homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Difference between CofE & RC for your average bloke in the pew (Page 3)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Difference between CofE & RC for your average bloke in the pew
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
IngoB we share the same faith.Explicit awareness of all the teachings of the church is not necessary to make an act of faith or trust.

Equally important is both hope and charity.

You look at the world beyond the visible confines of the church in a different way from me.

Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Anglican deacons, priests, bishops and archbishops in general have no actual sacramental office. They are for example as incapable of consecrating bread and wine into the body and blood of our Lord as I am. Their actual status in RC terms is that of a layperson. One can, of course, recognise their elevated leadership status in their own ecclesial communities, which may or may not include an - unfortunately mistaken - belief that they do have sacramental powers beyond those of laypeople. So perhaps it is better to compare them to RC religious, rather than to just simple RC laypeople. Still, quite apart from canon law that would speak against any such move, you cannot receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from any Anglican, including their current Archbishop Welby. This is unlike for the sort-of-schismatic SSPX, for example, or indeed for the full-on-schismatic Eastern Orthodox. While you generally shouldn't receive sacraments there, you could, because they do have valid ones. The Anglicans, not.

I know that some Anglican clergy received valid Holy Orders from Old Catholic sources (which the Vatican [old & new] recognizes as valid). I'm not sure how many have taken advantage of this gift, and a quick google didn't shed much light.
Not 100% valid because the RCC 'conditionally ordains' such as 'go over'.

--------------------
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
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391

 - Posted      Profile for Humble Servant     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I assume not many RC priests are 'sons of the presbytery'. [Devil]

The CofE isn't short of meetings either. Is there a denomination - sorry I mean ecclesial community! - that doesn't have so many? Perhaps if there is, it keeps quiet about it. People would be rushing to join.

I understand the Quakers have meetings, but don't talk so much in them. Is that better?
Talking isn't the only thing Quakers don't do in their meetings. An Anglo Catholic might find them a bit disappointing if he were looking for liturgy and music!
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Anglican deacons, priests, bishops and archbishops in general have no actual sacramental office. They are for example as incapable of consecrating bread and wine into the body and blood of our Lord as I am. Their actual status in RC terms is that of a layperson. One can, of course, recognise their elevated leadership status in their own ecclesial communities, which may or may not include an - unfortunately mistaken - belief that they do have sacramental powers beyond those of laypeople. So perhaps it is better to compare them to RC religious, rather than to just simple RC laypeople. Still, quite apart from canon law that would speak against any such move, you cannot receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from any Anglican, including their current Archbishop Welby. This is unlike for the sort-of-schismatic SSPX, for example, or indeed for the full-on-schismatic Eastern Orthodox. While you generally shouldn't receive sacraments there, you could, because they do have valid ones. The Anglicans, not.

I know that some Anglican clergy received valid Holy Orders from Old Catholic sources (which the Vatican [old & new] recognizes as valid). I'm not sure how many have taken advantage of this gift, and a quick google didn't shed much light.
Not 100% valid because the RCC 'conditionally ordains' such as 'go over'.
Or perhaps, to be pedantic, not certainly valid.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]We believe that our orders are a continuation of the orders of the RCC.

What's the source of that belief?
The continuation of the practice of consecrating Bishops with broadly the same rites and intention since the reformation. The claim that Anglican orders are invalid in comparison to RC ones is based on a known lie - the Nag's Head fable - among other dubious assertions.
[Eek!]

Hardly anything at all is true in that assertion.

You need to do some research into the composition of the Ordinal of 1552, and the influence of Martin Bucer on Cranmer. The Intention of the Anglican Ordinal was precisely the opposite of the Intention of Catholic Ordination. The ordinations were intent on ordaining preachers. Go and look at the Rites.

The Rites were so comprehensively rewritten as to barely resemble, let alone be "broadly the same" as Catholic Rites precisely to underscore this difference in Intention. As I have said here before, I would have no hesitation in using the 1552 and 1662 Rite of Consecration of a bishop to commission a new school headteacher. There is nothing at all explicit in that rite concerning what a bishop (in the Catholic sense) does.

Anglican Ordinals since then have moved on and the situation is now slightly different - but that cannot be said of the first 400 years of Anglicanism.

The "Nag's Head" fable was a piece of mischievous propaganda, but has precisely nothing to do with the Catholic Church's view of Anglican Order's. It's use to taunt Anglicans is as flimsy as Anglican attempts to validate their Orders by saying it is not true.

There are, however, defects in the consecration of Matthew Parker in Lambeth Palace Chapel, and it is these which are an issue. What are these defects? Well, the form and intention - precisely the things which you so boldly assert to be "broadly the same" as that of the Catholic Church. The only thing that was the same was the names used for the three Orders, and the laying on of hands.

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533

 - Posted      Profile for Pancho   Author's homepage   Email Pancho   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As for beer ... well, not Mexican beer, thank you very much - it doesn't taste of anything and is just there to quench the chillis ...

I wasn't thinking of specifically Mexican beer but to really enjoy it you need to be on a beach in the hot sun with a little bit of lime...

(Actually, I don't always drink beer, but when I do, I̶ ̶p̶r̶e̶f̶e̶r̶ ̶D̶o̶s̶ ̶E̶q̶u̶i̶s̶ I usually get a Bass ale or something craftier if it's available.)

quote:
Originally posted by crunt:
To the OP
I think that the difference between CofE and RC for your average bloke in the pew is that when the average pew-dweller in a CofE church has a disagreeable or unpleasant experience at church, he is likely to vote with his feet and park himself on another pew in another of the town's CofE churches. The average pew-dweller in an RC church who suffers a similarly disagreeable situation is less likely to trundle off to another RC church in the town, and more likely to just stay put and maybe 'offer it up' as he fulfills his religious obligation.

It's a little bit more complicated than that. Most medium to large parishes, and even some small ones, will have several or more masses over the weekend so if someone has an issue with a priest, a deacon, a choir or a fellow parishioner he can often avoid them by just going to mass at a different time. If the parish is large enough it's not that difficult to avoid the disagreeable person(s), even at the same mass, unless the disagreeable person is very involved at the parish and one is or wants to be very involved at the parish. Even the parish priest isn't always that difficult to avoid a lot of the times unless his mere presence drives one up the wall. Finally, there are times when people will dust the sandals from their feet and move to another parish. This gets talked about from time to time online and can happen when one is stuck in a problematic or somewhat loosey-goosey parish.

[ 03. July 2015, 07:27: Message edited by: Pancho ]

--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"

Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
Talking isn't the only thing Quakers don't do in their meetings.

It's sometimes been unclear in some meetings whether they "do" God.

[code]

[ 03. July 2015, 08:32: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Given that (in general) most protestant churches recognise each other as Real Christians, presumably the above means that the RCC does not. All those years of taking Holy Communion are as nothing because it wasn't consecrated by a properly ordained person, etc.

Which does lead on to wonder what they're actually doing engaging with others in ecumenical activities and what they actually privately think of other Christians (in the world, and perhaps here on this bulletin board).

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You're presuming to tell RCs what they actually believe, mr cheesy.

Unless they're lying to me, I've never met an Roman Catholic who has regarded me as anything other than a 'proper' Christian - albeit not in communion with Rome.

The same applies to the Orthodox I know - they certainly regard me as a 'brother in Christ' yet one, from their perspective, who is somehow currently outside the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I have encountered a rather extreme and singularly unpleasant Orthodox individual online - a convert from extreme Calvinism - who doubted that I could possibly be considered a believer in the true sense of the word ... but he was seen as extreme by the majority of his co-religionists on that particular forum.

So, no, unless they're dissembling and making a pretty good fist at insincerity, none of the Catholics - or Orthodox - I've encountered consider the rest of us as un-Christian or heathen ...

Far from it.

The reason they can hold these things in tension - ie that there can be Christians who are not part of the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - is because their ecclesiology differs from ours.

The reason we sometimes misunderstand what they are actually saying, I submit, is because we sometimes misunderstand their ecclesiology.

Now, that's not an attempt on my part to duck any issues or square any circles or to pretend that everything is hunky-dory and because we are all Christians we can just get on ...

No - but it is to acknowledge that it is better to listen to what people actually say about what they believe than jump to conclusions and start putting words into their mouths.

That works both ways round.

--------------------
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
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am not assuming anything, I am saying this appears to be a logical conclusion from what has been said.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It is the logical conclusion if we make certain assumptions and if we hold to a broadly Protestant ecclesiology.

So it is the logical implication if we are wearing Protestant spectacles.

All I'm saying is that the RCs and Orthodox have different lenses in their frames and so see the world with a slightly different focus.

That's why we often end up 'talking past each other'.

Productive dialogue - on both sides - can only begin when we recognise that and ensure that we are on the same page with terminology and understanding before we start. Otherwise we both miss the points that the other is trying to make.

It can take a good while to get to that point.

--------------------
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
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
mr cheesy, one undeniable virtue of the RCC is that she writes down in considerable detail what she holds to be true. As far as the relation of the RCC to other Christian groups goes, besides the official document you can simply browse through the
quote:
Catechism of the Catholic Church
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."

Is that clear enough for you?

--------------------
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
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
mr cheesy, one undeniable virtue of the RCC is that she writes down in considerable detail what she holds to be true. As far as the relation of the RCC to other Christian groups goes, besides the official document you can simply browse through the
quote:
Catechism of the Catholic Church
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."

Is that clear enough for you?
It's clearly a statement that doesn't say "look how bad you non Catholics are" but rather "just look at what God has entrusted only to us". If it were a question of the recipe for making blue candles it would be one thing - claiming the unique gift of non negotiable tenets of the Christian faith is another.

819 implies or suggest that the Catholic Church is only church to which the fullness of grace and truth has been entrusted.

Lots of people (including many who claim to be Catholics and who worship in that church) would disagree with the partiality of this position. It's a position of total arrogance despite an attempt to appease it elsewhere. At least Ingo the RCC makes its understanding of its own beliefs clear - and I admire you all the more for that. It doesn't stop me - and millions of others thinking that you're wrong.

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Is that clear enough for you?

Crystal. So I take it that you believe those outside of the RCC are not Real Christians?

For the record, I am very close to believing the reverse.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It is the logical conclusion if we make certain assumptions and if we hold to a broadly Protestant ecclesiology.

So it is the logical implication if we are wearing Protestant spectacles.

All I'm saying is that the RCs and Orthodox have different lenses in their frames and so see the world with a slightly different focus.

That's why we often end up 'talking past each other'.

Productive dialogue - on both sides - can only begin when we recognise that and ensure that we are on the same page with terminology and understanding before we start. Otherwise we both miss the points that the other is trying to make.

It can take a good while to get to that point.

Aaaah good old Gamaliel - on the fence as usual!
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Crystal. So I take it that you believe those outside of the RCC are not Real Christians?

What exactly do you mean by "Real" there?

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
For the record, I am very close to believing the reverse.

You say that as if I should be worried by that?

--------------------
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
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Is that clear enough for you?

Crystal. So I take it that you believe those outside of the RCC are not Real Christians?


What a strange thing to say. That is precisely the opposite of what para 818 says.

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
819 implies or suggest that the Catholic Church is only church to which the fullness of grace and truth has been entrusted.

Lots of people (including many who claim to be Catholics and who worship in that church) would disagree with the partiality of this position. It's a position of total arrogance despite an attempt to appease it elsewhere. At least Ingo the RCC makes its understanding of its own beliefs clear - and I admire you all the more for that. It doesn't stop me - and millions of others thinking that you're wrong.

And you're free to think they're wrong. I think they're wrong, but I don't think it's necessarily due to arrogance. I would make the same claim concerning Orthodoxy. It's the result of a coherent ecclesiology. I think this is where Protestant ecclesiology is way off the mark as to be positively incoherent.

[ 03. July 2015, 10:58: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
What exactly do you mean by "Real" there?

Not sure. How do you see Christians outside of the RCC?

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
For the record, I am very close to believing the reverse.

You say that as if I should be worried by that?
I doubt anything could worry you, but I guess sometimes it is helpful to see how others perceive us. Also possible that it is useful to perceive that others have an equal and opposite claim to divine exclusiveness.

[ 03. July 2015, 11:32: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's a position of total arrogance despite an attempt to appease it elsewhere. At least Ingo the RCC makes its understanding of its own beliefs clear - and I admire you all the more for that. It doesn't stop me - and millions of others thinking that you're wrong.

I've said this before, but I don't see why the Catholic claim to have received some measure of divine grace and revelation that is absent, or at least not guaranteed, in the rest of the Christian faith, is somehow qualitatively more arrogant than the general Christian claim to have received grace and revelation that isn't present in, say, Hinduism or Buddhism. Protestant smugness about our humbleness here seems to me analogous to an investment banker boasting of his pay restraint because he didn't claim back a fiver for his taxi fare.

--------------------
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
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
What a strange thing to say. That is precisely the opposite of what para 818 says.

Maybe there are different ways of reading this, but it seems to me it is saying that salvation is only found outside of the RCC in as far as these groups get their fullness and power from the RCC.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes - which is also what the Orthodox believe about the Orthodox 'take' on Christianity.

The clue is in the title.

That doesn't mean that Christians who are not Orthodox with a Big O are not 'real' Christians.

Anymore than the RCs are saying that Christians who are not Roman Catholic with a Big R and a Big C are not 'real' Christians.

To say, as both Churches do, that the rest of us only derive whatever validity or efficacy we profess or possess from them isn't to say that we aren't real Christians at all.

It may sound like fence-sitting but I've long since come to the conclusion that the only aspects of Christianity that I'm really interested in are those aspects - the dogmatic core if you like - that we all of us share in common with the RCs and the Orthodox - the kind of overlapping bit you get on the Venn Diagram.

I no longer feel insulted or 'got at' by the RCC and Orthodox claims to exclusivity - although I am bemused by them - they can't BOTH be right ...

Because, historically speaking, anything that we as Protestants believe that is common to Christianity as a whole we have derived from the pair of them ... we didn't exist until the 1500s - although there were some precursors or foreshadowings if you like among the Hussites and Lollards and Waldensians ...

Hence my 'paleo-orthodox' position.

And yes, I do sit on the fence - and I have the calluses on my backside to prove it ...

The key to this whole thing is ecclesiology, of course.

In Protestant ecclesiology belonging to the church (or Church) tends to be closely associated with soteriology - I believe, therefore I am 'saved', therefore I am a member of the church (or Church).

In RC and Orthodox ecclesiology, this doesn't necessarily follow in the same way. You can be a member of the Church and still not necessarily 'saved'.

Equally, you can be saved and not be a member of the Church in a formal sense -- both the RCs and the Orthodox tend to be more 'hopeful' and optimistic about the salvation of those beyond the Christian pale than many - if not most - Protestant evangelicals are.

--------------------
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
Vidi Aquam
Apprentice
# 18433

 - Posted      Profile for Vidi Aquam   Email Vidi Aquam   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (Outside The Church there is no salvation).

But what is The Church? ALL Christians? Only Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox? Just pre-Vatican II RCs that have the traditional priesthood, sacraments and Tridentine Latin Mass? It depends on where you draw the dividing line.

Or forgot all that and go with Universal Salvation?

Or... should we really be worrying about what happens when we're DEAD, or should we just focus on being ALIVE?

Posts: 33 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'd also add - arrogantly or humbly, take it how you will - that the arrogance thing cuts both ways too.

I've been in dialogue with RCs and Orthodox for some 20 years or so now and it took me a good while to appreciate that what I took to be arrogance on their part, could also appear to them as arrogance on mine.

Which comes back to my point about the lenses and spectacles we're wearing. It all depends on our prescription.

Both the RCs and the Orthodox claim to have 20/20 vision - so far as is possible this side of Eternity - so whilst that might appear arrogant to the rest of us - from their perspective any challenge or contradiction we might throw their way is also going to appear arrogant.

As Protestants, with the best will in the world, we often don't realise how we sound to those on the more Catholic side of things ...

I'm caricaturing (slightly) but here's how I'd imagine it can sound:

'There are no such things as sacraments because I say so ...'

'I have unilaterally decided to set aside 1500 years of received wisdom and tradition because I know best ...'

'I have the Holy Spirit and can understand the scriptures better than you can ...'

'You pray to Mary and the Saints, therefore you have a substandard view of Christ ...'

'You aren't properly born-again or saved because you haven't prayed the Sinner's Prayer ...'

And so on .. and so on ... and on and on and on ...

Ok, mercifully, very few of us here on these Boards would go round haranguing Catholics and Orthodox with that sort of schtick - but a lot of Protestants do.

I remember hearing a fascinating talk on aspects of RC spirituality at a lunchtime meeting at a university where I used to work. There was time for questions afterwards and an African student immediately put up his hand, 'Where was the Catholic Church mentioned in the Bible? Where do we find Catholics in the scriptures? There is no such thing as Catholics only Christians ... are Catholics real Christians? yadda yadda yadda ...'

The point was, he'd missed the point. He clearly hadn't listened to a word that the RC speaker had said.

Behind me, one of the Catholic students muttered, 'What do you mean, 'Where are the Catholics in the Bible?' We wrote the Bible ...'

Ok - one might cavil at that from an historic perspective - but who DID write the Bible? The Protestants didn't. We didn't exist at that time. And 'Catholic' of course, is being used in the sense of 'universal' ... the Church wrote the Bible ... as it were ... the Bible is the book of the Church - the people of faith.

Anyhow - all this is to underline my point - that we have to define our terms and understand our ground for debate. Otherwise we end up talking past each other - as per the objections raised by the student in the question time session I mentioned. How arrogant do you think his questions sounded to a Catholic audience?

--------------------
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
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh, I think it is arrogance on everyone's part. And a good deal of talking past each other.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Not sure. How do you see Christians outside of the RCC?

As followers of my Lord Jesus Christ, who are either in explicit denial of some of His teachings, or are explicitly disobedient to the shepherds He has sent for their care, or - typically - both in some combination.

However, few of those other Christians are fully culpable for this diminished relationship they have with God. Indeed, many of them are honestly convinced that it is I and my fellow RCs who are so diminished. It is hence not simply ill will, or worse, mortal sin, which creates this long-lasting discord. The situation is instead rather similar to how we all still suffer the effects of Adam's "original sin", through having lost his heirloom, even though we are not personally guilty of Adam's sin. We have lost Christian unity, but our personal guilt for this is typically limited.

Furthermore, just like many of the athletes in the Paralympics would comprehensively trounce me in all sorts of athletic endeavours, in spite of me being "non-handicapped" and them being "handicapped", there is no reason to expect that I'm personally holier and more pleasing to God than those other Christians, just because my Christianity is "non-handicapped" and theirs is "handicapped". It's not just what you have, it is much more what you do with it. And without doubt many of those other Christians have done way more with what they have than I will ever do with what I have. And in some sense, this is to my special shame. Just like a "non-handicapped" couch-potato watching the Paralympics might feel a special shame at seeing their performances, the shame of knowing that others are doing better with worse odds.

--------------------
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
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A diminished relationship with God or a diminished relationship with the Church, IngoB?

This works both ways, of course - I can't remember which thread it was now but I recently challenged Kaplan Corday for 'feeling sorry' for those Christians whose eucharistic and worship traditions are more 'formal' than those found in his own.

As if that implied that their experience of worship or encounter with the Almighty was somehow truncated in comparison with his.

The reverse could equally be said, of course - you would undoubtedly see his form of informal eucharistic observance as somehow unfulfilled and short of the mark ...

Or my inveterate fence-sitting as another example of something that falls short of the ideal.

--------------------
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
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
A diminished relationship with God or a diminished relationship with the Church, IngoB?

With God. The Church is our communal relationship with God.

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
This works both ways, of course - I can't remember which thread it was now but I recently challenged Kaplan Corday for 'feeling sorry' for those Christians whose eucharistic and worship traditions are more 'formal' than those found in his own.

I have little time for "liturgy wars", and membership in the Church is to me not in the first place about some particular liturgical style. These discussions often have the character of snobbery, and so from all sides. Liturgy has a specific function, and fighting about liturgy is for the most part like the fight what car is the "best", when the issue is to drive five minutes to town (i.e., when most cars will do).

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Or my inveterate fence-sitting as another example of something that falls short of the ideal.

Nobody get to sit on the fence as far as God is concerned. What you call "fence sitting" is in fact its own, distinct theory about God and His interaction with the world. It may be particularly annoying that you tend to express this theory by saying to all and sundry "and you are also right." But in the end that is just smoke you are blowing into your own eyes - you have your own "dogmas", just like everybody does.

--------------------
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
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, of course I do. Some of them I share with you, IngoB.

I'd agree that the Church (however we define it) is about our communal relationship with God - was it Cyprian who said, 'One cannot have God as his Father who doesn't have the Church as his mother'?

Where the fuzziness comes in with me is that I have absolutely no idea who has the most 'right' to consider themselves the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. You say Rome, others say Orthodoxy.

Still others that it's the sum total of all believers irrespective of ecclesial labels.

I might be blowing smoke into my own eyes but there's equally the charge that there are all sorts of smoke and mirrors out there ...

Why should I accept your version of things over and against Ad Orientem's, say ... or Kaplan's?

If it were a clear-cut no-brainer that the RCC was the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church then surely the rest of us would have said, 'Ok, it's a fair cop ...' and abandoned our respective positions a long time ago?

I'll agree that we Protestants are inveterately fissaporous, overly individualistic and inclined to our own pet theories and practices ...

But it surely doesn't help when we've got Rome effectively saying, 'I am Spartacus ...' and Orthodoxy doing the same ... 'I am Spartacus ...'

I'm inclined to agree with you on the liturgy thing - but even there ... the Orthodox Liturgy is probably more standardised than the various Roman rites have become - but even there you get people argy-bargying about the 'right' way to do this that or the other and elevating local or regional custom to the level of universality.

--------------------
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
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Where the fuzziness comes in with me is that I have absolutely no idea who has the most 'right' to consider themselves the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. You say Rome, others say Orthodoxy. Still others that it's the sum total of all believers irrespective of ecclesial labels. I might be blowing smoke into my own eyes but there's equally the charge that there are all sorts of smoke and mirrors out there ... Why should I accept your version of things over and against Ad Orientem's, say ... or Kaplan's?

It's funny how you showcase what I'm telling you in the very act of arguing about it. You are not actually fuzzy about this at all. Rather, you believe that it doesn't really matter, that's your entirely well-defined and clean "dogma". We know this, because if you thought it really mattered, then either you would have decided for one alternative already, or you would have put all other things on hold until you felt able to make that decision. But there is no urgency in you here - and there is no urgency, because it doesn't really matter. To you.

This is no fence you are sitting on there. These matter are auto-dogmatic. Whatever your actual choices are concerning fundamentals establishes your religion from the ground up. Making no choice is as much a choice as making a specific choice. Rejecting the need to choose is as much a particularisation as specifically choosing something.

--------------------
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
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sure - I can see what you're getting at and I'm not unaware of the irony and discomfort inherent in my own position.

'Here I wobble ... I can do no other ...'

[Razz]

I'm not sidestepping the very trenchant points you're making but I have been in church communities which believed they were 'hearing from God' and so on and which made some pretty daft decisions at times on the basis of that.

I'm not saying I'm entitled to my wariness, necessarily, but once you've been exposed to dogmaticness of that kind you're hardly likely to want to immediately rush into the arms of other settings which may also prove to out of kilter - but on a much larger scale.

Does that make sense?

--------------------
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
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure - I can see what you're getting at and I'm not unaware of the irony and discomfort inherent in my own position. 'Here I wobble ... I can do no other ...'

What wobble? You would have said the same thing a year ago, two years ago, maybe a decade ago. What discomfort? If you feel any, then you are hiding it well... It's not really irony either, since you are not saying the opposite of what is the case. Anyway, it wasn't really my intention to discuss you, I just wanted to point out that in essential matters a non-choice is as foundational as a specific choice.

[ 06. July 2015, 13:56: Message edited by: IngoB ]

--------------------
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
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Probably 20 years ago too ...

But yes, you're right, a non-choice is tantamount to a choice as it were ...

--------------------
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
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472

 - Posted      Profile for Fr Weber   Email Fr Weber   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
With regard to the Anglican ordinal, the book of 1552 was used for only a very short time. The 1559 matters much more if we're looking at form. And certainly in the 1662 book we see the formula "Receive the Holy Ghost for the work of a priest/bishop in the church of God"--which doesn't seem all that different from the current RC formula to me. The prayer of ordination/consecration is more explicit as to what that work is, certainly, but it's pretty clear from the prayer book what the work of priests and bishops is thought to be. The ordinal doesn't exist in a vacuum.

And if the form is defective, there is still the matter of intent to consider. There is not much basis for the idea that the function of each order of ministers was merely preaching. It is quite clear from the rubrics of the BCP that laypeople were not intended to celebrate the Eucharist or perform any of the other functions of ordained ministry.

The Church of England (and its various progeny) has always been a place where a continuum of ecclesiologies have been held by its adherents, ranging from "Catholic-without-the-Pope" to "Baptists with bishops." I don't doubt that Lancelot Andrewes considered himself a Catholic bishop; on the other hand, J.C. Ryle most certainly did not. The Catholic Church finds this problematic, and I can sympathize--I do too.

As far as the Dutch touch goes, the RCC considers that to be irrelevant. Per Apostolicae Curae, it's the form and intent that are at issue; without those, the mechanical succession is meaningless.

--------------------
"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
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
With regard to the Anglican ordinal, the book of 1552 was used for only a very short time. The 1559 matters much more if we're looking at form. And certainly in the 1662 book we see the formula "Receive the Holy Ghost for the work of a priest/bishop in the church of God"--which doesn't seem all that different from the current RC formula to me. The prayer of ordination/consecration is more explicit as to what that work is, certainly, but it's pretty clear from the prayer book what the work of priests and bishops is thought to be. The ordinal doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Herein lies your problem: having abandoned the Catholic sacramental aspects of Holy Orders, one cannot then a few centuries later start adding them back - especially not when that is done in a deliberately ambiguous fashion so as to allow the interpretation to be acceptable to both interpretations, Catholic and Reformed. The "Catholic" argument for the Anglican Ordinal always has to stretch the argument very tortuously, asking one to agree that one can at least impute a Catholic idea of Orders. That tends to work for the more Catholic-minded Anglican, but not for anyone else. But essentially, one cannot hand on that which one has abandoned. I'm sure God can fix anything, but we can't!

Indeed the ordinal does not exist in a vacuum, and so one needs to uncover Anglican sacramental theology as well. And here again the intentions were quite explicitly to undermine any Catholic notion of the sacraments - hence the suppression of vestments, the removal of stone altars etc. I am sympathetic towards later attempts to recover these, but therein lies the rub: an attempted recovery of things which had been explicitly suppressed. Anglo-Catholic appeals to the "Ornaments Rubric" to validate their ceremonies shows just how far they needed to go to find some sort of Anglican legitimacy for their practices.

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
And if the form is defective, there is still the matter of intent to consider. There is not much basis for the idea that the function of each order of ministers was merely preaching. It is quite clear from the rubrics of the BCP that laypeople were not intended to celebrate the Eucharist or perform any of the other functions of ordained ministry.

I think that applies to Methodists and Presbyterians as well. That does not mean they have a Catholic view of ordination.

The ordination rites refer primarily to the function of preaching and "right doctrine". It is a Ministry of the Word, with sacraments possibly tagged on, if one goes in search of them. Even the "prorectio instrumentorum" consists only in the giving of a Bible - to all three Orders - as indicative of what the intention is. The injunctions and questions to the candidates focus almost exclusively on the Ministry of the Word and behaving in accordance with Biblical standards.

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
The Church of England (and its various progeny) has always been a place where a continuum of ecclesiologies have been held by its adherents, ranging from "Catholic-without-the-Pope" to "Baptists with bishops." I don't doubt that Lancelot Andrewes considered himself a Catholic bishop; on the other hand, J.C. Ryle most certainly did not. The Catholic Church finds this problematic, and I can sympathize--I do too.

"Always"? I think not. That is quite a late development in Anglicanism, largely from the nineteenth century onwards.

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
The injunctions and questions to the candidates focus almost exclusively on the Ministry of the Word and behaving in accordance with Biblical standards.[/QB]

"Almost" - that isn't exclusive. It may be an emphasis but it includes reference to the sacraments as an essential part of the ordination. All the injunctions reflect the offering (and being the example) of Christ to the people.

At least that's what I said when I Presided over and conducted an ordination a couple of weeks ago. But then again with me not being an RC you may not see the act on the day in quite the same way as I do because we see the denominational strands differently - as your fellow RCC Ingo has pointed out.

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
The Church of England (and its various progeny) has always been a place where a continuum of ecclesiologies have been held by its adherents, ranging from "Catholic-without-the-Pope" to "Baptists with bishops." I don't doubt that Lancelot Andrewes considered himself a Catholic bishop; on the other hand, J.C. Ryle most certainly did not. The Catholic Church finds this problematic, and I can sympathize--I do too.

"Always"? I think not. That is quite a late development in Anglicanism, largely from the nineteenth century onwards.
No. There may not have been very many CofE Bishops who regarded themselves as Catholic bishops, and I can't say for sure that there was always at least one such on the bench, but there is a pretty constant stream that can be traced, even if it was a very thin one indeed at times. That stream certainly thickened from the C19 onwards but it was not abesent before that.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sunday mass at the Church of the Saviour, Nerja. Lovely. Left it too late to go forward and bow my head saying 'Soy Anglicano'. Embarrassingly perfect timing. The priest turned his back.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools