The Lord's Supper

13

Comments

  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Forthview wrote: »
    True unity can only come around the Table of Communion. That is what the Catholic Church has said for ages.

    Yes, while saying out of the other side of their mouth, "Stay away, you. You're not one of us."
  • Miss Amanda has said on many occasions that she doesn't want to be 'one of us'.
    But perhaps I have misunderstood.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Miss Amanda **is** a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, whether the Catholics think so or not. But let's not digress.
  • Some Christians seem beholden to a kind of galloping dixit ipse, that is, if I pronounce upon the unity of the Church, that some how bring it into being. No d
  • Sorry, no doubt we all do this. Should be ipse dixit.
  • Forthview wrote: »
    Of course it is sad as Baptist Trainfan has said that the Table has become the focal point of our divisions and also as Exclamation Mark has also so aptly said that true unity can only come around the Table of Communion. That is what the Catholic Church has said for ages
    and it is something that we must work together for.
    I agree, but the impression that the Catholic Church gives to other traditions is that, "We want you to all gather round the Table - on our terms". That may not actually be the case: but it's what it looks like from where I'm standing.

    The church where I last served had excellent relations with the Catholic Church next door; the PP and myself had a mutual respect and counted each other as friends. Yet, when we shared in their Easter Eve Mass, I was not permitted to receive.

    [Meant to post this earlier but forgot to click the box!]

  • Of course Miss Amanda is a member of the Mystical Body of Christ and a member of the Catholic Church but she has stated on several occasions that she could not be a member of the Catholic Church - so there must be two Catholic Churches - the one which Miss Amanda is a member of and the one that Miss Amanda does not wish to be a member of.

    So all this moves to what is a definition of the Catholic Church ? If and when we sort that out we will understand better what the Lord's Supper is.
  • Forthview wrote: »
    So all this moves to what is a definition of the Catholic Church ? If and when we sort that out we will understand better what the Lord's Supper is.
    Anglicans recite the same Apostles' Creed, but in print, "I believe in the holy catholic Church" is spelt with a lowercase c.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Forthview wrote: »
    there must be two Catholic Churches - the one which Miss Amanda is a member of and the one that Miss Amanda does not wish to be a member of

    Stop it! There is more than one church that includes the word Catholic in its title.

    Miss Amanda was baptized into the Roman Catholic Church as an infant, and raised as a Roman Catholic -- first communion, confirmation, Sunday school with the nuns, the works. She practiced Roman Catholicism until well into young adulthood, at which time she concluded that she could no longer subscribe to some of the Church's teachings. The final straw was when she told the priest in confession that she had read "A Modern Priest Looks at His Outdated Church" by James J. Kavanaugh, and the priest told her that such books should be burned. She no longer considers herself a Roman Catholic. She does, however, believe in the catholicity (i.e. the universality) of the Church, confessing as St. Paul did that there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism -- and adding as Good Queen Bess did that all the rest is a dispute over trifles.

    Now let's have that be the end of it.
  • Miss Amanda, I thank you for your explanations. I believe that all Christians and all of humanity are in some ways members of the Mystical Body of Christ and the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church. It was you, however, Miss Amanda, who chose to use the word 'Catholic' in a dismissive way, not distinguishing it from 'Roman Catholic' .
    You have generously given me your explanation for your dismissal of the word 'Catholic' at times of your choosing and I have given you my explanation as to why I questioned what you meant by the word 'Catholic' I'm happy for that to be an end of it.
  • Baptist Trainfan - I thank you for your last post and I share with you the sorrow which you feel at the inability of both of us to communicate at the same altar.
    We all know that there are different groupings of Christians with different understandings of faith in Christ. The closer we come to Christ, the closer we come to each other, but we know that history has caused us to see things differently at times and still does..
    It is, to me, not surprising, that within a Catholic church of the community linked to Rome ,the Church would insist on things being done according to 'our' terms, simply because that is the way that the Catholic liturgy works.
    If I went to a Baptist Church, and I do from time to time, I would be surprised if things did not happen, according to Baptist principles and in particular when we are talking about the celebration of the eucharist.
    I respect your right to offer the eucharist to all and sundry and I am sure that, even with a heavy heart, you can respect the right of the Catholic Church to keep the reception of Communion as the sign of full unity amongst those who are communicating at the Lord's Table.

  • One small point. Lutherans do not accept consubstantiation (the body of Christ AND bread). Lutherans believe the body of Christ is "in, with and under" the bread. How this happens to us is a mystery. We just let it happen.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    If you dont want to be a member of a particular church why would you want to act as though you were in communion with it? Why I attend communon services in churches I am not in communion with I am content to stay in my place and pray for the unity that we long for. Am I being impolite?
  • Forthview wrote: »
    It is, to me, not surprising, that within a Catholic church of the community linked to Rome ,the Church would insist on things being done according to 'our' terms, simply because that is the way that the Catholic liturgy works.
    If I went to a Baptist Church, and I do from time to time, I would be surprised if things did not happen, according to Baptist principles and in particular when we are talking about the celebration of the eucharist.
    With respect, I think you are muddling two things here. Of course the way the Eucharist is practiced in Roman Catholic and Baptists churches will differ - indeed, the two traditions will have different understandings of what the Eucharist "is" and what happens when its celebrated. Now, I might feel uncomfortable at a Roman Mass (too much ritual, perhaps), and you might feel uncomfortable at a Baptist Communion service (too informal, perhaps), partly because they are unfamiliar. None of that is a problem.

    But, if we claim to all be members of Christ's one Church on earth, then neither of us should deny the Eucharist to the other - whether that be Roman Catholics saying that non-Catholics can receive, or Strict Baptists insisting that Communion only be taken by those who have been baptised by full immersion. If we are truly catholic we will do things in different ways, but we won't put up barriers which frustrate our essential unity.

    BTW My own congregation practices "open Communion" to "all who love the Lord Jesus".

  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    One small point. Lutherans do not accept consubstantiation (the body of Christ AND bread). Lutherans believe the body of Christ is "in, with and under" the bread. How this happens to us is a mystery. We just let it happen.

    I suspect a large number of RCs would nod in agreement.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    I do, however, hold to the teaching that I learned in Sunday school years ago: that the Eucharist is indeed the Body and Blood of Christ, while maintaining in outward appearance the characteristics of bread and wine. As Thomas Aquinas so eloquently put it:

    Visus, tactus, gustus (sight, touch, taste)
    In te fallitur (deceive us when it comes to you)

    and

    Praestet fides supplementum (faith must stand as a substitute)
    Sensuum defectui (for the failure of the senses)
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Forthview wrote: »
    So all this moves to what is a definition of the Catholic Church ? If and when we sort that out we will understand better what the Lord's Supper is.
    Anglicans recite the same Apostles' Creed, but in print, "I believe in the holy catholic Church" is spelt with a lowercase c.
    FWIW, in my copy of The Weekday Missal (Nihil obstat: Anton Cowan, Imprimatur: Philip Harvey, Rt. Rev., V.G., OBE) it’s a lower case ‘c’, and also in the Church of England’s Common Worship. The 1662 BCP has ‘Catholick and Apostolick’ both with uppercase. In all cases ‘Church’ has an upper case ‘C’.
  • Although I suspect that capitalisation (not to mention spelling!) has changed since 1662!
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    To put it in simple terms, the teaching of the RC is that in communion, the bread becomes the body of Christ and is no longer bread in a substantial way. The first half could be reasonably accepted by many Anglicans and Lutherans. The second half of the sentence however is only held officially by the RC church.
    And by the Orthodox, I believe.

    Negative. We believe it's still bread AND the body of Christ.

    Is that stated as official teaching.

    It's possible. In some council somewhere. But we don't tend to codify everything to the nth power the way the Catholics do. There are plenty of Orthodox teachings that are not dogmas and we don't have an official Catechism like our brothers and sisters in Rome.

    I was just wondering what weight to give to your statement, whether its personal, commonly held but not taught, or official.

    It's either 2 or 3, but the line is rather blurry. We don't have a big list that lays out all the official teachings like the RCC's Catechism. If it's official, it's in the writings of some council or other, but you would have to ask someone with a fairly good knowledge of the canons of the councils. And even Bishops (many of them) are wrong about the canons on many questions (example: whether service animals can be allowed in a church).
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    One small point. Lutherans do not accept consubstantiation (the body of Christ AND bread). Lutherans believe the body of Christ is "in, with and under" the bread. How this happens to us is a mystery. We just let it happen.

    We don't deny consubstantiation, either. We basically have a policy of pointing to the words of the text and refusing to theorize beyond that. Not that that prevents us from having names for our lack of theory...
    Forthview wrote: »
    Most Christians have some internal understandings of their own and I note that you seem to be unsure if all Lutherans have 'real' priests.

    And that would be a reference to my people (LCMS) as we're generally not bothered about apostolic succession, as we take it to be fulfilled in anyone who believes, follows and teaches the apostolic teaching. You can see how this fits with the rest of our non-theory about ordained people--we don't think that the ordained have a special character or power differing from what any Christian has ("priesthood of all believers"), and we don't fuss about intentions in the celebrant of either baptism or communion. We take everything to be active, valuable, powerful, etc. on the basis of God's promise--and that's just as accessible to a newborn believer stranded on a desert island with a Bible as it is to someone surrounded by pastors, priests, etc.

  • I have to apologise to Baptist Trainfan for saying that he would offer Communion 'to all and sundry' I was aware that there are some Christians who are very proud of doing this with no questions asked. but I shouldn't have written what I did. ,Yes, Baptist Trainfan would offer Communion to 'all who love the Lord Jesus' and I would say exactly the same of the Church community linked in full communion with the See of Rome.
    However our understanding of what the Church is would teach us that if 'one loves the Lord Jesus' one would first of all show that by being baptised, secondly one would be aware of the historic creeds and give one's adherence to them, that one would be aware of the eucharistic theology as taught by the Church and give one's assent to it otherwise our views are exactly the same as those of the Baptists.

    Yes ,our essential unity is in Christ but we have still much work to do in discovering our unity of understanding of the mystery of the Mystical Body of Christ.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    One small point. Lutherans do not accept consubstantiation (the body of Christ AND bread). Lutherans believe the body of Christ is "in, with and under" the bread. How this happens to us is a mystery. We just let it happen.

    We don't deny consubstantiation, either. We basically have a policy of pointing to the words of the text and refusing to theorize beyond that. Not that that prevents us from having names for our lack of theory...
    Forthview wrote: »
    Most Christians have some internal understandings of their own and I note that you seem to be unsure if all Lutherans have 'real' priests.

    And that would be a reference to my people (LCMS) as we're generally not bothered about apostolic succession, as we take it to be fulfilled in anyone who believes, follows and teaches the apostolic teaching. You can see how this fits with the rest of our non-theory about ordained people--we don't think that the ordained have a special character or power differing from what any Christian has ("priesthood of all believers"), and we don't fuss about intentions in the celebrant of either baptism or communion. We take everything to be active, valuable, powerful, etc. on the basis of God's promise--and that's just as accessible to a newborn believer stranded on a desert island with a Bible as it is to someone surrounded by pastors, priests, etc.

    You better check your Lutheran Doctrine books, Lamb Chop. Consubstantiation is not in our vocabulary. Here is something you can chew on:
    Lectures on the Augsburg Confession. Theological Seminary of the United Lutheran Church in America. Lutheran Publication Society. 1888. p. 350. Retrieved 13 June 2014. But in neither sense can that monstrous doctrine of Consubstantiation be attributed to our church, since Lutherans do not believe either in that local conjunction of two bodies, nor in any commingling of bread and of Christ's body, of wine and of his blood.
  • You might want to check my name...

    I was not under the impression that consubstantiation meant interminging. If it does, then of course you are right.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    It'll only be minging, inter or otherwise, if it goes mouldy.

    Sorry. I know, I'll get my coat...
  • You might want to check my name...

    I was not under the impression that consubstantiation meant interminging. If it does, then of course you are right.

    Intermingling would seem to imply there were some bits of Jesus in there and some bits of bread, not that they were the same bits.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate
    edited February 15

    And that would be a reference to my people (LCMS) as we're generally not bothered about apostolic succession, as we take it to be fulfilled in anyone who believes, follows and teaches the apostolic teaching. You can see how this fits with the rest of our non-theory about ordained people--we don't think that the ordained have a special character or power differing from what any Christian has ("priesthood of all believers"), and we don't fuss about intentions in the celebrant of either baptism or communion. We take everything to be active, valuable, powerful, etc. on the basis of God's promise--and that's just as accessible to a newborn believer stranded on a desert island with a Bible as it is to someone surrounded by pastors, priests, etc.

    Which is a position I can understand and sometimes agree with. Good(ish) Anglican that I am I have received the sacrament in a variety of settings, including from people who would baulk at calling it that. I take what I might call a belt and braces approach. I fully expect that God will extend his grace wherever he chooses, but I will still so far as it depends on me seek to ensure that all is conducted in good order and, barring pressing reasons otherwise, in keeping with the tradition received from the early church.
  • Forthview wrote: »
    I have to apologise to Baptist Trainfan for saying that he would offer Communion 'to all and sundry'.
    Well, we wouldn't ask questions, it's up to the individual. No apology was needed, by the way - but thanks!

  • As I am given to understand it, Anglicans will say when the Bread is combined with the Body as in Consubstantiation, the bread/Body host has to be reserved (ie tabernacled) for future use should there be any leftover. Lutherans, on the other hand, will say the real presence is in the act of communion--in the eating and drinking of the elements at the time of the Lord's Supper. After the Lutheran service is over the bread and wine do not have to be reserved. I cannot think of Lutheran Church which tabernacles the elements once they are consecrated.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited February 16
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I cannot think of Lutheran Church which tabernacles the elements once they are consecrated.
    As it happens, there was a Mystery Worshipper report on such a church just last month:

    First English Evangelical Lutheran, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (ELCA). (And see here, at the church’s website.)

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I cannot think of Lutheran Church which tabernacles the elements once they are consecrated.
    As it happens, there was a Mystery Worshipper report on such a church just last month:

    First English Evangelical Lutheran, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (ELCA). (And see here, at the church’s website.)

    Well, I stand corrected.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I cannot think of Lutheran Church which tabernacles the elements once they are consecrated.
    As it happens, there was a Mystery Worshipper report on such a church just last month:

    First English Evangelical Lutheran, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (ELCA). (And see here, at the church’s website.)

    Well, I stand corrected.
    Well, you said you couldn’t think of one, so I assume you were correct about that. :wink:

    I remembered it from the MW report because when I read it I was a little surprised, as I’ve never encountered a tabernacle or aumbry in a Lutheran church that I can recall.

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    To put it in simple terms, the teaching of the RC is that in communion, the bread becomes the body of Christ and is no longer bread in a substantial way. The first half could be reasonably accepted by many Anglicans and Lutherans. The second half of the sentence however is only held officially by the RC church.
    And by the Orthodox, I believe.

    Negative. We believe it's still bread AND the body of Christ.

    Is that stated as official teaching.

    It's possible. In some council somewhere. But we don't tend to codify everything to the nth power the way the Catholics do. There are plenty of Orthodox teachings that are not dogmas and we don't have an official Catechism like our brothers and sisters in Rome.

    I was just wondering what weight to give to your statement, whether its personal, commonly held but not taught, or official.

    It's either 2 or 3, but the line is rather blurry. We don't have a big list that lays out all the official teachings like the RCC's Catechism. If it's official, it's in the writings of some council or other, but you would have to ask someone with a fairly good knowledge of the canons of the councils. And even Bishops (many of them) are wrong about the canons on many questions (example: whether service animals can be allowed in a church).

    This is not having a go at either Mousethief or the tradition to which he belongs. We, as Anglicans, can go to Catholic Mass - and do so as a normal part of the congregation. And a step further, we can in certain circumstances receive at communion, and have done that on many occasions. But if we enter an Orthodox Church, at least one in the Greek tradition, we may not enter the main body of the church but must remain in a porch (can't quickly remember its proper name). AIUI, we may take the antidoron. While we're honoured to do so at a cathedral or some other place where we'd be reasonably anonymous in taking it, we'd not in a small church.
  • I've never heard of keeping non-O people outside of the church proper. That sounds very much like a local tradition and not the teaching of the church as a whole. Every O. church I have been in has only one space, and everybody is in there together, O. or not. That strikes me as very odd.
  • I agree with @mousethief

    Every Orthodox church I have encountered has been welcoming and I have never experienced any pressure to keep outside (or to the edges of) the main body of the church. The only "exclusion" is that I cannot receive communion (but can have the antidoron).

    If I was ever to leave Anglicanism, I would be very tempted to move to the Orthodox Church, not so much because of their beliefs and liturgy but because I've always been made to feel welcome.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited February 16
    mousethief wrote: »
    I've never heard of keeping non-O people outside of the church proper. That sounds very much like a local tradition and not the teaching of the church as a whole. Every O. church I have been in has only one space, and everybody is in there together, O. or not. That strikes me as very odd.

    Our experience of Orthodox churches has been here, and in Greece (including the main Cathedral). It's always been made clear to us that during a service, we could go so far and no further. Indeed, that was what happened when Miss Amanda Mystery-worshipped St Anthony's monastery.
  • Wow that's certainly not like anything I've seen in this country.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    As I am given to understand it, Anglicans will say when the Bread is combined with the Body as in Consubstantiation, the bread/Body host has to be reserved (ie tabernacled) for future use should there be any leftover.

    Formally, the Anglican stance on the Sacrament of Holy Communion is set out in Article 28 of the 39 Articles of Religion
    XXVIII. Of the Lord's Supper.
    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: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

    Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

    The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

    The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

    Anglican position in the 1662 BCP is not that the consecrated elements should be reserved, but that they should be consumed
    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.

    Reserving the elements for taking Communion to the sick or housebound, however, is very common; and in the more Catholic tradition in Anglicanism the place of reservation may be a focus of worship, and some practise Solemn Exposition and Solemn Benediction.
  • This is your semi-regular reminder that not all provinces of the Anglican Communion have either the 39 Articles or the 1662 BCP, and they should not be considered normative. Even prior to the SEC dropping the articles (as soon as was legally permitted) the 1929 BCP read thus:
    According to long-existing custom in the Scottish Church, the Presbyter may reserve so much of the consecrated Gifts as may be required for the Communion of the Sick and others who could not be present at the celebration in church. All that remaineth of the Holy Sacrament, and is not so required, the Presbyter and such other of the communicants as he shall then call unto him shall, after the Blessing, reverently eat and drink.

    This rubric applied to both the Scottish and English liturgies.
  • I've been to Orthodox liturgies in many countries and never experienced any barrier to going anywhere in the church. To be fair I have never asked anyone if I should or shouldn't be in a particular place, but simply followed others.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    This is your semi-regular reminder that not all provinces of the Anglican Communion have either the 39 Articles or the 1662 BCP…

    Yes. My bad. I should have said Church of England.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    edited February 16
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    As I am given to understand it, Anglicans will say when the Bread is combined with the Body as in Consubstantiation, the bread/Body host has to be reserved (ie tabernacled) for future use should there be any leftover. Lutherans, on the other hand, will say the real presence is in the act of communion--in the eating and drinking of the elements at the time of the Lord's Supper. After the Lutheran service is over the bread and wine do not have to be reserved. I cannot think of Lutheran Church which tabernacles the elements once they are consecrated.
    I can't speak for elsewhere, but in the CofE the bread and the wine that is left over does not have to be reserved. The starting point is that it must be consumed at the end of the service. This is what is normal. It is only relatively recently that it has become anything other than a matter of controversy to do anything else, and even then, many churches which take communion to the sick, rather than have a full communion at the bedside, will consume everything at the end of the service unless there's actually a sick communion programmed.

    I've said before on these boards that to me, it seems very odd, and somewhat inconsistent with the logic of their position that there are churches elsewhere in the Anglican Communion that maintain that somehow the 39 Articles don't apply to them, and that the 1662 Prayer Book is nothing to do with their tradition.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    As I am given to understand it, Anglicans will say when the Bread is combined with the Body as in Consubstantiation, the bread/Body host has to be reserved (ie tabernacled) for future use should there be any leftover. Lutherans, on the other hand, will say the real presence is in the act of communion--in the eating and drinking of the elements at the time of the Lord's Supper. After the Lutheran service is over the bread and wine do not have to be reserved. I cannot think of Lutheran Church which tabernacles the elements once they are consecrated.
    I can't speak for elsewhere, but in the CofE the bread and the wine that is left over does not have to be reserved. The starting point is that it must be consumed at the end of the service. This is what is normal. It is only relatively recently that it has become anything other than a matter of controversy to do anything else, and even then, many churches which take communion to the sick, rather than have a full communion at the bedside, will consume everything at the end of the service unless there's actually a sick communion programmed.

    I've said before on these boards that to me, it seems very odd, and somewhat inconsistent with the logic of their position that there are churches elsewhere in the Anglican Communion that maintain that somehow the 39 Articles don't apply to them, and that the 1662 Prayer Book is nothing to do with their tradition.

    To be fair, if I were required to assent to the 39a I'd run a mile.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    We don't have HM as our governor either.
  • Enoch wrote: »

    I've said before on these boards that to me, it seems very odd, and somewhat inconsistent with the logic of their position that there are churches elsewhere in the Anglican Communion that maintain that somehow the 39 Articles don't apply to them, and that the 1662 Prayer Book is nothing to do with their tradition.

    The Scottish Episcopal Church has 1662 as part of its heritage, along with the imposition of the articles, reflecting the history of the church under persecution and the absorption of the English-use qualified chapels, but they were ditched decades ago and widely ignored long before that. Episcopalianism has been part of the Anglican Communion from the beginning, and attempting to make it solely about the CofE is to distort a very complex history.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Shipmate
    edited February 16
    KarlLB wrote: »

    To be fair, if I were required to assent to the 39a I'd run a mile.

    I remember a vicar saying that in practice ordinands interpret "assent" to mean anything from "agreeing with every single word of them" to "agreeing that it is true that these articles exist".

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »

    To be fair, if I were required to assent to the 39a I'd run a mile.

    I remember a vicar saying that in practice ordinands interpret "assent" to mean anything from "agreeing with every single word of them" to "agreeing that it is true that these articles exist".

    I'm not a great fan of this sort of semantic wriggling. For a long time after I no longer self-identified as Evangelical I could have assented to for example the UCCF statement of faith, but I wouldn't have been assenting to what the people who drew it up meant by it.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    I've said before on these boards that to me, it seems very odd, and somewhat inconsistent with the logic of their position that there are churches elsewhere in the Anglican Communion that maintain that somehow the 39 Articles don't apply to them, and that the 1662 Prayer Book is nothing to do with their tradition.
    Saying that the 1662 Prayer Book is no longer the authorized Prayer Book of an Anglican province isn’t the same thing as saying it has “nothing to do with their tradition.”

    There are a number Episcopal churches around here that have aumbries, but in many if not most, any bread that is reserved is simply kept in the sacristy. I can think of only one or two I have been in that have full-blown tabernacles.

  • KarlLB wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »

    To be fair, if I were required to assent to the 39a I'd run a mile.

    I remember a vicar saying that in practice ordinands interpret "assent" to mean anything from "agreeing with every single word of them" to "agreeing that it is true that these articles exist".

    I'm not a great fan of this sort of semantic wriggling. For a long time after I no longer self-identified as Evangelical I could have assented to for example the UCCF statement of faith, but I wouldn't have been assenting to what the people who drew it up meant by it.

    Oh I entirely agree with you Karl. I was never able to bring myself to sign the UCCF statement either. But I think my vicar must have been accurate in his observation because surely the number of CoE vicars really believing every word of the 39 Articles must be very low.

    This has been the case for a long time. My father remembers Ian Paisley holding forth at the Oxford Union in the early 1960s and using the 39 Articles to show that Anglicans ought to agree with his anti-Catholicism. "BUT UF COURSE," he boomed, "YE DON'T EVEN BULIEVE YER OWN RULIGION!"
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    It is a long time since Church of England vicars had to declare belief in every word of the 39 Articles. The Declaration of Assent now is
    … Led by the Holy Spirit, [the Church of England] has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. In the declaration you are about to make, will you affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith as your inspiration and guidance under God in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making Him known to those in your care?
    I, A B, do so affirm, and accordingly declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness…
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »

    To be fair, if I were required to assent to the 39a I'd run a mile.

    I remember a vicar saying that in practice ordinands interpret "assent" to mean anything from "agreeing with every single word of them" to "agreeing that it is true that these articles exist".

    I'm not a great fan of this sort of semantic wriggling. For a long time after I no longer self-identified as Evangelical I could have assented to for example the UCCF statement of faith, but I wouldn't have been assenting to what the people who drew it up meant by it.

    Oh I entirely agree with you Karl. I was never able to bring myself to sign the UCCF statement either.
    The problem with the UCCF DB was that it wasn't fixed. I signed it several times as a student, and probably still agree with what I thought was what the people who drew it up meant (as judged by the explanatory booklet available at the time). But, about half way through my time at uni, IVF published an update on that "this is what we believe" explanatory booklet which had a distinctly different feel to it than the earlier one, even without any changes to the DB itself - the newer version was leaning more towards inerrancy of Scripture for example. Without any changes to the text of the DB, and no significant shift in my own theological position, I could still sign it but with more misgivings.

    Of course, what other students signing that thought it meant was different again, in some cases staggeringly so to the point of wondering if we were reading the same words on the piece of paper.

Sign In or Register to comment.