Greta
Sieg
quote:
Originally posted by Intrepid Thurifer:
I believe that a priest duly ordained only has the power to consecrate and no one else.
Can you explain *why* you believe this? I don't want this discussion to become "proof texts", and I realise that your belief is a fairly orthodox view within the Anglican world. But why do you believe what you believe?
I believe in the priesthood of *all* believers, and think that for too long the church has been happy to shove too much responsibility onto our leaders (clergy).
With communion, it came out of the Passover Meal, something that was for the whole people. Each household celebrated the Passover. It was not something that the priests did. It was the people's work.
I would be quite happy to celebrate communion lead by any Christian who is in good standing with their local church. I can not see how it is something that 'belongs' to the clergy.
This also brings in what is holy. For me, something is concecrated or made holy by setting it aside to be used in the Lord's work. This applies to bread and wine, but also to ourselves. Is it possible for something that is holy to become un-holy? I think so, but the idea doesn't sit easily.
bb
My own view(as a priest in training) is that communion is valid or otherwise according to how it is received by the communicant, not according who celebrates or how. The problem in 1Cor11 lies not with the person officiating but with those receiving, that's why "it is not the Lord's supper you eat" (v20).
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the proper thing to do with consecrated bread that makes floor-fall?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My (anglo-catholic) rector picks it up and consumes it, however I understand it may be reverently disposed of by burying in the earth. I regret to say, that a rector (evangelical) of another parish whom I assist in services at a nursing home for advanced alzheimer's patients reverently disposes -cough- of the wine (much salivated into) down the sink. (We both consume the bread). And then there was my High Church lecturer who gulped down a very soggy wafer that was not able to be swallowed by a woman receiving the Last Rites.
Re: the remaining consecrated elements (Anglican practice) - I can't tell you when the change occurred - but in the early prayerbooks, the priests were allowed to take the remains for their own use. I believe the practice changed not so much for the irreverence of what the consecrated elements might then be used for, but in case of superstitious people trying to obtain the magical 'Body of our Lord'. (Another reason for locking the reserved sacrament away in the Aumbry).
I think it is incredibly bad form for more protestant Presidents presiding at a eucharist where all flavours of Anglicanism are represented to be disrespectful and disturb the orderly worship of a section of the congregation (eg. taking great relish in tearing apart crumbly buns). This sort of anecdote makes me shake my head - what is the point of consecrating the elements ie. setting them apart as holy, if they are not going to be treated as such? I know I get very resentful of intrusions into my worship before and during my approach to the Lord's Table. And I find it very hard to be angry without sinning....
The Apostle says:
"...I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love." Ro14: 14-15.
I think this may be applied to the crumbly bun anecdote. Scattering the Bread on the floor may be a nothing to a low church President, but it is certainly not a loving act towards those present who focus on the Real Presence rather than the memorial.
PS. I am a sort of mutated Evangelical - I find that if you want to debate with literalists and persons who quote from the XXXIX Articles (nay even the Book of Homilies!) you must meet them on the battlefield of their own choosing.
bb
----
MW Host
quote:
Originally posted by The Happy Coot:
I think it is incredibly bad form ... to be disrespectful and disturb the orderly worship of a section of the congregation.Scattering the Bread on the floor may be a nothing to a low church President, but it is certainly not a loving act towards those present who focus on the Real Presence rather than the memorial.
I fully agree with you. It is not an act of love to disregard the worship of others. (Even if we suspect that God likes our style of worship the best.)
There seems to be a bit of confusion about "memorial" or "rememberance". If I remember to orginal correctly it was more of the flavour of "keeping or making present" rather than what we would traditionally think of remmebering. When Israel were celebrating the Passover/Sabbath, they would tell the story of the flight out of Egypt, and it was *their* escape, not just their ancestors escape.
So, communion is not just remembering, but rather about making to present, making it now. I am tempted to use the phrase "real presence".
bb
I find the simplicity of the reformer Zwingli's view of the sacrament quite compelling. If Christ is bodily seated in heaven, how can he be bodily present in the bread? Of course he is present by his Spirit, but no more or less so because of what a priest has said over some bread.
As for the bread being made holy, I'd argue it serves a holy purpose, but has no holiness of its own (how could it?). Once it's served it's holy purpose, surely it matters very little what is done with it. I agree we don't want to cause undue offence, but (gulp) at the same time we don't want to allow people to continue in what can sometimes be superstitious or even magical views of the sacrament.
I think you'll find that the Prayerbook allows the use of unneeded unconsecrated bread and wine by the priest/curate. Any that has been consecrated should be consumed by the priest (and any handy communicants).
At our church we usually use a bap for the Bread. Once, when we were between priests and had a very low turnout, the officiating priest found himself with most of a bap to consume. He was working on it and kept offering it to the servers, who would tear off a small fragment and return it, leaving him with almost as much to finish as before. He had great difficulty in finishing before the Communion songs had finished and the service continued.
Astro
Greta
the church of england is quite clear about this. only a duly ordained priest may consecrate the sacrements. there are many reasons for this here are a few;
1/ the c of e stills holds to the idea of apostolic succesion. our priests are laid hands on as were all previous disciples in a line that ( by stretching a bit ) leads back to Jesus. this does not validate their blessing of the bread and the wine but places our priests in a different area from pastors , ministers, evangelists ect. our church recognises its priest to be called to a specific service/duty. part of that duty by their calling, the discernment of the church and the blessing by a bishop is to preside at the eucharist. no one else in the church of england is allowed to do this and the vast majority of members would only recieve from a duly ordained priest.
2 the eucharist must fall in its correct liturgical place. that plcae a priest is trained to preside over. it comes in amongst bible reading , prayers and sermons that follow a pattern that stretch back over centuries and are proof against herecy. anyone not trained to adhere to these formularies stands in danger of diving into herecy at the drop of a hat.
3 sadly ( in my opinion) this whole " do we need a priest to have the lord's supper" thing is just ANOTHER anti roman, anti church authority and anti doctrine attempt by those who wish to "free" the church to the spirit but will ruin a structure that has stood firm for centuries. we will have as many different versions of the eucharist and as many different understandings /interpritations / heretical botch ups as there are mmmmmmmm let me see ....... hey CHURCHES IN AMERICA ( 40k and counting).
4 lastly in this time when choice is so important to us some people think they can choose to say the words of the eucharist, even thought the church would not , if it knew , let them. it would not let them because the strictures that apply to ordination are severe. there are a plethora of disgruntled wannabe-priests, or those subversive by nature, who would use the opourtunity to say these words as a get back at church authority and as a "proof" that they are good enought to do it. niehter of which reason is correct for saying mass (opps). i accpet that some churches do not have such a high understanding of the mass and i would respectfully recieve from any one in the spirit of love which this meal was offered but there is only one mass , said by a priest (in the church of england). for members of this church who take part in agape' then look to your obediance. if you so badly wish to pull down the central core of this church then PLEASE think carefully about alll the issues not just take bread and wine in a mocking protest.
lastly whilst i to admire the idea of the priesthood of all belivers we are all called to serve and sacrifice in different ways we are NOT all called to be priests in the sense that this thread is dicussing. to suggest that use of this broad phrase "priest" allows or encourages people to attempt to perform duties that are not fit for or called to only muddies the water. the church of england is very clear about this.
sigh Pyx-e
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
I don't believe in transubstatiation or any of that,
Er, the 'or any of that' was not as well worded as it could have been. My apologies if anyone took offense.
Sieg
quote:
Originally posted by babybear:
Can you explain *why* you believe this? I don't want this discussion to become "proof texts",
bb
I respect BB's position on this but I don think that you can ignore scripture and rely on tradition alone.
As a confirmed proddy, first Baptist and now a member of a charisamtic community church, I hold very strongly to the priesthood of all believers and that we all have the right to celebrate and lead a communioin service.
We of course believe that this is a memorial feast - in rememberance of - and not a sacrifice as transubstantiation implies. Christ died but once for our sins and to keep sacrificing him sees to many of us as a complete heresy.
We use wholemeal bread, some times motzas(?) and red grape juice (even I blanche when someone uses Ribena (for those not in the UK a sticky tooth degrading blackcurrant drink.))
However some of my friends are priests in the CoE and I love receiving communion from them. Both services hold equal relevance amd meaning for me.
What does sadden me though, is the division our respective views causes. Here in our small Wiltshire town we have good relations between the churches and yet our RC friends cannot take part in our communion service or we in theirs.
I respect the views of many more learned posters to this board and I'm sure that some of them will shoot me down, but there are times when I feel that the theatre of the service is getting in the way of the remembrance of what Christ did for us ALL on the cross.
quote:
Geoff said:
I respect BB's position on this but I don think that you can ignore scripture and rely on tradition alone.
Sorry, I have caused confusion. "Proof texts" are the standard texts that are always trotted out, without actually stopping and looking at their context and just how relevant the might be to the particular discussion. I am far more interested in people justifying their thoughts and beliefs by using the Bible than from tradition. Tradition is what people have done, but, the Bible is about what God has done, and is therefore far, far more important.
quote:
CorgiGreta said:
Does your belief in the priesthood of all believers lead you to be opposed to any kind of professional, paid, ordained clergy ...
Strangly enough, no. But I might see their role a little differently than others here.
They are people who have a responsibility for the church. Not all clerics are equally adept at pastoral work, or preaching, or any of the other jobs that a minister/priest has to perform. But as the church leader they are responsible for ensuring that the church receives pastoral care, encouragement and teaching. Everyone in the church has different gifts and abilities that when added together augment and enable the church to truly be the body of Christ.
It is my opinion that for too long we have expected the clergy to be everything, and do everything. So that we have ended up with some worn out, disillusioned leaders, and a laiety who are quite prepared to sit back and be 'ministered' to. It is almost back to the Medieval sytem of indulgencies where we are quite prepared to pay our leaders to be Christians for us, and to do the work that the whole church was orginally commisioned to do.
For me, "the priesthood of all believers" is about the church (whatever its flavour) getting off its bum and actually doing the work that Jesus told us to do. It is about people in the church assuming responsibility for themselves and acting like grownup, mature Christians.
bb
i would hope i was arguing from a slightly more mature postition (which would be a new one for me) that the eucahrist is much more than sharing a meal and remebering our lord.
i am also deply concerned that THE most precious part of my christian life is ( if possible) not used as either a political football in the protestant/catholic debate OR that those uncalled and unprepared use this powerful symbol in an unorthodox way.
Jesus called people to specific tasks. we his church have a structure to ensure that this continues.
we could vear of into a "meaning of words" debate , for me if a priest of the apostolic succesion celebrates its is a eucharist / communion / mass . otherwise at best it is a agape at worst a heretical nightmare.
if i may briefly without hogging the thread. The bible is not only about what God has done, its about what a lot of people have done, some of it pretty crappy.
And without tradition we would have no church. i have faith that the Spirit has always moved in her church to keep the good strong and to discard the weak, low and nasty.
this i call the tradition of the church. there has been more nonsense sprouted about god that godly stuff. it is the churches job , with inspiration, to uphold that which is good and to dismiss that which is not. this is tradition at work.
we are like fleas standing on the back of an elephant admiring the view and thinking how clever we are for getting up so high.
martys have died for the creeds (for insatnce) and they are traditional ......... opps im raving sorry but i hope i have made a point.
Pyx-e
or to put it another way, is there anyone who believes that salvation depends on taking a valid communion? (i'm not asking what anyone here in particular believes, i'm asking, is that an accepted viewpoint at all?) and if not, then what difference is "validity" seen to make?
i'm comming at this from a methodist point of view... i'd only dimly even heard the term "apostolic succession", and i don't think i'd ever heard anyone talking about validity of communion until i heard it here, so please explain.
(btw, no big deal, but its nicole, not nicola)
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
oh my, babybear.
I suspect that we will never be able to agree on this. But thankfully that is not a requirement for salvation.
quote:
for me if a priest of the apostolic succesion celebrates its is a eucharist / communion / mass . otherwise at best it is a agape at worst a heretical nightmare.
I find this idea quite intolerable. I can understand it, but I would never be able to sign up to the idea of the apostolic succesion somehow confering "rightness" and "validity" to a person.
I am firmly of the opinion that commumion is for the people and should also be of the people.
bb
I trust your remark about "theatre of the service" is not limited to liturgical churches. I have heard people say that pentecostal/evangelical services can be too theatrical. One person's theatre may be another person's sacred worship.
Greta
Something else: The official R.C.position on intercommunion is very exclusionary, but as with much R.C. teaching, individual and local practice often varies. I spent a couple of months in a village where the only church was R.C.
I visited the priest and told him I am Anglican. Without hesitation, he welcomed me to mass and communion.
A while back, The Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church in the United States took communion at an R.C. daily mass where the priest was aware of the P.B.'s identity. When the matter came to the attention of the press, the P.B. was criticized by some Episcopal clergy for not going to a nearby Episcopal Church that had daily mass. There was no reported criticism of the R.C. priest.
Greta
Sieg
quote:'valid but irregular'
and the Baptism is recognised as 'valid but irregular'. Why can't the churches do the same for communion?
With regard to communion the terms are not 'valid but irregular'but valid but illicit.
So there can be a situation where a valid communion is illicit, e.g. in the R.C. Church in the case of a laicized priest. He can perform a mass, but it is illegal = illicit.
From the Catholic point communion in other churches is invalid, because there is no priest present. So it's not just irregular, it simple doesn't take place.
Abo
Baptism is a sacrament which does not need a priest to be validly administered. That's why it can be irregular, but valid. To make it licit, there has to be a grave reason, like danger of death.
Abo
On the other hand, if I presented myself to the Roman priest, informed him that I was an Anglican and he invited me to receive communion knowing that I did not hold the Mass as an offering of Christ's Body and Blood for the sins of the world, I would gladly accept.
(More meandering! My rector uses the strictly illegal Sacramentary for mid-week services, I almost plopped over the week she used the prayer that included offering the Body and Blood in sacrifice... she said it didn't do much for her either and wouldn't use that particular one again hehe)
quote:
Originally posted by Ann:I think you'll find that the Prayerbook allows the use of unneeded unconsecrated bread and wine by the priest/curate. Any that has been consecrated should be consumed by the priest (and any handy communicants).
Ann, I've checked back through the early BCP (yer... I really am a BCP fangirl 
). Here is the post-communion rubric to the 1552:
And to take away the superstition, which any person hath, or might have in the bread and wine, it shall suffice that the bread be such, as is usual to be eaten at the Table with other meats, but the best and purest wheat bread, that conveniently may be gotten. And if any of the bread or wine remain, the Curate shall have it to his own use.
Compare this to 1662:
And if any of the Bread and Wine remain unconsecrated, the Curate shall have it to his own use: but if any remain of that which was consecrated, it shall not be carried out of the Church, but the Priest, and such other of the Communicants as he shall then call unto him, shall, immediately after the Blessing, reverently eat and drink the same.
ie. the 1552 allowed for taking away even the remaining consecrated elements.
Good resources:
1662
1549 in frames with 1552
A 1910 reprint of 1549
no sorry i have changed my mind now i want to be a pilot for a jumbo jet flying from london to new-york anybody want to get on my plane ?
no, ok well i shall just be a simple mechanic fixing cars, ive never had an ounce of training but im gifted mechanically and im SURE i can do a good job, anybody want me to mend their engines, fix their brakes, adjust their steering ?
hey, whats the problem ? oh i see just saying your a host/pilot/mechanic dosnt make you one i hear you all cry. to true.
and what were to happen were i to be a host without training and the validation by my peers? well my board would be VERY popular with all thoses who wanted to arse around say dumb ass things and generaly break the rules (or even commandments) it would descend into anarchy, thats why Sof chooses its hosts carefully.
and as for being a pilot well given that i might get a plane off the ground im sure i could not land it and i would have hundreds of lifes at risk. but even if i could fly they still would not let me and whilst i would be cheap i would be DANGEROUS crashing, going to the wrong place...... youre all intelligent people you can see where im going with this i dont even need to talk about mechanics.
so maybe im saying that in the past(tradition has taught us) anyone could say mass but so many diasters happened the church felt the need to test the calling and vocation of those offering to perform this holy rite. to stop herecy, crashes, ending up in the wrong place , giving false teaching ect.
maybe nicole (sorry about before) that is why the churc is keen on validity. if a pilot does not hold a valid flying lisence (there must be such a thing) then he is not safe to fly and im sure we ALL want it that way.(btw i do not feel trained to give a proper opnion on "validity", sorry im sure someone will have a correct answer for you, i'd would rather just give you my opinion that lead you the wrong way, opps my point again)
but for the most important thing we do in church (imho). to suggest that anyone can do it give we the shudders. its not safe. the church is a vehicle of salvation we have a duty to ensure the safety of that vehicle. the church DOES do that, and points to a looooooong history of cults that wander from the path.
still ranting
Pyx_e
p.s. for those of you who shuddered when i suggested i was going to be a board host or even thought " oh no youre not " gues how i feel when i hear about lay presidency ?
Greta
Many baptistic churches "dedicate" babies (a kind of waterless baptism methinks}. This may indicate a softening of their strict views. Likewise, many Anglicans do not in their heart of hearts believe that the Eucharist is invalid unless it is celebrated by priests in apostolic succession. I am a fence-sitter on this issue, and as noted in an earlier post leave the matter to divine adjudication. I would, however, like Pyx-e, vehemently oppose lay presidency in my church, except perhaps in cases of acute clergy shortage. I do not feel that this is in violation of the letter or spirit of the concept of the priesthood of all believers.
Greta
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
Methodist stance on it... We say that only ministers can celebrate the communion,
Not quite true. Others can apply to be ganted a dispensation for communion. Most commonly this is given to members of the diaconate order, or to lay preachers. Ther requirements are that the person is in good standing within their church, and that there is a need for someone to administer communion. (eg in an area where there is no minister)
Reading back over what I have written, I realise that I have overstated my case. I am all for church order and discipline. I am not in favour of a free-for-all, or lack of respect, but that there should be appointed people within the church who are deemed suitable (in terms of faith, maturity etc) to lead in communion.
However, I have said more than enough about what I think (often happens when I care about the topic of the discussion). What do others think?
bb
quote:
Many baptistic churches "dedicate" babies (a kind of waterless baptism methinks}.
No, it's not, though it's sometimes jokingly called a "dry baptism".
Dedication is a service of thanksgiving and prayer for the baby and parents. It fulfills many of the social functions infant baptism has as well.
BTW, I'm one of the few baptists who were accepted as members of the church on profession of their faith alone, without baptism in a Baptist Church. I was baptized as an infant and confirmed as a teenager in the Lutheran Church.
But further explanation and/or discussion of this would surely be to tangential or require a differnt thread ...
Abo
Thanks for that, I'm never too old to learn. I've just never checked for earlier versions before. I've bookmarked the references and will read through them with interest.
The ordering of priests is a serious thing - a spirit-anointed thing and a lawful (in the sense of orderly worship and authority) thing: The bishop says "Take thou authority to preach the Word of God, and to minister the Sacraments in the Congregation, where thou shalt be lawfully appointed thereunto"
I know when I have a duly appointed priest performing a consecration that they have been vested with authority to do so - to have authority means you are a person under authority (cf. Roman Centurion Mt8:9). The flipside of having authority over their congregation is as the bishop cautions:
"Have always therefore printed in your remembrance, how great a treasure is committed to your charge. For they are the sheep of Christ, which he bought with his death, and for whom he shed his blood." And further on: "And if it shall happen the same Church, or any member thereof, to take any hurt or hindrance by reason of your negligence, ye know the greatness of the fault, and also the horrible punishment that will ensue."
So I am secure in the knowledge that my priest is (as far as a free-willed person can be) a known quantity, and spirit-led to acceptance of a great responsibility. It's the law of my church to have a priest ministering the sacraments and imo, a very sensible one. So that is why I must have a priest performing the consecration. But why I must have a consecration... you will have to ask one of my more anglo-catholic brethren or sistren.
Greta
However, it is time for me to step back a bit from the discussion and let others say what they think. But I have no doubt that I will be wading back into it at some point.
bb
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Geoff H:I trust your remark about "theatre of the service" is not limited to liturgical churches.
Greta
What I was trying to say was that many people like the vestments and incense side of things rather than actually realising what is behind the communion itself.
I have just this evening heard a message by David Pawson from his series on "Unlocking the Bible" He was talking about the book of Jeremiah.
He said one of the unique emphases of Jeremiah's prophecies was the foretell of the decline of the Temple worship and the rise of synagogue worship ir without the priests, vestments, sacrifices and altar.
He said that the early Christian Churches were in fact "Christian" synagogues. And Pawson said some church structure were trying to return to the Temple style of worship.
Interesting but I can see some arguements against
"Valid" sacraments. What are sacraments? Sacraments are outward and visible signs of inward and spiritual grace. If the sacrament is invalid, is the grace forfeit?
Article XXVIII sates:
"The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves, one to another, but rather
it is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death..."
So we've got redemption. Which brings up Intrepid T's comment about the mass as sacrifice. The validity of the Sacrament is certainly tied up in whether or not one believes that the Mass is a sacrifice. Article XXXI is most clear that there was only one all-sufficient sacrifice on the Cross, and "Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the
which it was commonly said that the priests did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to have remission of pain or guilt, were
blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits."
So not only do we have the question of validity, but the question of what the Eucharistic Sacrament is *for*: i.e. what does it do.
HT
Astro
to phrase it in the simpliest way, whats gonna' (or not gonna') happen to someone who only has taken invalid communion? why, in other words, does the question of validity matter at all?
Yours, with the Angelic Doctor looking down approvingly,
Cosmo
I hope it's not about magic powers transmitted by the laying on of hands.
And is it really heretical seeing as how Anglicans don't practice closed communion themselves? And aren't Anglicans just as schismatic since we aren't welcome at Roman altars? Or maybe it's the Romans who are schismatic.
All that said, I wouldn't be at all happy with lay presidency. If there isn't a priest to preside at regular Eucharists, surely Morning Prayer services would suffice until a priest could be got in?
quote:
Only accepting Communion as being valid if if it performed by a particular type of person (i.e. in so-called Apostalic succession) stikes me as being in the same class of fundamentalism as only accepting that belief in a literal 6 day creation is the only valid way of interpreting the bible.
Astro
I am not sure if this is the case. This reminds me of something someone said in a sermon where he was talking about this when he was very critical about people who had doubts about the validity of communion in other traditions. One of the examples he quoted occured when he was at theological college. One of the students had previously been a non-conformist minister and was told by another student that the previous communions he had celebrated were invalid. & the other was someone who had refused to receive communion in a non-conformist setting. The preacher was very dismissive of this attitude - I can't remember exactly what he said but it verged on implying they weren't proper christians being hung up on the externals. I was very uncomfortable with the remark at the time. I'm not at all sure where I stand on this issue. On the one hand I am not in favour of lay presidency - this raises all sorts of questions re 'what is a priest?' 'what is their role?' 'how should they be trained?'. But where does this leave communions not celebrated by a priest? I have received communion in a Methodist Church (on one occasion with blackcurrent squash), and URC and at ecumenical services. I am also very unsure about the use of levened bread at communion but I've still received. Then there was the service at the ship weekend last year, with ordinary bread and green ginger wine IIRC. My head tells me that the latter was not a 'valid communion' but on the other hand my heart says it was powerful. A group of friends remembering what Jesus did.
Carys
Sieg
I still insist that there is nothing to be gained by telling people in other faith communities that their sacraments, or ordinances, or clergy are "invalid". At one time, this sort of thing fueled religious wars and burnings at the stake. I am glad those days are long past. I feel secure in my belief that the clergy and sacraments are valid in the Anglican branch of the church catholic, and short of a revival of something like human sacrifice or Bacchanalia I would not anathematize practices in other faith communities. I think it is fair to discuss our differences and to point to things that are tasteless, or bizarre, or inconsistent, but applying labels like 'heresy' or 'invalidity', at the very least, offend my (Anglican?) sense of decorum.
Greta
2. I would be howling with rage at any rites involving animal sacrifice as well.
Greta
Cosmo
hurrah
Must ask 2 things: Are Lutherans the "grey area"?
Also, I think we must answer nicolemrw's question. What does an "invalid" communion do to you (I suspect it's more a question of what it doesn't do for you, seen from a certain point of view).
HT
Oh -- and Rome, rational?
Cosmo says...
quote:
The Church is the Church Catholic and accepts the threefold ministry of Bishop, priest and deacon. Not to accept this ministry, the ministry which the Church has received (and we must allow the work of the Holy Ghost to penetrate even the Church), is not to accept the Church and to cause grave difficulties to be a member of the Body of Christ. By their very nature of protesting, protestants place themselves outside of the Church.
Now, let me see if I understand this correctly. Are you saying that our Baptist, Methodist, etc. and non-denominational contributors here are not members of the Body of Christ? Cause I am having an extraordinarily difficult time with this one. In fact, I consider myself to be a helluva lot closer spiritually to some of those you've just kicked out of the church than those you've deemed worthy of staying inside it. If this is an exclusionary trend of the Anglican Communion, I'm headed right back to the UMC.
quote:
Cosmo said:
Anglicans are called protestants by Roman Catholics but are, as a church, nothing of the kind.
I would find this laughable if it weren't for the fact that I am shaking my head in sorrow.
"We aren't Protestants because we don't call ourselves that."
A Christian is a person who believes that Jesus is Lord and Saviour, the way to Almighty God, and who has placed their love, their belief, and trust in him. A Christian is not someone who is a member of the Angliocan or the RC Church. There are a great number of Christians within those branches of the church, but not every member is a Christian.
Being a Christian is not about accepting the "Traditions of the Church", it *is* about Jesus.
bb
quote:
We must remember that Christianity does have doctrine, it does have dogma.
Christianity might. Christ did not.
But it is pointless to argue whether we are more protestant or catholic. It is quite clear that the Church of England was reformed (if not by Henry or Liz 1, then by Edward and his protectors). So I think we can agree that the CofE is a reformed (catholic) church. But when it comes down to it, we are an Anglican church, neither wholly catholic or protestant. Just as there are Roman Catholic Christians and Protestant Christians and Orthodox Christians, there are Anglican Christians. We need not be ashamed of that because there are few of us. And I think we pigeon-hole ourselves within the confines of a larger, more convenient tradition to our peril.
That doesn't mean we can't be proud to claim (even when it is unpopular) our own heritage. But neither does it mean that ambiguity is a bad thing.
HT
Cosmo
quote:
Erin, if you can separate Christ from Christianity in such a way then surely anything goes. It is a waste of time arguing whether or not Christ had 'dogma'. Babybear tries to say that Christianity is not about following the Church but about following Jesus. For a start it is a dogma of the Church that Christ was the Son of God who died to save us from our sins and, being the son of God, is also as much God as the Father. That is a dogma of the Church not of Christ. Do you believe that? Can you call yourself a Christian if you don't? If not why not? Who decides?
This is what I believe. And, in theory, what any of the 'mainline' Protestant churches beleive (Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc), as stated in the Apostle's Creed.
quote:
Not only that if it all about Jesus and not the Church then why do Evangelicals, in particular, get so obsessed about the writings of Paul? He and Peter are the prime founders (apart from God) of what we now call the Church. Paul didn't even know Jesus, never saw or met him, and yet so many Christians follow his writings and pay more attention to them than they do the Gospels.
Because Paul interpreted the teachings of Christ and explained them to the early Christians via his Epistles. I wouldn't go so far as to call him a commentator, but to a certain extent, his writings are useful in that way.
quote:
It is Paul and the other writers of the Epistles who tell us about the early struggles in the Church, the early arguments and debates on the nature of Christ or what it means to be a Christian. It is Paul who tells us that the Church is 'the Body of Christ' and so, it follows from that, that to be separate from the Church is to be apart from from Christ. Harsh I know but then many of Christ's sayings, particularly in Matthew's Gospel, are 'hard'.
Fine.. but here you are making the assumption that the Church is defined narrowly as only that portion of the Body of Christ that follows direct apostolic succession. Where does Paul say that? Where does Christ say that?
quote:
Perhaps what I am trying to say is that to be what was once known as a 'non-conformist' is place oneself in a position not againast Christianity but in a position whereby one cannot enjoy being part of the Body that the Hoy Spirit brought into being. Whether or not that is a mortal sin or not I do not know.
It is not enough however just to say that Christianity is about 'Jesus'. The Acts of the Apostles should teach us that, not to mention the history of the Church. For, as John Macquarrie says, 'the primary datum of Christians is not the Bible but the Church'.
Which, by your definition, is only those Churches within the apostolic succession (RC/Anglican/Orthodx(although I haven't seen you mention them in that context)).
Sieg
PS-And as far as a mortal sin, that implies that there is some sin so vile that Christ's sacrafice on the cross was not sufficient to wash away. Which definitely strikes me as un-scriptural.
Do your views require you to deny communion to Protestants?
Greta
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
[QB
So if you, Geoff or nicolemrw or any of you others wish to celebrate a heretical and schismatical (for that it what it is) communion service then good luck to you. Just remember that you tread on two thousand years of the practice of the church and count the writings of all the Father and Doctors of the Church, as well as those theologians who have followed in their footsteps, as something which YOU, in your ineffable wisdom, are somehow entitled to disregard.
Post-modernism has truly gone mad and has metamorphosed itself into Humpty-Dumpty belief.
[/QB]
Methinks Cosmo, as he always does, over eggs the pudding.
What I stated has some tradition behind it going back some centuries so it's not post modertn.
I also do not beleive that it is schismatic.
I want all people to be able to have a part in this special service and I think it is more schismatic (or divisive) for those who believe that only one person has the rikght to preside over communion keeps more peop;e away than it attracts.
quote:
. Paul didn't even know Jesus, never saw or met him, and yet so many Christians follow his writings and pay more attention to them than they do the Gospels.
[/QB]
Damascus Road Cosmo. I believePaul said he met the Lord Jesus on the Damascus Road.
To the others:
1 No I don't refuse protestants communion. For a start I don't know whether or not they are protestants and, like baptism, it is not up to me to refuse somebody the sacrament unless they are obviously taking the piss. Rather like a murderer coming to confession, confessing without contrition and then expecting absolution. One can withhold but your reasons have to be very good.
2 Mortal sin is that sin which is a deliberate act of sinfulness against God ie placing oneself apart from the saving act of Christ. To deny mortal sin is to deny sin itself and to deny sin is to deny free will.
3 What I am trying to do is not to exclude but to include. Evelyn Waugh wrote an article about the Roman Catholic Church entitled 'Come Inside' in which he stated that it was impossible to recognise the value, comfort and feeling of reconcilation by being a member of the Roman Catholic Church. The True Church is Waugh's opinion. I would agree, although expand that to the Catholic churches of Christendom, namely the Romans, Anglicans and Orthodox. Thus I say to those who criticise my opinion from a protestant view, Come Inside. You don't know what you are missing.
Cosmo
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
Incidentally this thread seems to be getting IMHO somewhat Purgatorial...
I agree. It would be very interesting to have this discussion in Purgatory, where there is a wider selection of different church backgrounds.
One of the rules for hosts is that if they are activily taking part in the discussion then they forego hosting responsibilities on that thread. This is to avoid any calls of unfair etc.
As I have been one of the 'main players' in this discussion in the last few days I have effectively disbarred myself as a host.
bb
quote:
What I am trying to do is not to exclude but to include... Thus I say to those who criticise my opinion from a protestant view, Come Inside. You don't know what you are missing.
Yeah, in the "my way or the highway" sense. Do you really think that by saying "if you don't subscribe to the three-fold ministry" -- which is not, btw, necessary for our salvation -- "you're an unchurched heathen" you're gonna win converts? Good luck, you are definitely going to need it.
quote:
Just because you don't believe it to be schismatical doesn't mean that it isn't.
Just because you don't believe it to be protestant doesn't mean that it isn't. See the trouble with this sort of argument?
You could draw some conclusions about the sacraments and valid consecration from that?
Nonetheless, I'll fight anyone who wants to belong to the Anglican discipline and promotes lay presidency of the eucharist.
Cursed are they that celebrate with a lay president in the Anglican church!
Amen!
Silly me.
quote:
Originally posted by The Happy Coot:
I believe the Roman Church conceded there was salvation outside of itself at Vatican II. Which was nice of 'em.You could draw some conclusions about the sacraments and valid consecration from that?
Well, considering that Rome not too long ago reiterated the invalidity of Anglican orders, we don't seem to have valid consecration, either.
That'd make them Protestants.
Greta
I guess it isn't balanced. We Anglicans are down two bricks to three. That "corruption" brick really knocked us on our fannies.
Greta
I am try to consider why "The Priesthood of all believers" is so important to me.
I suppose it is mainly because I am unhappy in situations where the leaders of a christian group
have some kind of claim that aets them apart from the laity.
This can be in a mild kind of way, such as in a college CU where only those
who can agree to the UCCF statement of faith can become leaders,
through the kind of heavy shepherding seen particularly in Chrismatic circles
where the leaders get to make all the decisions and the laity cannot do anything
for themselves. This kind of thing was discussed in the Ungodly Fear board
a while back. Then further to real abuse such as happened in the Nine O'Clock Service
through to the laity following their leaders to suicide as in the Jim Jones followers.
By accepting that all believers are priests they get empowered to work out their
own relationship God/Jesus and can think and act for themselves instead of
waiting to be told what to do by someone who claims to be anything from a special
type of priest to a modern day Apostle.
By the way I hold to the Priesthood of ALL believers not that abhorrant variation
the priesthood of male believers which can also lead to abuse.
Ultimately denying someone the communion elements beacuse there is not a
certain type of person present to bless them smacks of power politics to me rather
than Christian Love.
Astro
Presumably a Christian priest is a person called by God and the community, trained by the church and vested with authority in certain matters.
The priesthood of all believers seems to underscore the notion that all Christians have an unmediated relationship with God in Three Persons (though this notion is seriously undermined by the practice of priests alone making communion at the mass, and is somewhat compromised by setting up saints as special intercessors or mediators).
Of course, one could imagine a church without "priests" as a group of individuals supported by the community and invested with authority. The early churches that St Paul founded may have been like this. But by the end of the second century (at least) the church had adopted a system of deacons, presbytyrs and bishops.
In a world where the church must exist, maintain the Sacraments and teachings, surely the church must also support a structure of authority and arbiters of propriety (perhaps we might even say "truth"?).
HT
Yours, getting slightly irritated by this whole game,
Cosmo
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
What I do know is that I can trace my orders and that of the Catholic Church back to the earliest apostles (which does not demean anybody else by the way unless you believe that the only valid form of Christian ministry is the ordained ministry) and the early Church and follow the orthodox creeds and doctrine fought over and debated by them.
This is pretty much the answer I had asked for earlier. One last clarification--do you personally belive that the only valid form of Christian ministry is the ordained ministry? I've honestly found some abiguity on that in your prior posts. I had thought this was your view, but then in this post I find that perhaps I am mistaken.
Sieg
Cosmo
I am an Episcopalian. If I truly was anti-threefold ministry I would not be in the ECUSA. That said, I do not agree that churches which do not subscribe to this belief are outside of The Church. I just think it's flat-out wrong to in essence kick people out of The Church because they don't agree with the hierarchy.
[argh! stupid typo]
[ 13 June 2001: Message edited by: Erin ]
I am no fan of unchurching anyone, but Fr Cosmo expresses the orthodox view.
Of course, many people are drawn to the Anglican Communion because it is NOT rigidly orthodox (either by catholic or evangelical standards). You may see this as a great cause for thanksgiving or a great shame...
HT
I do agree that ministry is ordained - but choose to differ on the substance of ordination. God performs the ordination of all ministry (note, I'm not limiting this to the activity of a priest or whatever). Far be it from me to drag scripture into this sort of debate, but Paul most certainly recognises a hierarchy of giftedness that is not predicated on a position being set aside to perform certain tasks, but rather on people being set aside by God to perform certain tasks and therefore occupy the position. A subtle but substantial difference in the two positions (as I understand them - if I've misrepresented anything, please say so).
It makes much more sense to me than some (probably historically unviable) claim to direct succession.
(And Cosmo - you statrted the "game", you can't back out now).
Two notions I haven't seen addressed:
1. Evenhanded acceptance of all other viewpoints isn't necessarily tolerance. Believing passionately in something that desperately matters to you, while recognizing the right of another to do the same, probably is.
2. The early Christian church existed within a hostile ambience. "Comunitas" - in the sense of knowing literally who your community was - was critical for survival. Bishops kept lists of both Catechumens and the baptized, which they exchanged with other bishops as a courtesy for travellers. Exclusivity had nothing to do with it.
Have read over your posts several times; no spin, no hyperbole, no dumbing-down, how dare you? You goad me into facing St. Augustine, a chore I've avoided lo these many years.
Ad multos annos,
Mercy Brat
What's the real Church (capital C), and therefore, I've seen it noted, the Body of Christ? Is the Anglican communion? Roman? Eastern? Someone else?
Which Eucharist is the "valid" one? I can't see that it'd be all of them, as the underpinning beliefs are substantially different. So which is valid and which ones are the "pantomimes"?
Is the Sydney Anglican diocese part of the "Church?". If not, why? If it is, and they allow a lay presidency, why doesn't this constitue the "Body of Christ" deciding who can and can't do it?
Call me Humpty Dumpty, but I just can't work it out.
As for this thread, have we actually yet addressed the original question posed? Looking over it so far, we seem to have danced around it a bit.
Sieg
From one point of view, the Church (Body of Christ) are only those spiritual bodies which derive from the early, undivided church, and stand in apostolic succession. These would be the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church(es), the Anglican Communion, (and some Scandinavian Lutherans).
Valid Eucharists would only be those celebrated by the ordained priests of those churches.
A broader view would be to say any church which considers itself apostolic, whether or not it enjoyes the historic episcopate, is a part of the True Church. This would include Lutherans and Methodists and other protestants. This would validate their Eucharists as well, I suppose.
The most liberal view of this matter would be to include anyone in Christ's body who claims to be a Christian. This view discards credal or other faith-statements or definitions of faith as lost in the fracturing of Christ's body.
As I said, all this depends on your point of view. Rome considers everyone outside itself to be schismatics or heretics. The Orthodox church sees Romans as heretics. Rome sees Anglicans as schismatics, and some Anglicans think Rome is the Scarlet Whore, while other Anglicans can't get their birettas off fast enough to kiss the pope's toe. Protestants think Romans are idolaters, and I have no doubt that some Protestants think Anglicans are Roman-wanna-bes.
That Leaves us in a pretty state, doesn't it?
I agree with Fr. Cosmo, HT and others who have pointed out that the RC, Orthodox, Anglican and some Lutherans are churches that maintain the apostolic succession. Of course, only Anglicans believe Anglicans have maintained the apostolic succession and most Lutherans from Scandenavia I've met really don't care that their church has maintained apostolic succession. It certainly is not a big enough issue for them to break communion with Lutheran churches that have not.
The apostolic succesion was a device used in the early church to verify a person's credentials. It was not seen as some sort of magical device used by the Holy Spirit to impart the power and authority on someone to preside at the Holy Mysteries or any other sacramental act. That authority rested with the local church working under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The idea that ordination by the laying on of hands and in the apostolic succession somehow imparted this authority on someone apart from the church itself didn't start developing until much later. This doesn't make the apostolic succession bad. It is a sacramental expression of the calling that all deacons, priests and bishops have to preach and teach the apostolic faith, and I would be quite upset if the ECUSA decided to give it up for any but the gravest reasons.
However, I am really uncomfortable with using words like "valid" and "invalid" with regard to the Eucharist. Who can know whether a Eucharist is valid except God alone. I do think it's legitimate to say that a Eucharist celebrated by someone not in the Apostolic succession within the an Anglican, Roman Catholic, Orthodox etc. context is "irregular." But that is not to pass judgment on its "validity," only on whether it conforms with the practices of the church body in which it is done.
Clear as mud, I guess. It is HOT here today, and I think my brain has turned into oatmeal.
Chris
quote:
Originally posted by David:
Which Eucharist is the "valid" one? So which is valid and which ones are the "pantomimes"?
Regarding valid eucharists and consecrations in general: The Anglican Church is a church of the Word and of the Sacrament, and I am not a strong sacramentalist, however worship in reverence and holiness in the Anglican tradition is important to me. I'd like to hear a strong sacramentalist discuss consecration further (perhaps in purgatory?). Why do we need it? Approaching the Lord's Table is as central to my worship as hearing the Word preached - I couldn't give a useful explanation as to why, but I would certainly feel diminished if there was no consecration. Intellectually I am in rebellion with the sacramental emphasis of the Lord's Supper, but there is an awe about it that can only be understood as Cosmo(?) said by 'come inside'. It might just be that I was bonded to it at a formative age... but I'll just smile laconically and say 'It works for me' - even though I don't understand it and consciously find it irrational!
Having said that I would feel diminished without a consecration, it does not follow that I think other celebrations of the act that Jesus instituted are deficient - I take part in a loving act of the Body when in other churches, but it does not touch me in the same place as when I do so in my owntradition. For all the moves to ecumenism I think we are still quite tribal.
quote:
Originally posted by David:
Is the Sydney Anglican diocese part of the "Church?". If not, why? If it is, and they allow a lay presidency, why doesn't this constitue the "Body of Christ" deciding who can and can't do it?
It is inimical to the tradition and character of the Anglican Church to have a eucharist with a lay president. Imo, it ceases to be the 'Anglican Church'.
I am not up on it, but I believe the measure of Anglicanism is if a church is in full communion with Canterbury. Would Canterbury accept to be in full communion with a church that institutes lay presidency of the eucharist?
Division in the Church is a bad thing, QEI knew that... and there are a lot of things that are negotiable - the via media is nice and broad, but if you stretch it too far it breaks. The ordination of women caused some people to break communion with the Anglican Church, while others who were opposed to it accommodated - I would make a distinction between the essence of that issue and the issue of lay presidency. For the priesthood there is a both a calling by the Spirit and a discernment of the Body. (Its roles being central to our discipline).
As a body the Sydney Diocese could make the decision that they will have lay presidents of the eucharist, but imo, they are not free to make this decision if they wish to remain in the Anglican Church.
I contemplate the future of the Anglican Church in Australia with anxiety and sadness. Our Primate is right to call them 'Sydney liberals' - we joke that this is their payback for women's ordination and the move for women bishops. I think the Diocese of Sydney will eventually become the indomitable handful of currently existing anglo-catholic parishes.
There is a lot of money bound up in property there too... and things always get nasty where money is concerned.
quote:
Originally posted by The Happy Coot:
Would Canterbury accept to be in full communion with a church that institutes lay presidency of the eucharist?
It has always been my impression that the Anglican Communion does not "excommunicate" people. I don't know what the consequences of a lay presidency decision would be, but I don't think Canterbury declares anyone "out of communion".
HT
As to the need for other intermediatory priests - I thnk that we are going to have to agree to differ - but hopefully in love.
Astro
quote:
Originally posted by astro:
I am try to consider why "The Priesthood of all believers" is so important to me.
Astro
The priesthood of all believers is part of the letter to the Hebrews. While Astro looks at from a "politlcs and power" view the real importance at least for me is that a`s Christ has "Gone through the curtain" there is now no need for any intervention other than Christ and the Holy Spirit between me a sinner and the almighty God.
To my mind this means I don't have to "confess" to a priest. I don't have to receive absolution from a human being. My only confessor is God, through Christ.
2. WIth all due respect to Cosmo and others, for whose position I have a great deal of sympathy, it is not at all clear that personal and direct succession by laying on of hands really can be proved. Rather, as I think Br. Jenks is trying to say, there is a corporate succession. Certainly there are enough exmaples both from patristic and reformation times where episcopal lay on of hands was not required for a person to exercise prebyterial or episcopal authority in the church to show that we would be better focusing on corporate validity. And, given the Porvoo agreement, at least those of you in the C of E have an interesting time if personal succession is required.
3. On the priesthood of all believers -- someone with more Greek than I should verify this, but my understanding is that this expression refers to "hierarchoi(? -- as I implied, my Greek is not great) -- a term related to the sacrificing prriests of the Jewish and pagan cults. And scripture clearly says that such people no longer exist. "Priests" as Anglicans use the term are in fact "prebyteroi" -- elders in the community, and specifically those ordained by the church to preside at the eucharist.
Unfortunately, I am being called away for 3-4 days so I cannot check in to see if I need to add anything, but have fun.
Ordination is not, repeat not, the same as commissioning. That happens in the Royal Navy or the Salvation Army. It does not happen in the Anglican Church. Neither is the laying on of hands simply the way in which ordination happens to be expressed. If it was, do you seriously think that in our modern-obsessed world it would still be going. In the twenty-first doesn't it make sense, as a previous curate of HTB thought, just do it by fax or an e-mail from the Bishop's office? Perhaps, in view of its importance, a telegram from the Archbish. Or, if you must make some kind of public spectacle of it, do it in a big church but have all different people doing it (after all what's so special about a bishop, somebody who has been commissioned a third time?) going up and down the line like presidents glad-handling. Perhaps it could be done like old Confirmations used to be done in the country churches with all the candidates for 'commissioning' sitting in lines, a board laid over their heads which the Bishop touches and, whoosh!, they're all done. Saves time and effort and means you can get back to haranguing people about the Kuala Lumpur Statement.
Ordination is a sacramental act whereby the candidate is told to 'Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a deacon/priest' not 'Receive the acclamation of me and sixteen busybodies with too much time on their hands to become a professional religious person'. This means, as well as the theology, reason, ecclesiology and history of the Church of England, that lay presidency is totally alien to Anglicanism. It is not good enough to say that if the Bishop licences somebody to say mass then that person can just get up and do it. A sacramental, episcopal church (which, like it or not, the Anglican Church is) does not function in that way. If you don't like it then don't be an Anglican. That's fair enough. But do not try to mangle what little sacramentalism the Anglican Church still possesses just because you think it should be done in a different way. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde: 'Never mock the ordination of clergy. Only people who can't get into it do that.'
Yours, brandishing his BCP Ordinal, ASB Ordinal and any other Episcopal Ordinal you care to mention,
Cosmo
the truly sad thing is that some evangelicaly leaning members of the CofE may find the whole thrust of this thread wierd, superstitious and dis-quieting.
i am left wandering that if the "suceed" and the church does fall down this path of modernising and trying to be "accountable" and "in touch" the downward trend in those who are part of the body of christ will spiral. our current difficulties imho are due to the corrupt, idolising and selfish attitude of the people and never has a church flourished ( in numbers ) in this sort of climate.we are called to prophecy not fall in line.
what has survived throught he centuries is the proof against herecy that our tradition gives us. if this current trend towards non-sacrtemantal worship and findind the lowest common factor in biblical exegesis continues then maybe this church needs to go down the plug hole.
please dont take us who cherish the pillars of tradition , doctrine and reason with you.
P
quote:
what has survived throught he centuries is the proof against herecy that our tradition gives us. if this current trend towards non-sacrtemantal worship and findind the lowest common factor in biblical exegesis continues then maybe this church needs to go down the plug hole.
Well I'm not convinced there is a trend towards non-sacremental worship, perhaps there was in my parents generation (I'm 25), but in mine the tendancy seems to be towards a higher churchmanship among many. I certainly feel that the Tradition found in Anglo-Catholic circles has a lot to offer young people as long as it is not enforced with the modernist zeal of some Evangelicals (who I also love and value!)
When I receive communion I know why the Priest presiding is presiding. Not because they are the most vocal, gifted or energetic member of the church, not because they are the most controlling or powerful, but because they are ordained priest, because they represent Church, Congregation and (ducks) Christ.
When I look at who "presided" over the house churches I used to attend the same could not be said.
But then the Eucharist is at the very heart of our worship as Anglicans (and it has not always been so), not the Sermon or the Songs we sing. The Eucharist to me is not just recieving bread and wine, or even body and blood, it is the absolution, the peace, the concecration , the post communion meditation. It is a holistic act of worship that spans the centuries.
I have shared bread and wine in many churches, but there is a depth I have found in the Historic christian eucharistic liturgy that leads me to believe that I recieve in a greater part now than I did then. Other people may have different experiences.
Having said that I do believe there is a need for the Eucharist to permeate our lives. I am always keen to share bread and pour wine at the begining of a meal with friends, not as a Eucharist, but as a reflection of the Eucharistic. A reminder perhaps.
quote:
While Astro looks at from a "politlcs and power" view
I am not really looking at it from a politics and power view - more a you should think things out for yourself view
Astro
Can anyone explain why so many anglican evangelical parishes, in their practice, turn to a very magical-medieval-priestcraft view, whatever they may believe in theory about 'lay presidency'? I mean, the fact that they often have a lay president for the whole liturgy except for the eucharistic prayer... the priest is brought in to say the 'magic words'.
If the presider has a true pastoral role within that congregation, let them offer themself for ordination as priest; if the priest has no true pastoral role (either for that or another group of christians) then what is the point of him/her being a priest at all?
But to reduce the liturgical role of the priest to popping up half way through the service to say a prayer is a bit like inviting a bishop to the Lord Mayor's banquet just in order to say grace.
Having said that, I feel that the emphasis should be on the clear conscience and understanding of the one receiving the eucharist, not on the formal rules and/or particular church membership in effect.
From my own experience, I can make an interesting distinction. I have taken communion in the RC church a few times (under various circumstances) and never felt that I was abusing any "trust", despite my total lack of "official" christian credentials. But I never take communion at the Baptist church I also have connections with, because I truly cannot accept their non-mystical, limited conception of Jesus and the meaning of communion. In the first case, I feel at one with the sacrament, but defer out of respect for the rules of the church. In the second case, I genuinely feel that I would blaspheme their understanding of the sacrament if I took part.
I hope this makes sense to someone; it's a very picky point.
Six people on a desert island? Well, in that case, I think one is back to direct dealings with God, and there is no need to quibble about church rules.
They reach their destination. Unfortunately
the landing was more than bumpy and the
priest was killed. In the interim, Earth has
started a very short nuclear war and all
other human life has been extinguished.
Now..in the absence of a priest or Bishops to
consecrate same, are these remaining humans to be deprived of the Eucharist until
Our Lord's return ?
quote:
Originally posted by Iakovos:
Now..in the absence of a priest or Bishops to
consecrate same, are these remaining humans to be deprived of the Eucharist until
Our Lord's return ?
I think even the RC Church allows that a valid Eucharist may be celebrated without a priest ordained in the Apostolic Succession in extraordinary circumstances such as these, or even less extraordinary, such as the desert island case where there might be a reasonable hope of rescue. I forget where I got this information from, so it might not be reliable, but it seems to make sense.
All the Eucharistic theology that I'm familiar with, both past and present, protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic, makes clear that the Eucharist is celebrated by the whole church, not just the celebrant, and not just the people who are present in the assembly in that time and place. The celebrant presides. The celebrant does not do something apart from everybody. Having a priest ordained in the Apostolic succession preside may be the normative practice, and not something to be set aside lightly. But obviously there are circumstances where it may be necessary.
Chris
Right down the road from you in Yonkers
Cosmo -- I agree entirely with you about what ordination does. I was talking about the form necessary for it to happen. You have reacted very strongly to my use of the word "comissioning" without considering how I was using it. If it has a certain connotation for you, okay, but please consider that many of us may use it in a more general sense which includes your definition of what ordination does.
You have still not dealt with why the form of ordination has to be that of the second or third century (certainly not the first) and cannot be changed. (Obviously I am assumeing, what is probably not in the mind of the good folk of Sydney, that the people to be licensed are called by the church and accepted by their communities, and licensed with the intent that they would preside at the eucharist),
BTW, it is allowed to refer to me as John, even if I am identified by my whole name.
John
For me it is not a quiet resignation that things are so different, but rather a chance to revel in the plurality of ways that are open to us. It is a huge, beautiful garden where the differnt styles, create different vista, fragrences etc. As long as we are aware that *our* way is not the only way to worship or understand Almighty God, then I believe that God takes a great deal of pleasure in this diversity.
bb
I am curious as to why so many people on this and other threads think that being sacramental means non-charismatic. Unless their understanding of "sacramental" (or highc church/anglo-catholic) and "charismatic" is different than mine.
Most of the early teaching and experience I had about charismatic gifts came our of the Roman Catholic renewal movement -- singing in the spirit I first experienced at a meeting of a couple of hundred RCs -- and most of the most active charismatic people I know are also highly sacramental.
Where is the conflict seen to lie?
John
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
I am curious as to why so many people on this and other threads think that being sacramental means non-charismatic. Unless their understanding of "sacramental" (or highc church/anglo-catholic) and "charismatic" is different than mine.Where is the conflict seen to lie?
John
I agree with you John. I find that much of the ceremonial of Roman Catholic, Anglo Catholic, Orthodox etc. churches are merely formalized versions of the spontaneous forms of worship I have observed in Pentecostal churches, particularly churches in the African American tradition. Pentecostal/Charismatic worship and theology has far more in common with the Anglo Catholic worship and theology that I grew up with than the worship and theology of, for example, an evangelical fundamentalist church, including a much higher doctrine of the Eucharist and even devotion to Mary as the mother of God and the Sacred Heart of Jesus. These churches also tend to be far more sensitive to issues of social and economic justice than most Protestant churches I have been to.
Chris
What precisely do you mean by "charismatic".
HT
