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   » The Church of England (and therefore Anglicans) are Protestants?? (Page 5)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: The Church of England (and therefore Anglicans) are Protestants??
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suppose this is the point where I have to point out that Ecclesiantics aims for robust, yet polite, discussion.

We try to avoid letting things become personal, and we certainly avoid rude and dismissive language like flinging 'boo hoo' at people.

This is the last informal pointer, Hostly implements *will* be employed next time.

Your co-operation is, as always, appreciated.

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gordon Bennett! Would "live with it" have been better then?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The question of baptism and rebaptism is rather more extreme in baptist circles. Since baptism is understood to have a specific action as well as a specific (word) formula [Trinitarian and identical to CofE/RC wording], then rebaptism used to be quite common.

It was particularly linked to those churches who have/had a "closed" membership. That is, membership was restricted to those who had been baptised by immersion. These days we tend not to rebaptise as the number of closed membership churches is declining year on year. We rather take the view that it is the public declaration of faith which is important.

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  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 ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Again, it is not rebaptism. It is conditional.

Doesn't matter what you call it. It's still a matter of "only we do it properly".
I don't understand this touchiness. If the original baptism really is pukka then the conditional baptism is no baptism at all.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I don't understand this touchiness. If the original baptism really is pukka then the conditional baptism is no baptism at all.

I think it might have something to do with the insulting implication that us poor benighted heretics can't even be trusted to baptise someone properly.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The question of baptism and rebaptism is rather more extreme in baptist circles. Since baptism is understood to have a specific action as well as a specific (word) formula [Trinitarian and identical to CofE/RC wording], then rebaptism used to be quite common.

It was particularly linked to those churches who have/had a "closed" membership. That is, membership was restricted to those who had been baptised by immersion. These days we tend not to rebaptise as the number of closed membership churches is declining year on year. We rather take the view that it is the public declaration of faith which is important.

It is, of course, also an issue ecumenically: a Baptist church is not viewed in a good light by its (say) Anglican neighbours if it insists on baptising by immersion people who have - according to other church polities - been properly baptised already.

Where things get tricky is where someone joins a Baptist church and says (as did I, many moons ago), "I was christened as a child but I don't regard that as proper baptism since I didn't know what was happening and I had no personal faith at that time - so now I want 'real' baptism". In this case the Minister is damned if they do (because of the ecumenical implications) and damned if they do (because of the pastoral ones). And the candidate will not accept doing a "reaffirmation of baptismal vows": real water, and total immersion, are essential!

[ 04. May 2015, 07:22: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  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 Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I don't understand this touchiness. If the original baptism really is pukka then the conditional baptism is no baptism at all.

I think it might have something to do with the insulting implication that us poor benighted heretics can't even be trusted to baptise someone properly.
But what does it matter? If you truely believe your baptisms to be pukka then what does it matter if others sometimes doubt that? It doesn't affect what you believe or practice.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Spike

Mostly Harmless
# 36

 - Posted      Profile for Spike   Email Spike   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Gordon Bennett! Would "live with it" have been better then?

No

Spike
SoF Admin

--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing

Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:


Mudfrog said that he could not receive Communion in a Catholic church,although he did not say why he would wish to receive Communion in a Catholic church.

Why wouldn't I?

The Salvation Army doesn't practice the Eucharist but says to its members that we are free to receive communion in ecumenical settings where the host church allows it. I used to attend Anglican 8am communion in my uniform, I regularly received communion in the Methodist church my former congregation shared. But when I was studying ecumenical chaplaincy at an RC seminary a few years ago half we all attended Mass but only the Catholics were permitted to receive - the rest of us - about 25 of us had to sit and watch.

That was needlessly divisive I feel.
Especially when some of the delegates were Anglicans and therefore much closer than I was to the theology of the Eucharist.

I have to say that it always worries me when I hear talk of 'eucharistic unity'. This concept sets out to deliberately exclude those who do not practice the eucharist and also those who do not hold to the Roman Catholic belief. Why should unity assume a fall-back to the Roman church?

[ 04. May 2015, 08:21: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Eucharist is a sign of unity, that is why holy communion is a "members only" thing.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I have to say that it always worries me when I hear talk of 'eucharistic unity'. This concept sets out to deliberately exclude those who do not practice the eucharist and also those who do not hold to the Roman Catholic belief. Why should unity assume a fall-back to the Roman church?

For the same reasons, presumably, that the views of congregational, connexional and Presbyterian churches never seem to be taken into account in ecumenical discussions about Episcopacy.

[ 04. May 2015, 08:40: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
ThunderBunk

Stone cold idiot
# 15579

 - Posted      Profile for ThunderBunk   Email ThunderBunk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Eucharist is a sign of unity, that is why holy communion is a "members only" thing.

This demonstrates complete lack of understanding of the difference between unity and uniformity. It presupposes that unity in diversity is impossible, and that we cannot come together by doing anything other than assembling under one particular banner, whichever that might be. The banner I would recognise as the sign of that unity is the cross, which is certainly not copyrighted by anyone. Not even, alas, by the Church of England.

--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".

Foolish, potentially deranged witterings

Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The banner I would recognise as the sign of that unity is the cross, which is certainly not copyrighted by anyone. Not even, alas, by the Church of England.

Unlike, presumably, the URC version. [Devil] (Other denominations are available).

I agree with your basic sentiment, by the way.

Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  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 ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Eucharist is a sign of unity, that is why holy communion is a "members only" thing.

This demonstrates complete lack of understanding of the difference between unity and uniformity. It presupposes that unity in diversity is impossible, and that we cannot come together by doing anything other than assembling under one particular banner, whichever that might be. The banner I would recognise as the sign of that unity is the cross, which is certainly not copyrighted by anyone. Not even, alas, by the Church of England.
Sure, if you're into the lowest common denominator approach. I'm not sure "unity in diversity" means very much except that many real differences get swept under the carpet. Unity requires that we confess the same faith. That is the prerequisite from which eveything else follows.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But what does it matter? If you truely believe your baptisms to be pukka then what does it matter if others sometimes doubt that? It doesn't affect what you believe or practice.

I tend to think that the truth is important, and that fellow Christians practising something that implies that other Christians are being dishonest is a problem. I would go so far to say that it is a practical bearing of false witness, and as such should be challenged and repented of.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  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 Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But what does it matter? If you truely believe your baptisms to be pukka then what does it matter if others sometimes doubt that? It doesn't affect what you believe or practice.

I tend to think that the truth is important, and that fellow Christians practising something that implies that other Christians are being dishonest is a problem. I would go so far to say that it is a practical bearing of false witness, and as such should be challenged and repented of.
But now you're assuming ill will. If you think the truth is important then so do others who might happen to disagree. At the end of the day it's only a problem for the one who is offended.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091

 - Posted      Profile for Jack o' the Green   Email Jack o' the Green   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The standard Cof E baptism from Common Worship is
quote:
... in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit.

Not only would it be beyond the pale to use a different formula but I also suspect that the official CofE view is that a person who has been baptised with some other formula, has not been baptised.
And yet the Early Church's formula seems to have been "Jesus is Lord."
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Eucharist is a sign of unity, that is why holy communion is a "members only" thing.

I am a member of the Church.

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The standard Cof E baptism from Common Worship is
quote:
... in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit.

Not only would it be beyond the pale to use a different formula but I also suspect that the official CofE view is that a person who has been baptised with some other formula, has not been baptised.
And yet the Early Church's formula seems to have been "Jesus is Lord."
Well, yes, but we didn't stop the clock at AD100 or whatever, did we? Is your understanding of the world and of who you are and of what you relate to, the same as it was when you were, say, 12?
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091

 - Posted      Profile for Jack o' the Green   Email Jack o' the Green   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My point is simply that with formulas being so different, can we say with any certainty that baptism x is invalid because formula y wasn't used?
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The banner I would recognise as the sign of that unity is the cross, which is certainly not copyrighted by anyone. Not even, alas, by the Church of England.

Unlike, presumably, the URC version. [Devil] (Other denominations are available).

I agree with your basic sentiment, by the way.

And The Salvation Army cross...

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  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 Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Eucharist is a sign of unity, that is why holy communion is a "members only" thing.

I am a member of the Church.
And that is your prerogative to believe that. Yet others might disagree and if on that basis they regulate who is and who is not able to receive holy communion then that should be respected. Discuss your objections by all means, but I see very little point in getting offended by it.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Eucharist is a sign of unity, that is why holy communion is a "members only" thing.

I am a member of the Church.
And that is your prerogative to believe that. Yet others might disagree and if on that basis they regulate who is and who is not able to receive holy communion then that should be respected. Discuss your objections by all means, but I see very little point in getting offended by it.
Hmmm... there are, of course, those who believe, following as they do the 39 Articles, that the Mass is a 'blasphemous fable' and a 'dangerous deceit.'

I hope most Roman Catholics would not offended by that.

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  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 Mudfrog:
Hmmm... there are, of course, those who believe, following as they do the 39 Articles, that the Mass is a 'blasphemous fable' and a 'dangerous deceit.'

I hope most Roman Catholics would not offended by that.

I'm not a Roman Catholic, of course, but even where they to think of the Divine Liturgy in such a way I really take no offence. I simply think they're wrong. The "validity" or otherwise of our rites and sacraments do not depend upon Anglican acceptance of them.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
ThunderBunk

Stone cold idiot
# 15579

 - Posted      Profile for ThunderBunk   Email ThunderBunk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The banner I would recognise as the sign of that unity is the cross, which is certainly not copyrighted by anyone. Not even, alas, by the Church of England.

Unlike, presumably, the URC version. [Devil] (Other denominations are available).

I agree with your basic sentiment, by the way.

And The Salvation Army cross...
I find it genuinely fascinating that you would describe that as the SA cross. There is so much overlaid on it that I would not describe it as a cross - more as a denominational badge in which the cross is incorporated.

--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".

Foolish, potentially deranged witterings

Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
All human beings share the same beginning and the same ending - birth and death.

We are all one and yet we are all different.

Our brothers and sisters who hold the Moslem,Hindu
faith and Buddhist tradition are our brothers and sisters one hundred percent but most Christians would not admit these brothers and sisters to the Christian sacraments or mysteries until they have shown evidence of faith in Christ and have been properly instructed and fully accepted the Christian faith. They are however our honoured guests if they wish to be present at the liturgy.

It is the same for Catholics as far as the attendance of non Catholic Christians at the celebration of the sacraments.Even if they were to receive the eucharist the divisions in understanding would not be eradicated thereby.

We have to live with these differences at the moment until we can reconcile our differences.

It does not mean God loves Catholics more,but it reminds us more forcefully that we must work for visible unity as God wills.

If Mudfrog can live without the eucharist at his own place of worship,why should he wish to receive in a place of worship where he doesn't agree with the teachings ?

Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Even Judas Iscariot received bread and wine from the Lord Jesus...

...you cannot equate non-Catholic Christians with non-Christian Buddhists, etc. We still go to Calvary for our salvation: it seems very wrong that the meal of 'communion' and fellowship around the cross should exclude half of Christendom.

What would Jesus do? It seems to me that if we share the one bread and have been baptised by the one Spirit into the one Body, then we should all be welcome.

And why should I want it even though we don't have it at our Citadels? Ecumenical fellowship, Christian unity, shared worship, a witness to the one Body...

As it stands, by banning non-RCs from the eucharist the Roman Church is revealing a desire to fragment the Body.

[ 04. May 2015, 12:04: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  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 Mudfrog:
As it stands, by banning non-RCs from the eucharist the Roman Church is revealing a desire to fragment the Body.

Not at all. The RC believes that it is the body.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Of course, there are those of us who both insist on the integrity of the Eucharist (no grape juice, no Ribena, no cake, no general meal) but also feel that the RCC are misguided on their Eucharistic stance. I can affirm everything about RC Eucharistic theology, so why can I not say as much to a priest and therefore be able to receive the Host at Mass?

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To pick up an earlier point about Anglican Calvinists, the ACNA ones listed are mostly associated with the small (but loud) group of Anglican Calvinists in the CoE, most CoE Anglicans would not be familiar with them. CoE Calvinists have a similar link to Sydney Anglicanism.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Of course, there are those of us who both insist on the integrity of the Eucharist (no grape juice, no Ribena, no cake, no general meal).

Let me ask why this external markers keep the integrity of the meal while others do not?

For instance I am pretty sure Jesus instituted the Eucharist as a post-meal observance, why do we not keep that and yet insist on wine and bread?

I would suggest that to be biblical about integrity that these are all externals, things on the outside and that it is the things that come from the inside that matter. In this the seeking of genuine table fellowship is more important than these externals.

Jengie

--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge

Back to my blog

Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001  |  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 Pomona:
I can affirm everything about RC Eucharistic theology, so why can I not say as much to a priest and therefore be able to receive the Host at Mass?

Because from an RC perspective one must not only confess the same faith but also fully initiated into the RC. It seems only reasonable that unity in faith precedes sacramental unity, with the sacraments in the right order too: baptism, then confirmation, then holy communion.

[ 04. May 2015, 14:03: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Were I to go to a Salvation Army citadel and say'Hello,I'm a Christian,can I join with you in praise of the Lord ?'I feel certain that the Salvationists would say 'Welcome,brother'.

Were I to say 'Now I just love the uniform that everyone is wearing.Can I have one ? would the Salvationists say 'All right,but we need to initiate you properly before you can wear the uniform.'

It's the same with Communion.We need to know that you share fully the Catholic faith,but you are most welcome to be at the liturgy.

Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Rev per Minute
Shipmate
# 69

 - Posted      Profile for Rev per Minute   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I can affirm everything about RC Eucharistic theology, so why can I not say as much to a priest and therefore be able to receive the Host at Mass?

Because from an RC perspective one must not only confess the same faith but also fully initiated into the RC. It seems only reasonable that unity in faith precedes sacramental unity, with the sacraments in the right order too: baptism, then confirmation, then holy communion.
Except that, for most Western/European Catholics, the order is baptism as an infant, holy communion from the age of 7 or 8 and confirmation at some point in their teens. This has been the case since at least the early 1900s, IIRC, and seems to be replicated in the more recent practices of the Anglican churches of these isles.

PS As a former RC, I still see the church in the binary terms I learned as a child - (Roman) Catholic and Protestant. The Orthodoxen had a sort of acceptance to the Catholic side (sorry) but all else were Protestant by the single fact of not being RC. Even though I'm now an Anglican priest, I don't question the basic premise of this definition.

--------------------
"Allons-y!" "Geronimo!" "Oh, for God's sake!" The Day of the Doctor

At the end of the day, we face our Maker alongside Jesus. RIP ken

Posts: 2696 | From: my desk (if I can find the keyboard under this mess) | Registered: May 2001  |  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 Rev per Minute:
Except that, for most Western/European Catholics, the order is baptism as an infant, holy communion from the age of 7 or 8 and confirmation at some point in their teens. This has been the case since at least the early 1900s, IIRC, and seems to be replicated in the more recent practices of the Anglican churches of these isles.

Yes, it was Pius X who changed the order. Another ultramontane act of his. Now the Roman Catholic Church has millions of people receiving holy communion who haven't been fully initiated and who as a result are inclined to confirmation has an unnecessary sacrament. Baptism and confirmation were never meant to be separated.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In my view, Believers' Baptism = Baptism conjoined with Confirmation.

But, of course, we only dedicate/bless/give thanks for children.

In "open table" Baptist churches, anyone can take Communion. "Closed table" Communion is only open to those who have been baptised by immersion on profession of faith (which, yes, does imply strongly that infant baptism as practised by other churches isn't proper baptism).

[ 04. May 2015, 17:44: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Of course, there are those of us who both insist on the integrity of the Eucharist (no grape juice, no Ribena, no cake, no general meal).

Let me ask why this external markers keep the integrity of the meal while others do not?

For instance I am pretty sure Jesus instituted the Eucharist as a post-meal observance, why do we not keep that and yet insist on wine and bread?

I would suggest that to be biblical about integrity that these are all externals, things on the outside and that it is the things that come from the inside that matter. In this the seeking of genuine table fellowship is more important than these externals.

Jengie

But you can have both, surely? I don't see how using bread and wine prevents genuine table fellowship. This is the whole point of the Peace.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472

 - Posted      Profile for Fr Weber   Email Fr Weber   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think the Peace is meant to actualize being "in love and charity with [our] neighbors"--see also Mt 5:23-24.

--------------------
"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
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes - but that seems integral to table fellowship. You can't have it without being at peace with your table neighbours.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Amanda in the South Bay
Apprentice
# 18185

 - Posted      Profile for Amanda in the South Bay   Email Amanda in the South Bay   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Eucharist is a sign of unity, that is why holy communion is a "members only" thing.

This demonstrates complete lack of understanding of the difference between unity and uniformity. It presupposes that unity in diversity is impossible, and that we cannot come together by doing anything other than assembling under one particular banner, whichever that might be. The banner I would recognise as the sign of that unity is the cross, which is certainly not copyrighted by anyone. Not even, alas, by the Church of England.
Sure, if you're into the lowest common denominator approach. I'm not sure "unity in diversity" means very much except that many real differences get swept under the carpet. Unity requires that we confess the same faith. That is the prerequisite from which eveything else follows.
Easy to say when you belong to a Church that considers itself to be the True Church.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Aug 2014  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The question of baptism and rebaptism is rather more extreme in baptist circles. Since baptism is understood to have a specific action as well as a specific (word) formula [Trinitarian and identical to CofE/RC wording], then rebaptism used to be quite common.

It was particularly linked to those churches who have/had a "closed" membership. That is, membership was restricted to those who had been baptised by immersion. These days we tend not to rebaptise as the number of closed membership churches is declining year on year. We rather take the view that it is the public declaration of faith which is important.

It is, of course, also an issue ecumenically: a Baptist church is not viewed in a good light by its (say) Anglican neighbours if it insists on baptising by immersion people who have - according to other church polities - been properly baptised already.

Where things get tricky is where someone joins a Baptist church and says (as did I, many moons ago), "I was christened as a child but I don't regard that as proper baptism since I didn't know what was happening and I had no personal faith at that time - so now I want 'real' baptism". In this case the Minister is damned if they do (because of the ecumenical implications) and damned if they do[n't] (because of the pastoral ones). And the candidate will not accept doing a "reaffirmation of baptismal vows": real water, and total immersion, are essential!

The candidate might wonder what the point of joining a Baptist church is if adult baptism isn't all that important. They might as well simply start (or continue) attending their local CofE or Methodist, etc. church.

Interestingly, I know of one CofE lady who went to the local Baptist church to be re-baptised, but continued to attend her CofE church as normal. I only have her side of the story, but it didn't sound to me as if this caused the respective churches much of a problem.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Were I to go to a Salvation Army citadel and say'Hello,I'm a Christian,can I join with you in praise of the Lord ?'I feel certain that the Salvationists would say 'Welcome,brother'.

Were I to say 'Now I just love the uniform that everyone is wearing.Can I have one ? would the Salvationists say 'All right,but we need to initiate you properly before you can wear the uniform.'

It's the same with Communion.We need to know that you share fully the Catholic faith,but you are most welcome to be at the liturgy.

Not at all, because uniform isn't a sign of belonging - there are 'initiated' Salvation Army soldiers who out of choice do not wear the uniform. The uniform is a sign of witness and service.

There are no aspects of Salvation Army worship that are given to, experienced by, or available to, only those who wear the uniform.

If you came into my hall on Sunday you would be able to sing, pray openly if opportunity is given, testify publicly, be allowed to read the Bible lesson, and kneel at the Mercy Seat (our place of prayer).

No aspect of grace is available only to those who have been initiated into covenanted membership.

By the way, The Salvation Army subscribes to the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed; by the Holy Spirit we proclaim Christ crucified, risen and coming again and confess Jesus as Lord to the glory of God the father. On what divine authority do you say I am not a part of the Body of Christ?

[ 04. May 2015, 19:27: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry, that final question was really directed to Ad Orientem

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Again, why the touchiness? If you don't believe that the Orthodox Churches are the one true Church that Christ founded, or any other Church that happens to make the same claim, then why get upset about it? That we only allow our members to receive holy communion and that authority comes from a coherent ecclesiology but ultimately the authority comes from Christ himself. Feel free to disagree, of course. No one is forcing you to believe that. All we ask is to respect our practice enough not to break it.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

By the way, The Salvation Army subscribes to the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed; by the Holy Spirit we proclaim Christ crucified, risen and coming again and confess Jesus as Lord to the glory of God the father. On what divine authority do you say I am not a part of the Body of Christ?

Just out of curiosity, how do you square not Baptising with "acknowledge[ing] one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins"?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry,Mudfrog I am asking if you would allow me to come to the Citadel and wear the uniform of the Salvation Army - just because I liked it and a good number of others were wearing it.

I'm sure you would welcome me to the citadel.
you might even accept that I was a follower of Christ,but would you let me dress up in the uniform and march around with the corps if I told you that I had some beliefs about Christianity which you probably didn't share. ?

Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

By the way, The Salvation Army subscribes to the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed; by the Holy Spirit we proclaim Christ crucified, risen and coming again and confess Jesus as Lord to the glory of God the father. On what divine authority do you say I am not a part of the Body of Christ?

Just out of curiosity, how do you square not Baptising with "acknowledge[ing] one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins"?
Basically, four verses:


quote:
Ephesians 4:4-5

4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;

and
quote:
1 Corinthians 12: 13

For we were all baptised by one Spirit so as to form one body – whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free – and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

We do not deny the blessing of water baptism - and we have no preference one against another in the context of infant or adult baptism - indeed if any Salvationist feels that they are called personally to be baptised then we support them in that.

In our history we baptised infants and never adults and yet we always emphasised that more important to the conversion experience was the Spirit's inward baptism. And there is another text:

quote:
Matthew 3:11

11 ‘I baptise you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptise you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

So for us, the one baptism, the baptism that Christ brings, the baptism that brings us into the Body of Christ, is the baptism with the Holy Spirit. That is not to say that water baptism is not a sacrament - it plainly can be - but we believe that it is not the water that is the effective part of baptism but the operation of the Spirit; and that operation does not require water.

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Sorry,Mudfrog I am asking if you would allow me to come to the Citadel and wear the uniform of the Salvation Army - just because I liked it and a good number of others were wearing it.

I'm sure you would welcome me to the citadel.
you might even accept that I was a follower of Christ,but would you let me dress up in the uniform and march around with the corps if I told you that I had some beliefs about Christianity which you probably didn't share. ?

No, but then uniform wearing is not a sacrament - and neither is it something anyone would wear 'just because they liked it.' If it were I should worry about your clothing fetish, to be honest!

The point you are missing is that the uniform is not something that is offered and received. It is something that is worn as a witness or in service. It is not therefore a means of grace that can be withheld and therefore depriving someone of that grace. In worship the grace of God is fully available to all whether they are uniformed soldiers or visiting friends.

...and we don't 'dress up' and 'march around'. Please don't imply that the uniform is trivial and to be mocked.

[ 04. May 2015, 21:44: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ah, thank you for clearing things up for me re Salvationists and baptism. I understand that Pentecostals view baptism similarly, that water baptism is simply an addition to spiritual baptism but not compulsory. That and the common charismatic idea that being baptised in the spirit is a separate event is a bit hard for me to grasp from the NT and from my own position of baptism, but it does help to see the SA stance as being along those lines. It makes the common Methodist heritage for Salvationists and Pentecostals very interesting indeed!

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Back to the OP: is it a question of this ..

If you're an Anglican and see the Pope as simply another Christian in the sense of the priesthood of all believers (albeit with a title) then you're a Protestant. If you see him as someone rather more important than that, you're a Catholic (almost certainly Roman).

If you don't see the Pope as a Christian then perhaps you are a Strict Baptist or Brethren!

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
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