As a member of the congregation, I hope I'd never be subjected to a sermon on the topic! The 2 natures . is ok, but this is far too esoteric
A major problem is that what was meant by "will" in the disputes leading up to the Sixth Ecumenical Council and what we now understand by "will" are not the same.
Yes, it seems a bit eccentric for Christ to have two wills and God the Father only to have one will.
Why? The Father is not incarnate, so why should he have two wills?
But I shouldn't think the church is ever going to call another ecumenical council to revisit that question again. Fortunately it is not mentioned in the Creeds which were formulated earlier so it's not a very well known theology.
It's implicit in the statement "... incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man" that he would have a human will- otherwise he didn't really become man.
The other theology which arose at about this time was the iconoclast controversy and the debate over icons of Christ. This was finally settled in favour of material icons of Christ being good on the basis of the incarnation and Col 1: 15. But not icons of God the Father or the Holy Spirit who are both ineffable and considered not able to be portrayed.
Iconoclasm represents a very different phase, where the Roman Empire had suffered catastrophic loss of territory. This put the Romans in a much more insular frame of mind. The monothelete controversy had arisen from an attempt to reconcile with the anti-Chalcedonian Christians, but with the loss of Syria, Egypt, and eastern Anatolia, most of them were outside of the empire. Iconoclasm was an attempt to purify the imperial church with the assumption that a purer religion and purer state would win God's favor (the iconodules wryly retorted that if military victory was a mark of pure religion, the empire should revert to paganism).
The 2nd Council of Nicaea did not in fact make any ruling against depictions of God the Father- this is an interpretation that arose much later. Today one can find in many Orthodox churches iconographic depictions of God the Father as the Ancient of Days in the prophet Daniel's vision- some Orthodox decry this but they are a minority, albeit a loud one.
I shouldn't knowingly promote heresy but there is really no scriptural basis for the doctrine of the two wills of Christ. It is simply a mathematical consequence of the Chalcedon formula of the two natures of Christ which leaves no other logical way of resolving the question. Whenever Christ refers to His will it is always singular and not plural (John 6: 38; Luke 22: 42).
Its interesting to recreate the debate leading up to the Sixth Ecumenical Council. At least no one is in any danger nowadays of having their hand or tongue lopped off like poor old St Maximus.
I shouldn't knowingly promote heresy but there is really no scriptural basis for the doctrine of the two wills of Christ. It is simply a mathematical consequence of the Chalcedon formula of the two natures of Christ which leaves no other logical way of resolving the question. Whenever Christ refers to His will it is always singular and not plural (John 6: 38; Luke 22: 42).
Its interesting to recreate the debate leading up to the Sixth Ecumenical Council. At least no one is in any danger nowadays of having their hand or tongue lopped off like poor old St Maximus.
I'm not up on the two natures or plural will thing of Christ. But it is interesting that in Luke 22 it seems quite clear that Jesus's will and God the Father's are not one and the same. God the Son and God the Father not in one mind? And it's his 'will' that's in disagreement, not just a temptation to think differently. However, maybe it's just semantics! Just thought it was interesting that Jesus seems to be saying 'if it were down to what I want.... but yet what you want', which suggests that Jesus, however much he eventually submitted, had formed a concrete committed preference for what he wanted to happen!
I don't think anyone can really wrap their heads around this particular doctrine. I quite agree with you that in the story of Gethsemane we see Jesus asking God to change His will. Which wouldn't be the case if the human will of Christ was always in harmony with the divine will of Christ and the Father. But it does illustrate the freedom of choice that Christ had in accepting His death.
Similarly in the story of Eden if the unfallen human will of Adam and Eve was always in harmony with the will of God then they could not have been tempted to sin. I think it's interesting that there are parallel stories of temptation for both Adam and Christ. They both had human free will but Adam succumbed to the temptation of power whereas Christ resisted it. And I think the temptations were the precursor for the Passion. At both the beginning and the end of His ministry the human will of Christ was put to the test and each time He emphasised that it was the will of God that He would follow. And in this way His redemptive death reversed the Fall of Adam and humanity.
There are a small number of medieval rood-screens in Wales. Some survived.
The fact that Greek Orthodox attended US Episcopalian Churches in the Mid-West simply says that the disapora were prepared to make accommodations at that time.
As soon as viable Orthodox alternatives became available they drew their horns in.
Close, but no cigar.
It would 'say' more about both the TEC and the Orthodox if the situation Rossweisse describes had been allowed to continue.
At both the beginning and the end of His ministry the human will of Christ was put to the test and each time He emphasised that it was the will of God that He would follow. And in this way His redemptive death reversed the Fall of Adam and humanity.
Indeed, even before the Incarnation we have Mary saying "Let it be done to me according to your word" - she submits to divine will.
Yes, so medieval theologians saw her as the new Eve. And some of the old master paintings of the Annunciation include a depiction of the Fall of Adam and Eve to make that connection.
Fra Angelico, 1430-32, Annunciation (Museo del Prado).
Fra Angelico, 1433-35, Annunciation, The Cortona Altarpiece (Cortona Museo Diocesano).
Giovanni di Paulo, 1435, Annunciation and Expulsion from Paradise (National Gallery of Art, Washington).
...The fact that Greek Orthodox attended US Episcopalian Churches in the Mid-West simply says that the disapora were prepared to make accommodations at that time. ... It would 'say' more about both the TEC and the Orthodox if the situation Rossweisse describes had been allowed to continue.
It says that, at the time, they regarded us as a legitimate branch of the Church Catholic.
Clearly, there was turf to consider as the GO grew more numerous here. There's also the Girls Have Cooties issue.
And the Orthodox (like MoSyn Lutherans and Roman Catholics) like to do retina checks at the altar rail to make sure that no one receives the Eucharist who didn't get baptized and confirmed under their franchise. I prefer a more generous interpretation of the Love of Christ.
I know what you prefer but the only point I'm making is that - however accommodating the Greeks may have been towards the 'Piskies in the US Mid-West they have never officially regarded TEC or any other Anglican Church as a legitimate part of the Church Catholic.
They might have preferred TEC to Rome at that stage or seen them as 'almost' Orthodox - or close enough to relax their harder line on inter-communion with other Christian bodies, but officially at least, they weren't going to let that continue longer than necessary. It sounds like 'ekkonomeia' to me, if I've spelt the Greek and grasped the concept properly.
Sure, there will have been a turf element and the Orthodox did grow chillier (more chilly?) in their attitude towards the Anglicans when the latter decided that Girls Didn't Have Cooties. But that doesn't mean they would have been entirely convinced that Anglicans were kosher.
From what I've seen, the Orthodox, like everyone else, have a kind of concentric Rings of Saturn attitude towards other churches. The Anglicans, at least in their historic and more traditional forms, are seen as reasonably close but not quite close enough. The RCs are seen as close in some aspects but not others. The Methodists are seen as closer than some of the other Protestant denominations, although they do expect to find fellow travellers among most groups - whether Baptists, Pentecostals or whoever else.
In the Balkans and Russia it may be different. They seem to regard the Mormons and JWs as bona fide Protestant denominations and lump all independent Prots in that category.
At an unofficial level, things are different and I've come across Greeks and other 'ethnic' or cradle Orthodox who feel that RCs and Anglicans should be regarded as part of the Church Catholic. I've also come across cradle Orthodox who believe that all non-Orthodox Have Cooties.
Piskies in the US? I know I lead a very sheltered life, but the last I heard that description was in a Compton Mackenzie novel in the mid-50's, and probably not very reliable.
Piskies in the US? I know I lead a very sheltered life, but the last I heard that description was in a Compton Mackenzie novel in the mid-50's, and probably not very reliable.
You mean the term “piskies”? I’ve head that all my life, along with “presbies”—both usually used a bit playfully.
I think 'piskie' is originally a Scottish word. The Scottish ecclesiastical equivalent of the CofE and CinW is called Episcopalian. The Church of Scotland is Presbyterian.
I'd ever only heard of it in the context of the SEC (where the E is AIUI is for Episcopal not Episcopalian) and then in the past. Nick Tamen's comment is to the effect that it is still used in the US, or at least the south-eastern states. The Presbyterian governance and theology of the Church of Scotland is demonstrated by the different relationship which the monarch has with it, compared with the CoE for the governance; and in that strange change which comes over her as she crosses the border.
This is an aside. We all know that the Royal family attends the Cathie church on Sundays when in residence at Balmoral. My understanding (on a very sound basis) is that there is a mid-week Eucharist at the Palace, which the Queen attends when possible. This is pretty much to the catholic end of the spectrum. Does anyone know if there is a similar service at Balmoral?
I'd ever only heard of it in the context of the SEC (where the E is AIUI is for Episcopal not Episcopalian) and then in the past.
Yes, the church is Episcopal. A member of an Episcopal church is an Episcopalian.
Nick Tamen's comment is to the effect that it is still used in the US, or at least the south-eastern states.
Probably more accurately among some in the SE states. (I can’t speak for elsewhere.) I don’t think I’ve ever heard “piskie” or “presby” used by anyone who was not an Episcopalian or a Presbyterian, and probably a cradle- or long-standing one. But as I said, when used there is typically a playful affection in the usage.
This is an aside. We all know that the Royal family attends the Cathie church on Sundays when in residence at Balmoral.
Crathie parish, not Cathie.
My understanding (on a very sound basis) is that there is a mid-week Eucharist at the Palace, which the Queen attends when possible. This is pretty much to the catholic end of the spectrum.
Is it? Mid-week Eucharists have long been the norm in Episcopal churches in these parts, where A-Cs are very thin on the ground. I don’t think it’s seen as being at all on the catholic end of things around here.
Does anyone know if there is a similar service at Balmoral?
No idea. But her chaplains at Balmoral would be from the Kirk, right?
I think 'piskie' is originally a Scottish word. The Scottish ecclesiastical equivalent of the CofE and CinW is called Episcopalian. The Church of Scotland is Presbyterian.
Even more complicatedly, the Scottish Episcopal Church, as a separate ecclesiastical body was established in the late 16thC, when the reforming Church of Scotland voted to reject episcopal rule, in favour of Presbyterianism; by default creating an outside group of continuing Episcopalians. So the genesis of the SEC is almost completely of Scottish origin. And while it is acknowledged as a provincial partner in the Anglican Communion, it isn't actually a branch or daughter of the Church of England, as some people think it is.
The SEC's adherence to the Stuart household became another divisive factor in later years, while William of Orange would be embraced by the now wholly Presbyterian Church of Scotland. And it all got rather messy after that with splits within the Episcopalian Church itself over incumbents swearing allegiance to one king or another; penalties being imposed etc. And then the final prioritising of Presbyterian church polity over any other. The SEC, in other words, is that tiny remnant of that small part of the original reformation Church of Scotland which got trounced by its Presbyterian brethren, to put it whimsically!
And it was the Scottish Episcopal Church, not the Church of England, that consecrated the first bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA—now generally called just The Episcopal Church—because no oath of allegiance to the Crown was required as part of the consecration. The first American Book of Common Prayer was also influenced by the 1764 Scottish Book of Common Prayer. This influence of the SEC on a church that began as part of the CofE is reflected in the arms of The Episcopal Church.
And it was the Scottish Episcopal Church, not the Church of England, that consecrated the first bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA—now generally called just The Episcopal Church—because no oath of allegiance to the Crown was required as part of the consecration. The first American Book of Common Prayer was also influenced by the 1764 Scottish Book of Common Prayer. This influence of the SEC on a church that began as part of the CofE is reflected in the arms of The Episcopal Church.
True dat! And I believe there is a very nice SEC tartan doing the rounds in the USA, to help celebrate that connection.
And it was the Scottish Episcopal Church, not the Church of England, that consecrated the first bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA—now generally called just The Episcopal Church—because no oath of allegiance to the Crown was required as part of the consecration. The first American Book of Common Prayer was also influenced by the 1764 Scottish Book of Common Prayer. This influence of the SEC on a church that began as part of the CofE is reflected in the arms of The Episcopal Church.
True dat! And I believe there is a very nice SEC tartan doing the rounds in the USA, to help celebrate that connection.
My recollection is that it is an “Episcopal clergy” tartan. (Found a picture and description here). I’ve never seen it IRL, but I may just not have been in the right place at the right time.
By contrast, the more generic “clergy” tartan can frequently be found among Presbyterian ministers around here. And many Presbyterian congregations* and church-related institutions have registered tartans, as, I think, do some Episcopal-related institutions.
* For example, this one for one of the oldest Presbyterian churches in North Carolina—the appetizingly named Barbecue Presbyterian Church, which Flora MacDonald attended for a time.
There used to be a bit of doggerel verse in Scotland about the differences between the Piskies and the Presbies.I can't remember how it went but it started with a Presbyterian saying :'Piskie,Piskie………. then went on about them bobbing up and down in prayer while the Piskies replied 'Presby,Presby ….. and went on about how they were always sitting on their beam end. I'm sure someone here will know the little poem.
Nick Tamen's comment is to the effect that it is still used in the US, or at least the south-eastern states.
Probably more accurately among some in the SE states. (I can’t speak for elsewhere.) I don’t think I’ve ever heard “piskie” or “presby” used by anyone who was not an Episcopalian or a Presbyterian, and probably a cradle- or long-standing one. But as I said, when used there is typically a playful affection in the usage.
This is an aside. We all know that the Royal family attends the Cathie church on Sundays when in residence at Balmoral.
Crathie parish, not Cathie.
My understanding (on a very sound basis) is that there is a mid-week Eucharist at the Palace, which the Queen attends when possible. This is pretty much to the catholic end of the spectrum.
Is it? Mid-week Eucharists have long been the norm in Episcopal churches in these parts, where A-Cs are very thin on the ground. I don’t think it’s seen as being at all on the catholic end of things around here.
Does anyone know if there is a similar service at Balmoral?
No idea. But her chaplains at Balmoral would be from the Kirk, right?
The "r" key on my laptop is lazy!
My comment was not intended to say that having a mid-week service was a sign of being at the A-C end. I was talking of the format of the service itself, vesting, liturgical practices and so forth as well as the content of the sermon. No PSA preached in the Palace.
My comment was not intended to say that having a mid-week service was a sign of being at the A-C end. I was talking of the format of the service itself, vesting, liturgical practices and so forth as well as the content of the sermon. No PSA preached in the Palace.
Ah! Thanks.
Is PSA something one is likely to hear from a Kirk pulpit? In 5+ decades, I can’t recall hearing it from an American Presbyterian pulpit. Here, I’d be pretty surprised to hear it in the PC(USA), less surprised to hear it in one of the smaller, more conservative Presbyterian bodies. Similarly, and to bring this back toward the OP, I’d be very surprised to hear PSA from a TEC pulpit, but based on what I know of the ACNA, much less surprised to hear it there.
As for your question about whether there might be any sort of mid-week service at Balmoral, if my memory is right, it’s possible that @Cathscatsmight know something. My hunch tells me that the lack of an established congregation might point to “no,” but I could be quite wrong.
I can't help you on the attention given PSA in the CoS. It's a strong feature of Moore College Anglicanism, but does not of play such a distinguishing role in traditional low-church teaching. I don't know how far it has spread beyond Sydney. Very few Presbyterians left here, most of them having joined the Uniting Church (even my father made the change of denomination if not place of worship) but I don't think it's taught in either.
The mid-week service - cathscats may well know. HM could scarcely take a CoE chaplain with her to Balmoral and would have to borrow a SEC priest.
The mid-week service - cathscats may well know. HM could scarcely take a CoE chaplain with her to Balmoral and would have to borrow a SEC priest.
But would she “borrow” a SEC priest? The chaplains of her Ecclesiastical Household in Scotland are all Church of Scotland clergy, and her website explicitly says that she is a member (“an ordinary member”) of the Church of Scotland. All of that would seem to make it odd at best to “borrow” the ministrations of the clergy of another denomination for a private service.
There are 10 Chaplains to the Queen in Scotland, who hold office until the age of 70.
The Church of Scotland has two domestic Royal Chaplains, the ministers of Canongate Kirk in Edinburgh and Crathie Kirk near Balmoral Castle in Aberdeenshire.
And it was the Scottish Episcopal Church, not the Church of England, that consecrated the first bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA—now generally called just The Episcopal Church—because no oath of allegiance to the Crown was required as part of the consecration. ...
God bless them - Robert Kilgour, Bishop of Aberdeen and Primus of Scotland; Arthur Petrie, Bishop of Ross and Moray; and John Skinner, coadjutor bishop of Aberdeen - who consecrated Samuel Seabury and thus allowed the American version of the Episcopal Church to remain Episcopalian.
My comment was not intended to say that having a mid-week service was a sign of being at the A-C end. I was talking of the format of the service itself, vesting, liturgical practices and so forth as well as the content of the sermon. No PSA preached in the Palace.
Ah! Thanks.
Is PSA something one is likely to hear from a Kirk pulpit?
My comment was not intended to say that having a mid-week service was a sign of being at the A-C end. I was talking of the format of the service itself, vesting, liturgical practices and so forth as well as the content of the sermon. No PSA preached in the Palace.
Ah! Thanks.
Is PSA something one is likely to hear from a Kirk pulpit?
Alas, yes.
Hmm. I guess I'll follow that up with two other questions: How likely, and are we talking about full-blown PSA (God's wrath could only be satisfied by punishing the guilty, and Jesus took that role on, as one tends to hear in many evangelical churches), or something more along the lines of Anselmian SA (minus the heavy emphasis on P, that Jesus's self-offering on behalf of others avoids punishment for all)?
My comment was not intended to say that having a mid-week service was a sign of being at the A-C end. I was talking of the format of the service itself, vesting, liturgical practices and so forth as well as the content of the sermon. No PSA preached in the Palace.
Ah! Thanks.
Is PSA something one is likely to hear from a Kirk pulpit?
Alas, yes.
Hmm. I guess I'll follow that up with two other questions: How likely, and are we talking about full-blown PSA (God's wrath could only be satisfied by punishing the guilty, and Jesus took that role on, as one tends to hear in many evangelical churches), or something more along the lines of Anselmian SA (minus the heavy emphasis on P, that Jesus's self-offering on behalf of others avoids punishment for all)?
I can't speak to likelihood across the Kirk. I suspect we get more than our fair share of cranks and weirdos because we're currently in a vacancy. As to the specifics, I don't recall, I think I probably endeavour to let the worst pass through one ear and out the other. Certainly there's sometimes a lot of emphasis on wrath, in between rants about the evils of Pride and Islam.
I had the impression (purely from stuff I read) that the Scottish Kirk is pretty liberal nowadays, and that the theology of Torrance had weakened Westminster-style Calvinism. I'm guess that's not really the case...
I had the impression (purely from stuff I read) that the Scottish Kirk is pretty liberal nowadays, and that the theology of Torrance had weakened Westminster-style Calvinism. I'm guess that's not really the case...
Well, that or Arethosemyfeet has just encountered more than his fair share of old school types.
But in connection with the Queen and what she might hear from ministers in the Kirk, perhaps it should noted that Iain Torrance (son of Thomas) is dean of the Chapel Royal in Scotland.
I had the impression (purely from stuff I read) that the Scottish Kirk is pretty liberal nowadays, and that the theology of Torrance had weakened Westminster-style Calvinism. I'm guess that's not really the case...
Much of the Kirk is fairly liberal. But I live in the Hebrides, there's still a fair amount of thoroughbred Calvinism around. Plus you tend to remember the lunatics a lot more than the bland, inoffensive preachers.
Hmm. I guess I'll follow that up with two other questions: How likely, and are we talking about full-blown PSA (God's wrath could only be satisfied by punishing the guilty, and Jesus took that role on, as one tends to hear in many evangelical churches), or something more along the lines of Anselmian SA (minus the heavy emphasis on P, that Jesus's self-offering on behalf of others avoids punishment for all)?
PSA, as taught at Moore College, goes even further. It has the Father fixing His wrath on the Son who bears it for us. That seems to me to be totally anti-trinitarian.
I had the impression (purely from stuff I read) that the Scottish Kirk is pretty liberal nowadays, and that the theology of Torrance had weakened Westminster-style Calvinism. I'm guess that's not really the case...
Much of the Kirk is fairly liberal. But I live in the Hebrides, there's still a fair amount of thoroughbred Calvinism around. Plus you tend to remember the lunatics a lot more than the bland, inoffensive preachers.
Are most of the people where you live CofS? Having traveled a fair amount on Skye, Mull, and the Outer Hebrides, my impression was that at least 50% of the population were Wee Frees or members of even smaller, even more hardcore, denominations. As I once heard it said, they all preach a "strict and peculiar gospel" and each was stricter and more peculiar than the rest!
An equivalent amount of liberalism to what? The URC or the CofE. I would say 'yes' to CofE and 'No' to URC. The URC like the Scottish Episcopal Church is more liberal on the whole than their sister national denomination across the border. The CofS is a broad church in much the same way as the CofE.
The churches in the CofS tend to be more conservative the west and north* of Scotland. Churches in the South and East tend to be more liberal. The reasons are buried deep in history and there are always exceptions.
*excluding Shetland and Orkney who do not obey these generalisations as far as I can tell.
I had the impression (purely from stuff I read) that the Scottish Kirk is pretty liberal nowadays, and that the theology of Torrance had weakened Westminster-style Calvinism. I'm guess that's not really the case...
Much of the Kirk is fairly liberal. But I live in the Hebrides, there's still a fair amount of thoroughbred Calvinism around. Plus you tend to remember the lunatics a lot more than the bland, inoffensive preachers.
Are most of the people where you live CofS? Having traveled a fair amount on Skye, Mull, and the Outer Hebrides, my impression was that at least 50% of the population were Wee Frees or members of even smaller, even more hardcore, denominations. As I once heard it said, they all preach a "strict and peculiar gospel" and each was stricter and more peculiar than the rest!
I do like the psalm singing, though.
62% of the population at the last census. There is no longer a congregation of the wee frees or indeed the wee wee frees here. The only surviving dissenters are the Baptists. I know the Kirk here lost at least a couple of members over perceptions that the last minister was too liberal.
Comments
A major problem is that what was meant by "will" in the disputes leading up to the Sixth Ecumenical Council and what we now understand by "will" are not the same.
Why? The Father is not incarnate, so why should he have two wills?
It's implicit in the statement "... incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man" that he would have a human will- otherwise he didn't really become man.
Iconoclasm represents a very different phase, where the Roman Empire had suffered catastrophic loss of territory. This put the Romans in a much more insular frame of mind. The monothelete controversy had arisen from an attempt to reconcile with the anti-Chalcedonian Christians, but with the loss of Syria, Egypt, and eastern Anatolia, most of them were outside of the empire. Iconoclasm was an attempt to purify the imperial church with the assumption that a purer religion and purer state would win God's favor (the iconodules wryly retorted that if military victory was a mark of pure religion, the empire should revert to paganism).
The 2nd Council of Nicaea did not in fact make any ruling against depictions of God the Father- this is an interpretation that arose much later. Today one can find in many Orthodox churches iconographic depictions of God the Father as the Ancient of Days in the prophet Daniel's vision- some Orthodox decry this but they are a minority, albeit a loud one.
Its interesting to recreate the debate leading up to the Sixth Ecumenical Council. At least no one is in any danger nowadays of having their hand or tongue lopped off like poor old St Maximus.
I'm not up on the two natures or plural will thing of Christ. But it is interesting that in Luke 22 it seems quite clear that Jesus's will and God the Father's are not one and the same. God the Son and God the Father not in one mind? And it's his 'will' that's in disagreement, not just a temptation to think differently. However, maybe it's just semantics! Just thought it was interesting that Jesus seems to be saying 'if it were down to what I want.... but yet what you want', which suggests that Jesus, however much he eventually submitted, had formed a concrete committed preference for what he wanted to happen!
Similarly in the story of Eden if the unfallen human will of Adam and Eve was always in harmony with the will of God then they could not have been tempted to sin. I think it's interesting that there are parallel stories of temptation for both Adam and Christ. They both had human free will but Adam succumbed to the temptation of power whereas Christ resisted it. And I think the temptations were the precursor for the Passion. At both the beginning and the end of His ministry the human will of Christ was put to the test and each time He emphasised that it was the will of God that He would follow. And in this way His redemptive death reversed the Fall of Adam and humanity.
There are a small number of medieval rood-screens in Wales. Some survived.
The fact that Greek Orthodox attended US Episcopalian Churches in the Mid-West simply says that the disapora were prepared to make accommodations at that time.
As soon as viable Orthodox alternatives became available they drew their horns in.
Close, but no cigar.
It would 'say' more about both the TEC and the Orthodox if the situation Rossweisse describes had been allowed to continue.
Indeed, even before the Incarnation we have Mary saying "Let it be done to me according to your word" - she submits to divine will.
Fra Angelico, 1430-32, Annunciation (Museo del Prado).
Fra Angelico, 1433-35, Annunciation, The Cortona Altarpiece (Cortona Museo Diocesano).
Giovanni di Paulo, 1435, Annunciation and Expulsion from Paradise (National Gallery of Art, Washington).
Clearly, there was turf to consider as the GO grew more numerous here. There's also the Girls Have Cooties issue.
And the Orthodox (like MoSyn Lutherans and Roman Catholics) like to do retina checks at the altar rail to make sure that no one receives the Eucharist who didn't get baptized and confirmed under their franchise. I prefer a more generous interpretation of the Love of Christ.
They might have preferred TEC to Rome at that stage or seen them as 'almost' Orthodox - or close enough to relax their harder line on inter-communion with other Christian bodies, but officially at least, they weren't going to let that continue longer than necessary. It sounds like 'ekkonomeia' to me, if I've spelt the Greek and grasped the concept properly.
Sure, there will have been a turf element and the Orthodox did grow chillier (more chilly?) in their attitude towards the Anglicans when the latter decided that Girls Didn't Have Cooties. But that doesn't mean they would have been entirely convinced that Anglicans were kosher.
From what I've seen, the Orthodox, like everyone else, have a kind of concentric Rings of Saturn attitude towards other churches. The Anglicans, at least in their historic and more traditional forms, are seen as reasonably close but not quite close enough. The RCs are seen as close in some aspects but not others. The Methodists are seen as closer than some of the other Protestant denominations, although they do expect to find fellow travellers among most groups - whether Baptists, Pentecostals or whoever else.
In the Balkans and Russia it may be different. They seem to regard the Mormons and JWs as bona fide Protestant denominations and lump all independent Prots in that category.
At an unofficial level, things are different and I've come across Greeks and other 'ethnic' or cradle Orthodox who feel that RCs and Anglicans should be regarded as part of the Church Catholic. I've also come across cradle Orthodox who believe that all non-Orthodox Have Cooties.
Yes, yes, but chillax[e]
/hosting
This is an aside. We all know that the Royal family attends the Cathie church on Sundays when in residence at Balmoral. My understanding (on a very sound basis) is that there is a mid-week Eucharist at the Palace, which the Queen attends when possible. This is pretty much to the catholic end of the spectrum. Does anyone know if there is a similar service at Balmoral?
Probably more accurately among some in the SE states. (I can’t speak for elsewhere.) I don’t think I’ve ever heard “piskie” or “presby” used by anyone who was not an Episcopalian or a Presbyterian, and probably a cradle- or long-standing one. But as I said, when used there is typically a playful affection in the usage.
Crathie parish, not Cathie.
Is it? Mid-week Eucharists have long been the norm in Episcopal churches in these parts, where A-Cs are very thin on the ground. I don’t think it’s seen as being at all on the catholic end of things around here.
No idea. But her chaplains at Balmoral would be from the Kirk, right?
Even more complicatedly, the Scottish Episcopal Church, as a separate ecclesiastical body was established in the late 16thC, when the reforming Church of Scotland voted to reject episcopal rule, in favour of Presbyterianism; by default creating an outside group of continuing Episcopalians. So the genesis of the SEC is almost completely of Scottish origin. And while it is acknowledged as a provincial partner in the Anglican Communion, it isn't actually a branch or daughter of the Church of England, as some people think it is.
The SEC's adherence to the Stuart household became another divisive factor in later years, while William of Orange would be embraced by the now wholly Presbyterian Church of Scotland. And it all got rather messy after that with splits within the Episcopalian Church itself over incumbents swearing allegiance to one king or another; penalties being imposed etc. And then the final prioritising of Presbyterian church polity over any other. The SEC, in other words, is that tiny remnant of that small part of the original reformation Church of Scotland which got trounced by its Presbyterian brethren, to put it whimsically!
True dat! And I believe there is a very nice SEC tartan doing the rounds in the USA, to help celebrate that connection.
By contrast, the more generic “clergy” tartan can frequently be found among Presbyterian ministers around here. And many Presbyterian congregations* and church-related institutions have registered tartans, as, I think, do some Episcopal-related institutions.
* For example, this one for one of the oldest Presbyterian churches in North Carolina—the appetizingly named Barbecue Presbyterian Church, which Flora MacDonald attended for a time.
“Piskie, piskie, always bend
Doon on yer knees and up again!
Presby, presby, dinna bend,
But only sit on man’s chief end!”
(The last three words are, of course, a reference to the first question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism.)
The "r" key on my laptop is lazy!
My comment was not intended to say that having a mid-week service was a sign of being at the A-C end. I was talking of the format of the service itself, vesting, liturgical practices and so forth as well as the content of the sermon. No PSA preached in the Palace.
Is PSA something one is likely to hear from a Kirk pulpit? In 5+ decades, I can’t recall hearing it from an American Presbyterian pulpit. Here, I’d be pretty surprised to hear it in the PC(USA), less surprised to hear it in one of the smaller, more conservative Presbyterian bodies. Similarly, and to bring this back toward the OP, I’d be very surprised to hear PSA from a TEC pulpit, but based on what I know of the ACNA, much less surprised to hear it there.
As for your question about whether there might be any sort of mid-week service at Balmoral, if my memory is right, it’s possible that @Cathscats might know something. My hunch tells me that the lack of an established congregation might point to “no,” but I could be quite wrong.
The mid-week service - cathscats may well know. HM could scarcely take a CoE chaplain with her to Balmoral and would have to borrow a SEC priest.
FWIW.
Time for me to have mine checked.
Nick Tamen, useful detail, thanks.
Alas, yes.
I can't speak to likelihood across the Kirk. I suspect we get more than our fair share of cranks and weirdos because we're currently in a vacancy. As to the specifics, I don't recall, I think I probably endeavour to let the worst pass through one ear and out the other. Certainly there's sometimes a lot of emphasis on wrath, in between rants about the evils of Pride and Islam.
Well, if you happen to know any reasonably sane Presby ministers who fancy an island parish in the old country just point them my way...
But in connection with the Queen and what she might hear from ministers in the Kirk, perhaps it should noted that Iain Torrance (son of Thomas) is dean of the Chapel Royal in Scotland.
Much of the Kirk is fairly liberal. But I live in the Hebrides, there's still a fair amount of thoroughbred Calvinism around. Plus you tend to remember the lunatics a lot more than the bland, inoffensive preachers.
PSA, as taught at Moore College, goes even further. It has the Father fixing His wrath on the Son who bears it for us. That seems to me to be totally anti-trinitarian.
Tiree
Are most of the people where you live CofS? Having traveled a fair amount on Skye, Mull, and the Outer Hebrides, my impression was that at least 50% of the population were Wee Frees or members of even smaller, even more hardcore, denominations. As I once heard it said, they all preach a "strict and peculiar gospel" and each was stricter and more peculiar than the rest!
I do like the psalm singing, though.
The churches in the CofS tend to be more conservative the west and north* of Scotland. Churches in the South and East tend to be more liberal. The reasons are buried deep in history and there are always exceptions.
*excluding Shetland and Orkney who do not obey these generalisations as far as I can tell.
62% of the population at the last census. There is no longer a congregation of the wee frees or indeed the wee wee frees here. The only surviving dissenters are the Baptists. I know the Kirk here lost at least a couple of members over perceptions that the last minister was too liberal.