice was not eaten as part of the religious rite, but put on sale at the market for consumption at home. The eating of the meat was not part of the religious sacrifice at least in Corinth.
B Whether or not the Eucharistic action is a sacrifice, communion is an essential part of the action. The presiding priest will at least communicate, but in theory all the faithful present may well do so, and now often do. To ascribe outstanding significance to the communion of the priest above that of anybody else is a very misleading bit of clericalism.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
There is truth in both assertions about the 'rights' of Catholics to present themselves for Communion at any Mass.
Old Missals often omit the texts used at the Communion of the Faithful.Indeed this Communion could be seen as an interpolation as,after the priest's communion,if people presented themselves, the altar server would begin the prayer Confiteor... and the priest would give Absolution followed by Domine,non sum dignus.This was exactly the rite used for the distribution of Holy Communion outside of Mass. In the really olden days Holy Communion,strange as it may now seem,was often administered outside of Mass,usually due to fasting regulations.I can remember this practice until the beginning of the 1960s.With one of the changes to the Missal, perhaps in 1962, the rite of Communion was made an integral part of the rite of Mass.The priest would say 3 times Domine,non sum dignus.. and then communicate himself and any of the faithful who presented themselves without the separate rite.
A Missal printed in 1910 has the following about Communion:
Here Holy Communion is administered,if any of the Faithful are desirous of receiving it,and should the Mass be one where Holy Communion can be conveniently given.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
[QB] But the priest always receives. He must, to make the Sacrifice complete [QB]
That assumes you believe that it is a sacrifice. Many Anglicans don't.
In any event the sacrifice was complete on the cross.
The joke's on them, then, since the word "sacrifice" appears at least twice in the BCP communion service.
That assumes that the BCP has got it right, of course. OMMV.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif) I thought that controversy was knocked on its head years ago. Of course there is only one sacrifice: the point of the mass/eucharist/Lord's Supper is that it allows us to participate in it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Liturgylover
Shipmate
# 15711
|
Posted
Another associated issue is that of the Sanctuaty Lamp to indicate the presence of the Sacrament. Has the use of these increased over time in non Anglo-Catholic parishes, or have they tended to be introduced at the same time as reservation?
Posts: 452 | From: North London | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I thought that controversy was knocked on its head years ago. Of course there is only one sacrifice: the point of the mass/eucharist/Lord's Supper is that it allows us to participate in it.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Stonespring:
quote:
Are there any rules anywhere in the Anglican Communion for disposing of reserved consecrated bread and wine that has been kept to long to be consumed? In the RCC, the consecrated wine needs to be poured into a drain that goes directly into the ground and not into a sewer. The consecrated hosts need to be buried or burned.
Hosts last a surprisingly long time in a dry, airtight environment. One year we reserved the 'secret' on Good Friday and then forgot all about it. We were reminded when we opened the aumbry in the Lady Chapel the year after to find the missing ciborium and its contents! After a momentary hesitation I reverently consumed them. They were in a perfectly acceptable condition.
The other bit of advice I remember reading on these boards some years ago is that if a host is not fit for human consumption it can be left in water. When it disintegrates it ceases to be the Body of Christ and the resulting slurry can be poured into the consecrated earth. I don't think that I imagined it but I would be intrigued to know what others think of this practice.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
That is what I have seen done when someone coughed up the Host.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Hosts last a surprisingly long time in a dry, airtight environment.
Yes we do - I'll assume this a compliment on my skin-tone...
Ahem.
Just to remind all and sundry that the discussion about the nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass vs. memorialism is a tangent to this thread and would probably require a thread of its own to do it justice. Perhaps for current purposes we can assume that Anglicans are permitted to reserve the Sacrament under at least some circumstances without being considered to be idolatrous and take it from there...
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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Ah, but can you fit an Ecclesiantics Host into a monstrance? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
That presumably depends on how monstrous the monstrance is, though not (I hope) on how monstrous the Host is.
Perhaps you'd like to de-monstrate.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Ahem.
Getting back to the subject, our place has a nice aumbry in the north wall of the chancel, wot is seemly, edifying, and pleasing to Bishops, as enny fule kno.
However.....a previous Vicar (back in the 1920s) with baroque tastes moved the High Altar forward to make space at the far west end of the church for a small chapel facing the said aumbry, which chapel he adorned with an altar, some wooden candlesticks (alas, now attacked by woodworm), a corona, and some angels - all of gold-painted wood, and believed to be of Central European origin.........
......whether or not he ever obtained a faculty for this extravaganza, I know not!
It is, however, a useful space for quiet prayer and meditation (and for Sunday Matins), and this, ISTM, is where having a separate space for Reservation can be helpful.
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Sounds lovely, bf.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
On the contrary. They are clearly a crack squad of Protestant woodworm (subspecies Jensenensis), specially bred in the precincts of St Andrew's cathedral and despatched by post worldwide to bring down all trappings of popish idolatry.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
I'm not so sure. I suspect that (given the Central European provenance of the said candlesticks) the woodworm are of the egregious Romanian or Bulgarian variety, deliberately allowed into this country under those awful EU regulations to take away the jobs and livelihood of honest English woodworm!
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
That assumes that the BCP has got it right, of course. OMMV.
Sure--but then the question arises, if they don't think the BCP has it right then why are they Anglican?
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
That assumes that the BCP has got it right, of course. OMMV.
Sure--but then the question arises, if they don't think the BCP has it right then why are they Anglican?
I think if everyone who differed on some point or other with the BCP left the church'd be even emptier than it is now. Considerably so.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Sure--but then the question arises, if they don't think the BCP has it right then why are they Anglican?
As others as well as me have said before, you don't choose the CofE because you agree with the entire package, like you might if you become a Mormon. Most of us have grown up CofE. Even it we haven't, the CofE is the default Christianity for those who are just Christian. There is nothing like the same obligation to be committed to the BCP, Common Worship or whatever, as there is to the basic truths of the Christian Faith and the historic creeds.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Most of us have grown up CofE. Even it we haven't, the CofE is the default Christianity for those who are just Christian.
Exactly. This is why the 'Anglican Communion' has always been more or less dysfunctional: in most places outside England people actually choose 'Anglicanism' as a denomination. It leads to many crossed wires and misunderstandings not least here on the Ship.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
