|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Meet the FOCAs...
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Hence, FOCA's claim that it is really about scripture is only fair, from their POV.
As I've posted (much to Spawn's annoyance) on one of the other GAFCON threads - this claim would only hold up if they treated women priests and divorce/remarriage in the same scriptural way. That they haven't - deciding that these are secondary matters over which they can disagree - tends to make me, and a lot of other people, think "No, it's really about the gays."
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
I'm not entirely sure how you can say this when our lectionaries appoint the passage to be read at Sunday Eucharists, Evensongs, and midweek Feasts and devotions at least annually - as well as recommending it for use at weddings and funerals - the expectation being that it will often be mentioned in sermons on those occasions.
That's before we get on to the many hymns which have been inspired by it, representations of the virtues in glass or paintings, &c &c.
We may not be very good at expressing these virtues, but I don't think that this is due to any lack of familiarity!
Well, you're right about hymns. But I don't agree that a mere reading from the lectionary once a year constitutes a "teaching." (It's not appointed for funerals in the BCP 1979, although it is for weddings; unfortunately we have a lot more of the former than the latter at my parish, since we have many elderly members and hardly anybody in their 20s.)
But again, I'm really talking about a focus on teaching the virtues; it just doesn't seem to be part of the curriculum here, in any church, denomination, or sect. (From what you and others have said here, it may be different on your side of the Pond.)
I'm having Catechism Envy, is what it is; even that single page from the RCC's Catechism says more about the topic than I've ever heard anywhere, including in my childhood Methodist church. And there is very little teaching of any sort of practice of prayer, either; contemplative prayer would be an ideal method for this, and there are other possibilities, too.
Like I said, I'd never heard of the term "Christian (or Theological) Virtues" before this past year; that doesn't seem good. And when you read about the lack of esteem in which Christianity is held today, I think that's further evidence that I'm not talking completely out of my hat here.
But it could be worse here than there.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
(Just as an example about prayer in the American church: it is not required that priests say Morning and Evening Prayer daily, and it is almost impossible to find it in any except the largest parishes and the cathedrals here.
Most laypeople who want to pray the Office do it alone and on their own. But how can you develop "faith," for instance, without some sort of grooved habit of prayer? I don't see how it's possible - and there's not much encouragement to do this here, or any sort of laying out of the benefits.
Christianity is very negatively-focused here, in general, and very rule-based (i.e., what people shouldn't do). That doesn't leave much room for these three virtues, which are declared in a positive form. And this is because, I think, Christianity has become embroiled in the culture wars and in partisan politics.)
[ 06. July 2008, 19:29: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Davy Wavy Morrison:
...Some of us believe that the Bible says that homosexual activity (i.e. physical sexual activity) is wrong, and it follows that the reason the Bible says that is because it is wrong, against the will of God. ...
And some of us have studied the Hebrew Law and noticed that any form of sexual behavior that wasn't likely to result in offspring was condemned. Some of us look at context, and come to the conclusion that a small embattled minority needed to keep the birthrate high -- and that the Law on these matters reflects that.
quote:
We are quite rightly told these days not to vilify gay people. It is nice when we are accorded the same courtesy (that's a general comment, not referring to anyone here).
Who vilifies straight people? I'm missing something here.
quote:
Some people have all the luck.
Good or bad?
At any rate, I'm sure it was a useful discipline for me.
Ross
[ 06. July 2008, 19:48: Message edited by: Rossweisse ]
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adrian1
Shipmate
# 3994
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
From today's Guardian report of the launch of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans at GAFCON
quote:
Details of Foca were finalised yesterday morning and the reading of the statement was greeted with standing ovations, spontaneous singing, hugging and tears of joy. One of those present said he thought the skies were about to open so the delegates could ascend to heaven.
Or, possibly, for the earth to open so that they could go the other way...
I read about the GAFCON meeting in Friday's Church Times including the 'Jerusalem Statement' which was printed as well. It wouldn't surprise me if a good number of shipmates have also done the same. What I find dangerous and alarming is the insistence by the GAFCON leaders that the Anglican tradition is a 'sola scriptura' one and that it can be justified by appeal to the Thirty Nine Articles and the Book of Common Prayer. Neither of these cornerstones of Anglicanism insist on Scripture being the last word or the sole source of authority. No, the true Anglican tradition which Cranmer, Latimer, Hooker, Andrewes and the other Caroline Divines would have understood is one of joint appeal to Scripture, Tradition and Reason. Secondly, GAFCON appear to propagate the idea that the churches of thev west are preaching a 'false Gospel' of relative values. This is dangerous nonsense and it needs to be exposed as such. The Church of England, ECUSA and the Canasdian Anglican Church have taught nothing but the traditional Gospel and done their best to interpret it in ways that meet th contemporary needs of modern people.
[ 06. July 2008, 20:36: Message edited by: Adrian1 ]
--------------------
The Parson's Handbook contains much excellent advice, which, if it were more generally followed, would bring some order and reasonableness into the amazing vagaries of Anglican Ritualism. Adrian Fortescue
Posts: 1986 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
There's a certain contradiction inherent in asserting sola scriptura on the basis of the 39 Articles and the Prayer Book (neither of those being, last time I checked, Sacred Scripture).
--------------------
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
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
Of course Anglicans aren't "sola scriptura." I want to know what the GAF-ers are smoking, because the whole idea of "confessional Anglicans" is just bizarre.
Bravo, Adrian1!
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:
What I find dangerous and alarming is the insistence by the GAFCON leaders that the Anglican tradition is a 'sola scriptura' one and that it can be justified by appeal to the Thirty Nine Articles and the Book of Common Prayer. Neither of these cornerstones of Anglicanism insist on Scripture being the last word or the sole source of authority.
This idea of 'sola scriptura' is just a red herring. I've got my own criticisms of the Jerusalem Declaration (and I think they're a little better and more accurate than this one), but 'sola scriptura' has no application here. If you'd actually read the declaration you'd have noticed that the Bible is mentioned as containing all things necessary to salvation (to paraphrase) - I really didn't think that was in dispute. Furthermore, it recognises historic and consensual teaching of the Church, the Fathers, and the Councils, as well as other recent sources of authority - the Articles of Religion and the Book of Common Prayer. Hardly a 'sola scriptura' approach.
quote:
No, the true Anglican tradition which Cranmer, Latimer, Hooker, Andrewes and the other Caroline Divines would have understood is one of joint appeal to Scripture, Tradition and Reason.
Oh, it's the 'true Anglican tradition' is it? Who gave you the right to define it? Furthermore it's not a joint and equal appeal to scripture, tradition and reason. Scripture is always considered primary by the Caroline Divines.
quote:
The Church of England, ECUSA and the Canasdian Anglican Church have taught nothing but the traditional Gospel and done their best to interpret it in ways that meet th contemporary needs of modern people.
I love this line. Do you really think they've taught nothing but the traditional Gospel? That's a pretty major claim, and of course it is nonsense. I'd be laughing less if you had qualified it even a little.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
No, a lot that's not "the traditional Gospel" has been taught (and pushed) by the liberal churches. Some of it, I believe, is a logical extension of the traditional Gospel as taught by Anglicanism (inclusion, in particular; using historical criticism, for another), and some of it is not.
On the other hand, a lot of the Jerusalem gang is doing things that are not remotely "traditional" in an Anglican sense.
And as for the whole thing about being "confessional Anglicans" -- I'd still like to know whence that particular neologism springs.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
No, a lot that's not "the traditional Gospel" has been taught (and pushed) by the liberal churches. Some of it, I believe, is a logical extension of the traditional Gospel as taught by Anglicanism (inclusion, in particular; using historical criticism, for another), and some of it is not.
I can probably agree with that to some extent, under the proviso that to talk of 'inclusion' as an absolute value is certainly not traditional nor an extension thereof. The Archbishop of Canterbury distinguishes between 'inclusion' and 'welcome'. I'm with him on that.
quote:
On the other hand, a lot of the Jerusalem gang is doing things that are not remotely "traditional" in an Anglican sense.
And as for the whole thing about being "confessional Anglicans" -- I'd still like to know whence that particular neologism springs.
Ross
It's interesting that it's those who claim they are are prioritising 'inclusion' who actually come up with rigid definitions of Anglicanism to exclude. It's a real danger for all of us to over-define Anglicanism in such a way that others are 'unchurched'. I can understand people taking offence at terms like 'false gospel' applied over-generally to the western churches, but would like you to note that both sides are playing the same game.
This article by Giles Fraser, Chair of Inclusive Church, is a case in point. Terms like 'puritan', fundamentalist, entryism etc are designed to bolster the credentials of liberal Anglicans and delegitimise conservatives in terms of the big, broad tent.
As for whether 'confessionalism' is a neologism to Anglicanism, I'm not so sure. There are the creeds after all, and historic documents such as the Articles of Religion. So I wouldn't say that confessionalism is alien to Anglicanism - unusual perhaps, but confessions are there in Anglican history.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
Sorry to double-post, but it's just struck me that TEC has its own kind of confessionalism based in the baptismal liturgy. The baptismal covenant, so often cited by Episcopalians, as a statement of identity and belief, is distinctive and innovative within modern-day Anglicanism. Is it not a form of confessionalism?
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
surely there comes a point in the relationship between Party A and Party B when, if you have A saying constantly to B, "What you're doing is wrong and it annoys the heck out of me and please stop doing it" and B saying "No it's not wrong, I want to do it and I will keep on doing it regardless of what you say and it annoys the heck out of me that you keep telling not to do it", one would have to question the degree to which any kind of meaningful close relationship could continue to exist between the the parties.
That may be the case. But that is not, in my view, grounds for choosing to snub Christ and to refuse to share communion.
We share communion not because we have a "meaningful close relationship", but because we share faith in the same saving Christ.
We share communion not because we agree about everything - or even about all the really important things, but because we agree that in Christ is our salvation (however we may understand that).
Sharing communion is not the same thing as saying "I agree with you" or even "it doesn't matter that we disagree". Sharing communion IS saying "we may not agree about a lot of things, but we agree about seeking to follow Christ and be obedient to him".
Refusing to share communion is - to me - equivalent to claiming that the other person is not really a Christian. Or - to put it another way - if you can't share communion then don't pretend to be part of the same Church. Those who refuse to share communion are making sweeping judgements about the faith and integrity of those they are ignoring and rejecting.
Again, this is a conflation of 'sharing Holy Communion/the Eucharist together' with 'being in communion as one Church/one ecclesial body'. You can do the former (in Anglicanism at least) without being the latter: at our CofE place at Holy Communion, for example, the direction is given that anyone who is a non-Anglican but in good standing with their own church is welcome to receive, and thus we have from time to time Methodists, Baptists etc receiving communion with us; that doesn't make them Anglicans though. For them to become Anglicans, there would need to be some kind of consent to, for want of a better term, 'Anglican core values'. Now we can argue to the cow's come home as to what those 'core values' are, but suffice it to say that I remain to be convinced that the actions of TEC and AC-Can are in accordance with those (doubtless there are posters here who would say the same about GAFCON) but this does raise an interesting further point:
It's been asked both here and on other threads why the issue of same-sex relationships is such a 'deal breaker' for conservatives. I'm not convinced that it is - on its own. But for many evangelicals, it comes as the culmination of a series of, as they see it, deviations from the Gospel by liberals over the last 50 years or so. For conservatives, the theological rot set in with the likes of +John Robinson's Honest to God way back in 1962 and perhaps the Church should have been 'honest with John' back then and said, "Yep, that's fine, you can have those views but we don't really think you should carry on as a bishop". But, rightly or wrongly, the Church didn't and, from the conservative perspective, it tolerated the existence of the liberals in its midst, albeit with much grumbling from time to time. I think that, given that background, the consecration of Gene Robinson was the last straw: in the words of Tolkien's dwarvish creation, Thrain, the conservative response to this was, "This cannot be borne!"
I'm just trying to put things from the con-evo POV; I would guess that the liberals would say similar things about us. I'm not sure however that there is a way back for either party from these increasingly entrenched positions, sadly.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cardinal Pole Vault
Papal Bull
# 4193
|
Posted
quote:
Again, this is a conflation of 'sharing Holy Communion/the Eucharist together' with 'being in communion as one Church/one ecclesial body'. You can do the former (in Anglicanism at least) without being the latter:
Being in communion *is* most concretely expressed by sharing communion at the altar.
If you don't share communion, then you are not in communion
But taking communion (when not in 'formal' communion) is a sign of a desire to be in full communion (and all Christians are in 'communion' to an extent by virtue of baptism anyway)
The CofE's position on alowing other baptised Christians to partake is not meant to be a 'regular' thing. If an individual was going to be a regular communicant at an Anglican altar then they should enter into formal communion with the CofE.
But this is perhaps where Anglican practice confuses the theology/ecclesiology somewhat
--------------------
"Make tea, not war"
Posts: 986 | From: Insula Tiberina | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adrian1
Shipmate
# 3994
|
Posted
Spawn wrote: quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Church of England, ECUSA and the Canasdian Anglican Church have taught nothing but the traditional Gospel and done their best to interpret it in ways that meet th contemporary needs of modern people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I love this line. Do you really think they've taught nothing but the traditional Gospel? That's a pretty major claim, and of course it is nonsense. I'd be laughing less if you had qualified it even a little.
I think a little clarification is called for here. What I meant was that that the churches in question haven't taught any other 'Gospel' than the traditional one. However they have to interpret it afresh for every generation and apply it in a way which is relevant to people living in the complex and challenging world of today. That necessarily involves a critical, scholarly and robust engagement with Scripture. What is palpable nonsense is the idea put forward by GAFCON that the western churches have propagated some sort of 'false Gospel' of which they need to repent. If anyone needs to repent it's the leaders and Primates of GAFCON who are doing a great deal of harm to the unity of the Anglican Communion by sowing the seeds of division.
--------------------
The Parson's Handbook contains much excellent advice, which, if it were more generally followed, would bring some order and reasonableness into the amazing vagaries of Anglican Ritualism. Adrian Fortescue
Posts: 1986 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I can probably agree with that to some extent, under the proviso that to talk of 'inclusion' as an absolute value is certainly not traditional nor an extension thereof. The Archbishop of Canterbury distinguishes between 'inclusion' and 'welcome'. I'm with him on that.
"There is no male or female, Jew or Gentile, male or free, in Christ Jesus." I was brought up to believe that with all my heart -- and by a very conservative, Anglican-to-the-core great-great-etc. niece of +John Cosin, yet. Inclusion and welcome have always been essentially the same in my experience -- and, again, I'm from a conservative background. It's what distinguishes us from the illiberal and exclusionary, on both sides.
quote:
It's interesting that it's those who claim they are are prioritising 'inclusion' who actually come up with rigid definitions of Anglicanism to exclude....
I'm sorry, Spawn; I realize that these folks are your buddies, but I repeat: The notion of "confessional Anglicans" is a complete neologism, and simply too bizarre to be entertained.
Being conservative I understand (I used to be one -- and I still am, in certain quarters!), but abandoning the core of Anglicanism -- nope. Lutherans are confessional; we base our faith on the Creeds.
The Jensenistas should have the courage of their convictions, walk away from the precious property, and just join the Presbyterians. They'd be happier there, and the actual Anglicans in Sydney would be happier with them there, too.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mertseger
Faerie Bard
# 4534
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
The Jensenistas should have the courage of their convictions, walk away from the precious property, and just join the Presbyterians.
Hey, now, don't get mean. We Presbyterians may be confessional, but we're working our way towards the ordination of gays as well. (We got one approved by the Presbytery! Go Lisa!)
[fixed UBB]
[ 08. July 2008, 04:48: Message edited by: Mertseger ]
--------------------
Go and be who you are:
The Body of Christ,
The Goddess of Body,
The Manifest Song of Faerie.
Posts: 1765 | From: Oakland, CA, USA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Lutherans are confessional; we base our faith on the Creeds.
A distinction without a difference. Especially considering that it's not unusual for a priest to invite people to say one of the creeds by saying, "Let us confess our faith in the words of the Nicene/Apostles Creed."
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
I note that both you and Adrian1 have dropped the 'sola scriptura' claim. That's one less red herring to address.
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
"There is no male or female, Jew or Gentile, male or free, in Christ Jesus." I was brought up to believe that with all my heart -- and by a very conservative, Anglican-to-the-core great-great-etc. niece of +John Cosin, yet. Inclusion and welcome have always been essentially the same in my experience -- and, again, I'm from a conservative background. It's what distinguishes us from the illiberal and exclusionary, on both sides.
Welcome is unqualified, inclusion is qualified. As Anglicans we don't have completely open communion, we don't ordain everyone who comes through the church door. Welcome makes no expectations, inclusion does.
quote:
I'm sorry, Spawn; I realize that these folks are your buddies, but I repeat: The notion of "confessional Anglicans" is a complete neologism, and simply too bizarre to be entertained.
What Ruthw said, and what I said before. I've pointed to historic documents in Anglicanism which were confessions. You haven't addressed these points.
quote:
The Jensenistas should have the courage of their convictions, walk away from the precious property, and just join the Presbyterians. They'd be happier there, and the actual Anglicans in Sydney would be happier with them there, too.
Ross
I don't think this particular paragraph distinguishes you from the 'illiberal and exclusionary' you referred to above. In fact, your sense of irony is badly askew. Why single out Sydney and the Jensens in this context? Is that because it's too politically incorrect to tell the Nigerians, Ugandans and other Africans to get knotted? Why this obsession with Sydney? I don't think you've ever been there.
'True Anglicans', 'actual Anglicans'... I'd like to know who made you the arbiter of what an Anglican is?
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
What Spawn said; I would make a similar point wrt 'receiving Holy Communion with' -v- 'being in communion with'.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cardinal Pole Vault
Papal Bull
# 4193
|
Posted
quote:
Spawn said: Welcome is unqualified, inclusion is qualified. As Anglicans we don't have completely open communion, we don't ordain everyone who comes through the church door. Welcome makes no expectations, inclusion does
But we do (more or less) baptise 'anyone who comes through the church doors'. That *is*inclusion. It's more than that- it's incorporation into the very Body of Christ.
Of course, 'Jesus loves us as we are, but loves us too much to let us stay that way': the Christian life is transformative. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the issue of how and in what way gay members of the Body of Christ need to be transformed.
--------------------
"Make tea, not war"
Posts: 986 | From: Insula Tiberina | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Yes, we do baptise pretty much everyone, but we don't confirm or admit just anyone to communion
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Matt, the admittance to communion is becoming less determined by confirmation. It is now down to local parishes whether they allow children to take communion before confirmation. And most CofE churches would not turn away anyone who came up for communion.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
The C of E churches around here that I am familiar with admit anyone to communion who wants to come pretty much.
I've been in the C of E 4 years now and have no desire to be confirmed. I had an adult baptism and am happy with that, my faith has already been confirmed. None of the churches I have been in have ever asked me if I've been confirmed but accepted me as a full part of the church as a confessing christian.
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Welcome is unqualified, inclusion is qualified. As Anglicans we don't have completely open communion, we don't ordain everyone who comes through the church door. Welcome makes no expectations, inclusion does.
"Inclusion" as in "inclusion of all Christians." We do offer communion to all baptized persons.
quote:
I've pointed to historic documents in Anglicanism which were confessions. You haven't addressed these points.
We have never had "confessions" in the way that the Protestant churches did.
quote:
I don't think this particular paragraph distinguishes you from the 'illiberal and exclusionary' you referred to above. In fact, your sense of irony is badly askew. Why single out Sydney and the Jensens in this context? Is that because it's too politically incorrect to tell the Nigerians, Ugandans and other Africans to get knotted? Why this obsession with Sydney? I don't think you've ever been there.
'True Anglicans', 'actual Anglicans'... I'd like to know who made you the arbiter of what an Anglican is?
I don't like ++Akinola & Co. any more than I like the Jensenistas, and I'm sorry if I somehow gave the impression that I do.
I have never before been accused of being "politically correct" -- nice smear there, Spawn!
Actual Anglicans, in my experience, believe in maintaining the Apostolic Succession (as it is popularly known) and three orders of clergy; in the primacy of the sacraments; in particular forms of liturgy (the words of which may vary, but the essential contents of which do not) and in a particular form of Church governance.
I don't like the Jensenistas because they're just a bunch of Calvinist Protestants who lack the moral courage to walk away from the property and the prestige of their positions. "Lay presidency," in particular, goes against everything in the Anglican tradition.
But you knew all that.
I think that you perhaps enjoy stirring the pot and casting aspersions just a little too much for someone who seems to be on the Ship primarily trawling for material to use in your professional work.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
I came back to say that my final paragraph in my last post was too personal, and to apologize for that.
Ross
[ 08. July 2008, 17:33: Message edited by: Rossweisse ]
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
We do offer communion to all baptized persons.
Just like most of the other Protestant churches.
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
We have never had "confessions" in the way that the Protestant churches did.
"the Protestant churches"? But there is huge variation amongst both Anglicans as well as the other Protestant denominations.
Some other churches require all members to sign up to a declaration of faith. Some use the historic creeds. Some have neither. Many of the Lutheran churches were in the same position the CofE was until very recently - the clergy were required to assent to a declaration, but laity were not. More a side-effect of being established, national churches than anything to do with their doctrinal position. Their lords and masters were unwilling to unchurch vast numbers of lay people because they wanted to continue to be able to claim that the established Church (whether Lutheran or Anglican) was the religious expression of the nation, but on the other hand they wanted to enforce some discipline in its clergy (even more so in most Lutheran countries than in England - in Denmark and many parts of Germany the clergy were in effect paid employees of the state and could be dismissed by the state, right up to the 20th century - in England we gave that up at the begining of the 18th)
The norm in Anglicanism until very recently was to require confirmation - and that does require assent to a statement of faith. In many places knowledge of the cathechism was requred as well.
quote:
Actual Anglicans, in my experience, believe in maintaining the Apostolic Succession (as it is popularly known) and three orders of clergy; in the primacy of the sacraments; in particular forms of liturgy (the words of which may vary, but the essential contents of which do not) and in a particular form of Church governance.
Well, in your experience that might be true. But as you know, surely, the "form of Church governance" varies widely between different provinces. And a great many Anglicans - millions of us, in Britain and Ireland as well as in Africa and Australia - do not hold very strongly to the "primacy of the sacraments". And many others regard three orders of clergy as a valuable tradition rather than the essence of the church (if they ever think about them at all which they probably mostly don't) and assign very little value to the 19th century idea of the Apostolic Succession at all. Many of them might never have even heard of it.
quote:
I don't like the Jensenistas because they're just a bunch of Calvinist Protestants who lack the moral courage to walk away from the property and the prestige of their positions.
"Just?" What's "just" about it? Us "Calvinist Protestants" are perfectly good members of Christ's Church thank you very much,and proud of it too. And the hierarchy of Sydney would be perfectly mainstream amongst conservative evangelical Anglicans in Britain - who are as much a part of the Church of England as the post-Oxford-Movement Anglo Catholics are, and have been around for a lot longer. It would be just as easy to accuse the anti-women Anglo-Catholics of Forward in Faith of being "just a bunch" of closet-Catholic tat queens who "who lack the moral courage to walk away from the property and the prestige of their positions". And just as unfair.
quote:
"Lay presidency," in particular, goes against everything in the Anglican tradition.
Gosh, does it? Maybe that's why they aren't doing it then!
quote:
I think that you perhaps enjoy stirring the pot and casting aspersions just a little too much for someone who seems to be on the Ship primarily trawling for material to use in your professional work.
I'm sure Spawn can defend himself against petty personal attacks without help from me. But I have to say that I agree with nearly everything he has written on this thread. It has not been stirring the pot, it has been pretty much the plain truth.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
My last post was cross-posted with Rossweisse's last post so I hadn't yet read it.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
I crossposted with Rossweisse. I'll now consider what to do with her personal criticism and apology.
[ 08. July 2008, 17:43: Message edited by: Spawn ]
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
We have never had "confessions" in the way that the Protestant churches did.
"the Protestant churches"? But there is huge variation amongst both Anglicans as well as the other Protestant denominations.
[...]
The norm in Anglicanism until very recently was to require confirmation - and that does require assent to a statement of faith. In many places knowledge of the cathechism was requred as well.
The Episcopal Church requires making or reaffirming the Baptismal Covenant at the time of confirmation.
quote:
quote:
Actual Anglicans, in my experience, believe in maintaining the Apostolic Succession (as it is popularly known) and three orders of clergy; in the primacy of the sacraments; in particular forms of liturgy (the words of which may vary, but the essential contents of which do not) and in a particular form of Church governance.
Well, in your experience that might be true. But as you know, surely, the "form of Church governance" varies widely between different provinces. And a great many Anglicans - millions of us, in Britain and Ireland as well as in Africa and Australia - do not hold very strongly to the "primacy of the sacraments". And many others regard three orders of clergy as a valuable tradition rather than the essence of the church (if they ever think about them at all which they probably mostly don't) and assign very little value to the 19th century idea of the Apostolic Succession at all. Many of them might never have even heard of it.
Ken, Ross was making reference to the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, found down the linked page a bit.
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Sorry to double-post, but it's just struck me that TEC has its own kind of confessionalism based in the baptismal liturgy. The baptismal covenant, so often cited by Episcopalians, as a statement of identity and belief, is distinctive and innovative within modern-day Anglicanism. Is it not a form of confessionalism?
Distinctive and innovative?
quote:
TO the end that Confirmation may be ministered to the more edifying of such as shall receive it, the Church hath thought good to order, That none hereafter shall be Confirmed, but such as can say the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments; and can also answer to such other Questions, as in the short Catechism are contained: which order is very convenient to be observed; to the end that children being now come to the years of discretion, and having learned what their Godfathers and Godmothers promised for them in Baptism, they may themselves, with their own mouth and consent, openly before the Church, ratify and confirm the same; and also promise, that by the grace of God they will evermore endeavour themselves faithfully to observe such things, as they, by their own confession, have assented unto.
¶ Then shall the Bishop say,
O ye here, in the presence of God, and of this congregation, renew the solemn promise and vow that was made in your name at your Baptism; ratifying and confirming the same in your own persons, and acknowledging yourselves bound to believe and to do all those things, which your Godfathers and Godmothers then undertook for you?
¶ And every one shall audibly answer, I do.
From the 1662 BCP Confirmation service (link opens PDF file).
And, what promises were made at the time of baptism?
quote:
I demand therefore,
DOST thou, in the name of this Child, renounce the devil and all his works, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all covetous desires of the same, and the carnal desires of the flesh, so that thou wilt not follow nor be led by them?
Answer. I renounce them all.
Minister.
DOST thou believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth?
And in Jesus Christ his only-begotten Son our Lord? And that he was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary; that he suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; that he went down into hell, and also did rise again the third day; that he ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; and from thence shall come again at the end of the world, to judge the quick and the dead?
And dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy Catholick Church; the Communion of Saints; the Remission of sins; the Resurrection of the flesh; and everlasting Life after death?
Answer. All this I stedfastly believe.
Minister.
WILT thou be baptized in this faith?
Answer. That is my desire.
Minister.
WILT thou then obediently keep God’s holy will and commandments, and walk in the same all the days of thy life?
Answer. I will.
From the 1662 BCP Confirmation service (link opens PDF file).
So, how much does the above differ in intent this from the current BCP of TEC?
quote:
Question Do you renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces of wickedness that rebel against God?
Answer I renounce them.
Question Do you renounce the evil powers of this world which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God?
Answer I renounce them.
Question Do you renounce all sinful desires that draw you from the love of God?
Answer I renounce them.
Question Do you turn to Jesus Christ and accept him as your Savior?
Answer I do.
Question Do you put your whole trust in his grace and love?
Answer I do.
Question Do you promise to follow and obey him as your Lord?
Answer I do.
After all have been presented, the Celebrant addresses the congregation, saying
Will you who witness these vows do all in your power to support these persons in their life in Christ?
People We will.
The Celebrant then says these or similar words
Let us join with those who are committing themselves to Christ and renew our own baptismal covenant.
The Baptismal Covenant
Celebrant Do you believe in God the Father?
People I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
Celebrant Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God?
People I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
Celebrant Do you believe in God the Holy Spirit?
People I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Celebrant Will you continue in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers?
People I will, with God’s help.
Celebrant Will you persevere in resisting evil, and, whenever you fall into sin, repent and return to the Lord?
People I will, with God’s help.
Celebrant Will you proclaim by word and example the Good News of God in Christ?
People I will, with God’s help.
Celebrant Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself?
People I will, with God’s help.
Celebrant Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?
People I will, with God’s help.
What it seems to me is that the Baptismal Covenant only echoes the promises made, summarizes the Catechism, and has everyone participating.
Why is reminding everyone present of their Christian duty as contained in the Catechism such a bad or innovative thing? Faith without works is dead.
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Many thanks for the apology, Rossweisse, but you know better than to post this outside Hell
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
I think that you perhaps enjoy stirring the pot and casting aspersions just a little too much for someone who seems to be on the Ship primarily trawling for material to use in your professional work.
Ross
So in future, don't.
Louise
Dead Horses Host
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emma Louise:
The C of E churches around here that I am familiar with admit anyone to communion who wants to come pretty much.
I've been in the C of E 4 years now and have no desire to be confirmed. I had an adult baptism and am happy with that, my faith has already been confirmed. None of the churches I have been in have ever asked me if I've been confirmed but accepted me as a full part of the church as a confessing christian.
Some Episcopal churches welcome to communion pretty much anyone who wants to come.
I've taken communion in a variety of churches/denominations over the years, and none of them ever questioned me to see if I had the proper beliefs, etc. The only time there was an issue was when I raised it once on an RC retreat; after talking with me, the priest left it up to my conscience. (He was filling in for the regular priest, who viewed it as a sacrament of unity and wouldn't have had a problem with it.)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adrian1
Shipmate
# 3994
|
Posted
When it comes to admission to communion, there's always been a bit of a mismatch between 'what the book says' and actual practice. Officially the CofE admits to Communion those of its members who have been confirmed 'or are rady and desirous to be confirmed' and in recent years this latter category has specifically included children who have been specially admitted to communion ahead of confirmation. Since 1972 baptised members of other Trinitarian churches who are in 'good standing' with their own church (see Canon B15A) have also been admitted to communion. In practice, however, it's all but impossible (and certainly impossible in a cathedral where the congregation may be mostly tourist in nature) to police who presents themselves at the rail for communion or not as the case may be. Few clergy would actually want to either. It causes far fewer problems to give people the benefit of the doubt and give them communion if they present for it, than to question their eligibilty.
--------------------
The Parson's Handbook contains much excellent advice, which, if it were more generally followed, would bring some order and reasonableness into the amazing vagaries of Anglican Ritualism. Adrian Fortescue
Posts: 1986 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
CJS
Shipmate
# 3503
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
The Jensenistas should have the courage of their convictions, walk away from the precious property, and just join the Presbyterians. They'd be happier there, and the actual Anglicans in Sydney would be happier with them there, too.
Ross
I don't think this particular paragraph distinguishes you from the 'illiberal and exclusionary' you referred to above. In fact, your sense of irony is badly askew. Why single out Sydney and the Jensens in this context? Is that because it's too politically incorrect to tell the Nigerians, Ugandans and other Africans to get knotted? Why this obsession with Sydney? I don't think you've ever been there.
She's obsessed with us. I personally think it's because we're so good looking.
Posts: 665 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I wouldn't know; do you have blow-dried hair and nice teeth and are they all your own or something?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CJS:
She's obsessed with us.
If you're going to steal Spawn's lines from other threads, you really should credit him. And it's rude to speak of other people on the thread as if they weren't here.
quote:
I personally think it's because we're so good looking.
No, I just can't turn away -- it's like a particularly gruesome traffic accident.
And with so many people, on the Ship and elsewhere, focusing on ++Akinola, I don't want the other headline junkies -- like ++Jensen -- feeling left out! It's really kindness on my part. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
Methinks you are too hard on +Peter, Ross. There are ppl in Sydney (Sydney Anglicans) who are a scandal to the Gospel imo, but +Peter is not one of them. Again, imo, he is a good thing; in the Goodhew mold.
+Peter Jensen is a voice of moderation in the GAFCON business, imo. He has demonstrated that he is concerned for social justice and the civil rights of gay ppl. (Also he spoke out strongly on the rights of Australian workers) He very firmly stands against Akinola-style verbal abuse of gay ppl and has similarly clearly spoken out against violence against gay ppl - it's a no-brainer, and it's sad that I even mention it as something special.
Conservatives should take note of that. It is sad that someone says: 'Look, thankyou: because when you were told that Akinola said that gays were lower that farmyard animals you were appalled and spoke out against that. Thankyou, too, for condemning violence against gay people' - sad, because it is so rare as to be remarkable.
GAFCON and some of the fruitloops therein, are lucky, again imo, that they can shelter behind +Peter Jensen's personal credibility.
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
