What is High Church, and Low Church?

[ChessCastle]

This is yet another term I've come across as I try learning from past threads. Would someone please explain what High Chhurch and Low Church means?


CC

[benedictine]

High Church is more "smells and bells", for example, incensce, organ music, chant, and the high point of the service is probably the Eucharistic Canon. Low Church is more contemplative, and has less music, probably with a piano if there is any. The High opoint would most likely be the sermon.

Don't confuse "High Church" with "Anglo-Catholic", becouse while many anglo-catholics are high church, many are not. I will vouch for the beauty of a low mass, even though I myself am high church.

[pmcleanj]

This is yet another term I've come across as I try learning from past threads. Would someone please explain what High Chhurch and Low Church means?


CC
All Anglicans are both Catholic and Reformed. All use essentially the same liturgical forms. But the "look and feel" of the liturgy can range from indistinguishable-from-Roman-Catholic to indistinguishable-from-Evangelical, according to the customs of the parish. Both of these extremes are later developments (nineteenth and twentieth century). But even within the very traditional Anglican practices of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries there was a range between styles of worship that emphasized formal division of roles between clergy and laity with formal and precisely-defined vestments and accessories, to styles that emphasized lay participation, equality within the church, and integration of worship life with daily life. People can get very attached to particular forms, such that they can't abide having, or not having, some particular practice -- I know a man who left the Church rather than face the introduction of <gasp>candles! into the sanctuary. Some churches adopt a variety of different practices, and eschew others, to keep the peace and allow as broad a range of people as possible to feel at home in the parish.

To help out people who might walk into an Anglican Church expecting one thing, and get another, we've developed these labels that help us discuss what "look and feel" of worship is taking place:

indistinguishable-from-Roman-Catholic --> Anglo-Catholic
indistinguishable-from-Evangelical-->reformed
formal division of roles, precisely-defined vestments and accessories --> High Church
lay participation, equality within the church, rector wears street-clothes or plain cassock-and-surplice-->Low Church
Varying practices for the sake of the people's varying needs --> Broad Church.

The definitions aren't precise, and they don't represent actual divisions in the church. What's "Low Church" from one person's perspective might be "Broad Church" from the perspective of someone who's even "Lower Church".

In our self-deprecating Anglican style of definition-by-aphorism, we say "High and Crazy, Low and Lazy, Broad and Hazy". That misrepresents the whole spectrum of liturgical preference equally!

[SirTimothy]

indistinguishable-from-Roman-Catholic

Well, in many cases, indistinguishable-from-pre-Vat2-Roman-Catholic-yet-in-english...

Timothy

[PaladinValer]

High, Broad, and Low are various forms of "churchship." It is basically a preference to how a church service should be like.

High Churchers prefer a traditional Mass/Divine Liturgy, with smells and bells, Eucharistic adoration, etc.
Low Churchers prefer a more contemporary service, often utilizing just the bare minimums.
Broad Churchers prefer a balance of the two.

[AngCath]

High Church and Anglo-Catholic, I think, are the two most often confused so here are two definitions that I think separate the two nicely:

Anglo-Catholicism: a dogmatic and sacramental position within Anglicanism emphasizing the continuity of links with the early Church, displaying an affinity with medieval Christianity, and rejecting the label "Protestant." Its immediate forebear was the Oxford Movement, of which it was a late phase.

High-Church: Laudianism; also more generally, any emphasis on ritual, order, and pre-Reformation church practice within the Protestant Churches.

-from The Study of Anglicanism by Stephen Sykes, John Booty, and Jonathan Knight

[Naomi4Christ]

An alternative view based on benifaces within my own deanery and diocese

High Church = dwindling congregations
Low Church = bursting at the seams

The churches with a higher style are not attracting young people, and consequently their congregation is slowly dying off. Meanwhile, the two low/evangelical churches are planting new congregations.

In practice, many churches with multiple congregations embrace worship styles and liturgy from both ends of the spectrum, although they would stick to one theological point of view.

[SirTimothy]

High Church = dwindling congregations
Low Church = bursting at the seams

Depends how moderate they are. I know of an ultra-reformed low-church in the UK which is... well, somewhat smaller than it was before their new Vicar came in. I know more moderate ones which are bursting at the seams.

Timothy

[AngCath]

High Church = dwindling congregations
Low Church = bursting at the seams

in my diocese, there are plenty of examples to the contrary.

[holyshe]

i go to a high church bursting at its seems !!!!

[romaneagle13]

i go to a high church bursting at its seems !!!!

I have yet to see an Episcopal Church in my area that is bursting at the seams....would be nice though. :(

[ChessCastle]

High, Broad, and Low are various forms of "churchship." It is basically a preference to how a church service should be like.

High Churchers prefer a traditional Mass/Divine Liturgy, with smells and bells, Eucharistic adoration, etc.
Low Churchers prefer a more contemporary service, often utilizing just the bare minimums.
Broad Churchers prefer a balance of the two.


What is Eucharistic adoration? I understand the Eucharist is communion is that just another term?

[thejesusfish90]

So given the difference between high church and anglo-catholic... would it be concievable that someone should be a low church anglo-catholic... or a high church protestant?... *better question could be does anyone fit those groupings here... I can imagine that a person could easily be a low church anglo-catholic (a person with catholic beliefs at a church which maintains the bare minimums)... but I've yet to come across a high church protestant (in terms of theological positioning)...

Low Church=Bursting at it seems

lol... I wish

YBIC

Chris

[SirTimothy]

would it be concievable that someone should be a low church anglo-catholic... or a high church protestant?... *better question could be does anyone fit those groupings here... I can imagine that a person could easily be a low church anglo-catholic (a person with catholic beliefs at a church which maintains the bare minimums)... but I've yet to come across a high church protestant (in terms of theological positioning)...

Yes. I would class myself as low-church with anglo-catholic leanings. Colabomb (who sadly left the AC) was a low-church anglo-catholic, who became low-church luthero-catholic.

Timothy

[karen freeinchristman]

What is Eucharistic adoration? I understand the Eucharist is communion is that just another term?

Isn't that where the consecrated bread and wine are worshipped? They are kept in a special container and people worship them (they believe (as in the Roman Catholic tradition) that the consecrated bread and wine are actually turned into the real body and blood of Jesus Christ).

[PaladinValer]

What is Eucharistic adoration? I understand the Eucharist is communion is that just another term?

It can take different forms.

At simplest, it can simply be the raising of the consecrates Elements high while the cleric states "Christ (the Elements) our Passover is sacrificed for us," etc.

For Anglo-Catholics or any Anglican who holds a Eucharistic belief either that of Vatican Catholics or Eastern Orthodox, it is the worship of Christ, who has now come physically and spiritually into the Elements.

[gtsecc]

An alternative view:

High Church = dwindling congregations
Low Church = bursting at the seams



Muslims are growing even faster.
Do you want to go there?

[Naomi4Christ]

snip

[gtsecc]

OK, so cliques of men in nighties are a good thing...but unfortunately against what Christ commanded us to do. Go..................
I am simply pointing out that growth does not not equal truth.

[Naomi4Christ]

But the two aren't mutually exclusive

[gtsecc]

But the two aren't mutually exclusive
I agree, but you are the one who implied that they were :
Quote:http://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-right.gif http://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-by-left.gifOriginally Posted by: Dogsbody http://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-by-right.gifhttp://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-right-10.gifAn alternative view:

High Church = dwindling congregations
Low Church = bursting at the seams

[Naomi4Christ]

Just my observation of a very small database - one Ecusa parish/diocese and several CofE parish/dioceses.

[gtsecc]

Eastern Orthodox = Same Theology
Roman Catholic = Same Magisterium
Anglican = Same Words

Now, the Eastern Orthodox can make a good arguent that they are part of the Church Christ founded. And, theologically they are the most unified.

The Roman Catholics can make a good argument also that they are part of the Church Christ founded, and they seem to have Peter's succesion.

Anglicans were clearly part of the Church Christ founded - our roots go back to around the first century when the land was evangelised. For us to continue to hold this claim, we need to show how we are connected to the Church in England. We can do this by showing a theological, sacramental, and liturgical connection. As the theology changes, we can only loosely claim conenction by showing that we are praying the same words. If we don't have this or even want it - then we are not part of the Church Christ established, and then the whole church established by Christ consists of the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, plus maybe a few smaller pieces like the Coptic Church and the Old Catholics.

[Naomi4Christ]

No, no, no!

Who really, really cares about the wider church? Most people only care about their own church family and their own personal journey of faith (good teaching helps on that score) and their obligations to God.

[gtsecc]

No, no, no!

Who really, really cares about the wider church? Most people only care about their own church family and their own personal journey of faith (good teaching helps on that score) and their obligations to God.

I care about the wider Church.
Everyone in my parish cares about it - and thinks about it that way.

Jesus did not come just for my salvation, but for the salvation of the whole of creation. The Church he established is not just for my personal salvation but for the salvation of all of creation.
The Bible talks about the Body of Christ, not the parish family.
Your parish should not do things which will injure the rest of the body.
Your parish must think of itself as part of the Body of Christ and act accordingly.

[gtsecc]

Yeah, and you have all the answers. Righty-O. And who are you to judge?
It is not my idea.
I have most of Church history in accord with my understanding of the Church.

Look, do you say the creeds at your parish?
What do you think One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church means?
Do you think the folks that wrote the creed would agree with your understanding?

[Naomi4Christ]

I care about the wider Church.
Everyone in my parish cares about it - and thinks about it that way.

Jesus did not come just for my salvation, but for the salvation of the whole of creation. The Church he established is not just for my personal salvation but for the salvation of all of creation.
The Bible talks about the Body of Christ, not the parish family.
Your parish should not do things which will injure the rest of the body.
Your parish must think of itself as part of the Body of Christ and act accordingly.

Oh, this is getting ridiculous.

How does my parish injure the rest of the body? We work tirelessly for the body and continually self-examine to make sure we are working for God and not for ourselves.

We are not dumbing down the message. We are enhancing it.

We are not expending energy on man-made issues (ie rubrics)

Why are you critical of a successful and committed church - just because we don't follow your little ways of dresscode, lectionary, worship style?

Like it our not, we are Anglican - have been since the start of the CofE (Congregation here since 1100s). If you have a problem with us, then it is you that is not Anglican.

We develop 7-day a week Christians which is very commendable in my book.

[Naomi4Christ]

It is not my idea.
I have most of Church history in accord with my understanding of the Church.

Look, do you say the creeds at your parish?
What do you think One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church means?
Do you think the folks that wrote the creed would agree with your understanding?

Yes, we say the Creed.

Holy Catholic = Universal
Apostolic = descended from the Apostles

I think we qualify on both counts somehow, unless there has been an administrative cock-up with our new bishop.

[Naomi4Christ]

Not necessarily.

[Naomi4Christ]

We don't use the BCP ('cept to 20 or so dusties at 8am). Yet we are still Anglicans.

[karen freeinchristman]

If your parish does not use the Prayer Book, then it is indeed your parish which is not Anglican. The Prayer Book is what defines us as a people.

I can't agree with this either!

Jesus said that he would build his church on Peter, the rock. Does this mean that all churches/christians have got to be able to trace their leadership through to him? Does that mean we all have to use the Prayer Book? "The Prayer Book is what defines us as a people" :confused: My church uses it for one service (with a low attendance), but not for the main service, which I attend. This doesn't mean that I am not an Anglican! Go to the Anglican communion website to see what defines us "as a people".

BTW, I thought "Apostolic" meant "like the apostles" - and apostle means "one who is sent". Carries a mission implication, not some sort of "descended" from "we're authentic because we descended from" meaning.

[holyshe]

Dogsbody,

If your parish does not use the Prayer Book, then it is indeed your parish which is not Anglican. The Prayer Book is what defines us as a people.

i agree it is one of the things that unites us

[SirTimothy]

Bluntly put, what defines us as Anglicans is NOT the BCP. Otherwise we'd still be using the 1662 (which America doesn't, Canada doesn't, and the UK doesn't.) We've all revised our liturgy differently, ECUSA with the 1979 BCP, Canada with the BAS, England with first the ASB, then now CW. What binds us together as ANGLICANS is the fact that we're willing to put aside our differences--many and large though they are--and share the Sacraments together. A willingness to say that ALL baptised believers are welcome at our table. A willingness to say that ALTHOUGH we believe that you might be incorrect, we are willing to accept you as brother/sister. This, to me, is the defining characteristic of Anglicanism. A willingness to accept all.

Timothy

[karen freeinchristman]

Bluntly put, what defines us as Anglicans is NOT the BCP. Otherwise we'd still be using the 1662 (which America doesn't, Canada doesn't, and the UK doesn't.) We've all revised our liturgy differently, ECUSA with the 1979 BCP, Canada with the BAS, England with first the ASB, then now CW. What binds us together as ANGLICANS is the fact that we're willing to put aside our differences--many and large though they are--and share the Sacraments together. A willingness to say that ALL baptised believers are welcome at our table. A willingness to say that ALTHOUGH we believe that you might be incorrect, we are willing to accept you as brother/sister. This, to me, is the defining characteristic of Anglicanism. A willingness to accept all.

Timothy

Yes, and this is what I love about the Anglican church (low OR high, broad, wide or in-between!).

[gitlance]

I was simply saying that historically, as apart from all the other denominations, we were the first (and in many places are still the only) ones to be united not just by our beliefs or customs, but by our worship. And our worship was contained in the BCP. That is what united the church in the beginning and made Anglicans distinct from the rest of the Christian world. I believe that if we abandon that heritage, we will be abandoning what originally defined us as Anglicans. (For we all know that the prayer book existed before Queen Elizabeth's "Settlement" which attempted to make the church all-inclusive).

[Naomi4Christ]

But we are obviously not united by our worship!

[karen freeinchristman]

Two things we are united by (in my opinion) are:

acceptance of the creeds and
the words used in the prayers of the Eucharist

can we add any others?

[Naomi4Christ]

Same ladies who are in charge of the kitchen? :cool:

Participatory worship style (ie spoken prayers and responses).
Lack of overt rules for daily living (the Holy Spirit will help you stay on the straight and narrow).
Duty to the wider community (outreach, support for missionary work etc.)
Hierarchical clergy structure.
Tolerance and openness.

[SirTimothy]

I was simply saying that historically, as apart from all the other denominations, we were the first (and in many places are still the only) ones to be united not just by our beliefs or customs, but by our worship. And our worship was contained in the BCP. That is what united the church in the beginning and made Anglicans distinct from the rest of the Christian world. I believe that if we abandon that heritage, we will be abandoning what originally defined us as Anglicans. (For we all know that the prayer book existed before Queen Elizabeth's "Settlement" which attempted to make the church all-inclusive).

Well, like I say, we all have different prayerbooks that we use, as it is. Have done since the seventies. CW just takes the flexibility of the ASB, and '79 BCP and takes it further... and I like it. :)

Timothy

[PaladinValer]

The Book of Common Prayer, regardless of edition, is one of the elements of unity that unites all Anglicans.

[SirTimothy]

The Book of Common Prayer, regardless of edition, is one of the elements of unity that unites all Anglicans.

Then why is the ECUSA the ONLY province which still calls it's book the 'Book of Commo Prayer'?

Timothy

[holyshe]

i think you know what he means...?

[PaladinValer]

"A rose by another name is still a rose" ;)

[holyshe]

i agree

[SirTimothy]

"A rose by another name is still a rose"

So ineffect what you're saying is saying that some liturgical usage is one of the things that defines us as Anglicans, then yes, I agree. I've never been to an AC that didn't use SOME liturgy, and I've been to 'lower-than-the-floorboards' Anglican churches. :)

Timothy

[holyshe]

i go to a so called high church with all the trimmings...

why is it no one gets insulted with the wording of high church, low church?

i always was lead to believe when i was little (5 or 6)

is it high as in higher to god and heaven?
is it low as in lower to the devil and hell?

high what?
low what?
why are those words used?

does anyone know?

[karen freeinchristman]

High = high level of trimmings
Low=low level of trimmings

that's my view, anyway, someone else may know more.

[Naomi4Christ]

The Book of Common Prayer, regardless of edition, is one of the elements of unity that unites all Anglicans.

Nope! We don't use the BCP or any book apart from the bible..

Sure enough the liturgy is based on Common Worship, but the parishioners don't generally have access to this, or to any other catechetical documents.

When we have a question about a matter of faith, we don't turn to a BCP for guidance - we look in the bible.

[Lel]

But if you have a question on a matter of worship, or are looking for some liturgical goodness, why not turn to the BCP?

[Naomi4Christ]

We don't get hung up on rules for worship and what the clergy need to know, they already know (they learn it in theological college, during their curacy and through in-service training).

We like it simple! Rules get in the way.

[Naomi4Christ]

ps: I'm sure most vicars will have the BCP on their bookshelf, even if it's just gathering dust.

[holyshe]

High = high level of trimmings
Low=low level of trimmings

that's my view, anyway, someone else may know more.

LMSO

IT SOUNDS LIKE CHRISTMAS LOL

[PaladinValer]

No rules?

So we are to allow Montanism, Chiliasm, or Nestorianism? Those which, because of their teachings against the power and authority of the Holy Spirit (Montanism), against the Majesty of Christ (Chiliasm), and against the nature of Christ and, through implication, the important of the Ever-Blessed Virgin (Nestorianism), were declared to be erronous and not compatable with true Christianity by the Ecumenical Councils?

The same Ecumenical Councils, mind you, that our own ancient bishops attended. The same Ecumenical Councils that Catholics like Henry VIII and Reformed folks like Archbishop Cramner each followed?

Anglicanism adheres to these Ecumenical Councils because:

1. It participated in them
2. It honors Holy Tradition
3. It is an Apostolic faith

These are necessary rules which cannot be ignored. Their teachings are gross, unholy, and just plain illogical. I cannot myself by a part of any church or denomination, parish or mission, or be under any cleric of any type that would accept these errornous teachings.

There are rules of faith. It is our part as Christians to adhere to them.

[Naomi4Christ]

What does is say/not say in the bible about that?

That's where to look for guidance. Not a rule book.

[AveMaria]

Nope! We don't use the BCP or any book apart from the bible..

Sure enough the liturgy is based on Common Worship, but the parishioners don't generally have access to this, or to any other catechetical documents.

When we have a question about a matter of faith, we don't turn to a BCP for guidance - we look in the bible.

No copies of CW in the pews?

[Naomi4Christ]

No, and we don't have pews.

We print up each service on a sheet and project it onto a screen. It's not good for newcomers to have to juggle books, or find a couple of pages in a tome.

[AveMaria]

To each their own, I suppose. I've always felt that projection screens were hard to read.

Isn't it great that there's so many kinds of churches out there, so we can find one that suits our style?

[Naomi4Christ]

We do make up sheets for those that want them including large-type sheets. Everyone is happy!

The screen is great for those holding babies and those that want to raise their hands in praise (and for those who do both). It's also great for showing pictures, movie clips etc., and our curate loves to use powerpoint with his sermons.

[SirTimothy]

No copies of CW in the pews?

At 15 pounds (that's over 30 dollars) a copy, most churches can't afford many copies.

Timothy

[Naomi4Christ]

I think the High/Low levels of trimmings is most accurate - or high level of formality vs low level - or high level of tradition vs low level. It think it is to do with how the service is packaged rather than the message or the theology.

I don't think High/Low has much to do with theological view - although there is clearly a strong correlation between highly sacramental parishes and being high.

You'll find that many large CofE parishes offer a mixture in a typically English/Anglican common sense way. There is a certain duty within the CofE to cater for the whole community.

For example, our church has 4 Sunday services - a solemn BCP; a stricter CW with robes, choir and organ; an informal service with no robes, modern music and creativity; and a very informal, more charasmatic service. Saying that, the charasmatic service isn't a separate congregation - it's those from the morning services who come back for more, although anyone is welcome (of course).

[Naomi4Christ]

At 15 pounds (that's over 30 dollars) a copy, most churches can't afford many copies.

Timothy

I'm sure we could afford it, but it's not where we choose to spend our money. We'd rather give out free bibles to our Alpha guests, or provide lunch for our students, or whatever.

There is very little value in putting out a large book of which about 10 pages are ever read by your average punter.

[AveMaria]

Wow, 30 dollars?

I just checked out of curiosity, pew editions of the BCP are $18. I've no idea if churches can get a volume discount rate or not. But at least they're not a recurring expense every year. . . aside from having to replace any that may have been damage. (Good argument against updating the BCP, isn't it?)

STR makes me realize just how much of a visual and tactile person I am - I like having the BCP and the hymnal in my hands! (Although I bring my own, I got a combination BCP/hymnal as a gift and it's nice to be able to use the multicolored ribbon markers to bookmark the hymns before the service begins). I'm also big on icons, incense, etc for similar reasons. Perhaps my mind wanders, but they help me focus.

The projection screen/powerpoint makes me feel like I'm in a meeting at work - one of my first jobs was creating snazzy multimedia presentations, so I realize this may not be the typical reaction!!

[Naomi4Christ]

Ah, but it looks so different in a big, airy, Georgian church than in some dull office building with polystyrene ceiling tiles.

And it has so much flexibility - imagine being able to show movie clips in your service! Fab!

[SirTimothy]

I just checked out of curiosity, pew editions of the BCP are $18. I've no idea if churches can get a volume discount rate or not. But at least they're not a recurring expense every year. . . aside from having to replace any that may have been damage. (Good argument against updating the BCP, isn't it?)

Indeed. One of our lay readers says that he was a trifle irritated that the ASB was made illegal, since we HAD nice copies of those for the entire congregation.

Timothy

[karen freeinchristman]

You'll find that many large CofE parishes offer a mixture in a typically English/Anglican common sense way. There is a certain duty within the CofE to cater for the whole community.

For example, our church has 4 Sunday services - a solemn BCP; a stricter CW with robes, choir and organ; an informal service with no robes, modern music and creativity; and a very informal, more charasmatic service. Saying that, the charasmatic service isn't a separate congregation - it's those from the morning services who come back for more, although anyone is welcome (of course).

I want to go to your church!

[AveMaria]

You know, this thread parallels a discussion I had at a dinner party this weekend.

It's absolutely fascinating how passionate humans can be about how we worship and what is 'correct'.

Can't you just picture some late Neolithic tribe, having a heated debate over whether or not to use those shiney new bits of metal in religious ceremony? ^_^

[Naomi4Christ]

I want to go to your church!

:wave:

Which service?

[PaladinValer]

Just because it isn't in the Bible doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Fallacy of Appealing to Ignorance.

The Bible makes only implicity references to the dogma of the Holy Trinity. Whether some Christians like it or not, it took Holy Tradition, an Ecumenical Council, to establish that belief as official and infallable.

[Naomi4Christ]

Just because it isn't in the Bible doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Fallacy of Appealing to Ignorance.

Can you expand on that?

We do lots of things that aren't in the bible but that we feel are compatible with what it says in the bible.

[PaladinValer]

I was giving an example on why your argument was illogical.

[Naomi4Christ]

Sorry, I am lost. Can you explain to someone who has just had a huge Sunday lunch?

[gitlance]

It is a question I am often asked. We advertise ourselves as such in the Post and Courier, on our web page, and in advertisements in church periodicals that have a national circulation. So that news is out there. We claim our Catholic identity and heritage. But do we always understand? Is it the same as being high church? Does it mean that we have more ritual? Well, not exactly. The first thing we must understand is that Anglo-Catholicism isn’t in any way a matter of taste or style. If that were the case, we could well be accused of being frivolous and superficial. One of the fatal flaws of the mega-church movement (Willow Creek, and places like it) is that it caters to that true American god, choice. The logic runs like this:

More people like Rock bands than classical music. More people like a casual atmosphere than a formal one. Most people are not intellectual and they watch TV more than they read books, so sermons should be anecdotal, funny, and sentimental. It is easier to read a power-point presentation on a screen than fumble with a prayer book. Therefore, we will make church look just like what people want. It’s as simple as that. We will do it, and we will grow.

The fatal flaw in this strategy is that giving people what they want is an ever-moving target. Tastes change more quickly than the weather. Furthermore, giving people what they want may not be helpful. In fact, it may even be destructive. I am convinced, that in terms of what passes for Christianity in many places, it is destructive because it re-enforces the subtle, and yet ever so insidious notion, that worship is about us. Worship is never about us. It is never about what we can get out of it. It isn’t a product to be produced nor consumed, bought nor sold.

Likewise, our Catholic faith is not about taste. It is not simply that we like incense while others do not (smoking or non-smoking? the waiter might ask). We are Catholics and we worship as we do because we have a profound belief that God demands our best efforts, and that a liturgy that has come down to us unchanged in its essentials for two thousand years is a gift. We are stewards of a treasure, not innovators who must tinker and experiment.

So if not about preference nor taste, what defines us? To answer this question, we must go back nearly 170 years ago. A group of Anglican priests and scholars began what would eventually be called The Oxford Movement on July 14, 1833. Having studied the Fathers of the ancient church, they determined that the Church of England, in all of its essentials, was the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It was not, as some of their contemporaries believed, merely the Department of Religion of the English Government. They set about writing pamphlets called Tracts for Our Times (from whence they received the nickname, Tractarians). These helped to educate the public to certain truths that had, for various reasons, been neglected or forgotten.

First among these truths was that Anglicans are not Protestants. The Reformation, they taught, over-reacted to medieval abuses and did away with much that was essential to the nature of the church. Those Anglicans who emphasized a Reformation heritage were mistaken, and Anglo-Catholics had a missionary task in restoring a proper understanding to the whole Communion.

Secondly, Anglo-Catholics rejoiced that the Apostolic Succession had been preserved for us, thereby insuring the validity of our Sacraments. Without this gift of Holy Orders, an ecclesial body could not properly be called church per se.

Thirdly, they cherished the gift of Common Prayer. Archbishop Cranmer’s liturgy in English (particularly the 1549 book, which is the basis of our own parish eucharist) clearly preserved the teaching, shape and practice of the Holy Eucharist of the ancient church.

In short, Anglo-Catholics believe and worship as they do because they are heirs of the very same church that was founded by Jesus Christ. This is a very different thing than picking a church that makes us "feel good." We reject choice because there IS no other choice! Like Simon Peter, we say to Jesus, Lord, to whom (else) would we turn? You have the words of eternal life.

This is but a brief summary. I should like to write more in the future about the implications of our Catholic Faith, but let it suffice for me to close with this: If we don’t know who we are, we can’t fulfill our mission. We are called to make Christ known, and to bring others into the Kingdom. That is why we must be sure of our foundational understanding of the faith, for we cannot call others into that which we don’t fully understand. Let us continue the vibrant Anglo-Catholic witness that we have inherited, preaching the Word urgently, administering the sacraments faithfully, serving the poor obediently, and praying for a continual growth in our own understanding, that we may show forth in our lives what we proclaim with our lips.


Appealing to what people want (and in the process dumbing down our own Traditions and Doctrine) in a church is post-modernism.

[SirTimothy]

Appealing to what people want (and in the process dumbing down our own Traditions and Doctrine) in a church is post-modernism.

But it IS Anglican. Cranmer created the 39 Articles of Religion and two different BCPs because they were what people wanted. He managed to compromise between two different groups of people and create a church which worshipped similarly, some more higher than others, but basically the same. The same is true of the CofE today. Anglo-Catholicism is all very well, I agree with much of it. But enforcing a particular narrow set of doctrines is VERY unanglican. Enforcing the basics, sure. The 39 Articles are fairly basic... a few of them are incorrect, but they weren't making any huge leaps of saying church must be like x, y or z rather, they were ensuring the passing on of our Apostolic faith.

ANYONE, whether Anglo-Catholic, or Anglo-Congregationalist, High Church or Low Church who tries to say that all Anglicans must worship a certain way, or believe certain doctrines which are... shall we say debatable, is bordering on being unAnglican. Our RC brethren define what you must believe/do/say to be RC. This is one of the beauties of the Anglican church is that we have not, do not, and will not. The Anglican church by definition is a mixture of different churchmanships... has been from day one. Some churches attempt to meet the needs of their communities in different ways... and a lot of of the 'low-church evangelical' churches which you are saying are not Anglican are in fact growing, hugely, and fully approved of by the Church of England.

Timothy

[Naomi4Christ]

More people like Rock bands than classical music. More people like a casual atmosphere than a formal one. Most people are not intellectual and they watch TV more than they read books, so sermons should be anecdotal, funny, and sentimental. It is easier to read a power-point presentation on a screen than fumble with a prayer book. Therefore, we will make church look just like what people want. It’s as simple as that. We will do it, and we will grow.

Is this what you think the evangelical wing of the Church of England is like?

We don't have 'rock bands' - we have a worship team consisting of a piano, violin, clarinet, bass guitar, classical guitar and drums - and the odd other instrument thrown in. The songs are led by 2 or 3 singers. There is nothing distasteful or dumbing down about this - they indeed make a joyful noise which is more pleasing that a church organ. We have amplification systems available to us nowadays that means that we don't need an organ to fulfil our music requirements. The organ did well in the days when electricity was not around!

Casual is indeed very meritable. Worrying about formality means that you are taking your focus away from the real agenda. More importantly, you alienate newcomers by excessive formality. One of our primary goals as Christians is to drag new people in - in our post-Christian era, you can't do that with bells and smells.

Our sermons are extremely serious - they go through the bible line-by-line. They tackle hard issues. For many people, this is the most mental stimulation they get in a week. This was not my experience in Ecusa where the sermons resembled what we got in high school.

Yes, screens are easier for some people than messign about with books. What is wrong with admitting that? Have you ever held a child or breastfed a baby in a service? If so, then you will know that dealing with stuff is harder than it needs to be. Have you ever freely praised the lord - hard with a one kilo book in your hand?

Of course church has to be what people want. Do you think we should not provide disabled access, for example? After all they didn't do that 400 years ago ('hen I was a lad'), so why should we jolly well change now?

It's great if you had a priveledged upbringing and never had to deal with problems of everyday people, but that doesn't mean that God doesn't love those people and want us to minister to them.

[pmcleanj]

Appealing to what people want (and in the process dumbing down our own Traditions and Doctrine) in a church is post-modernism.

Gitlance,

Where is the quote in this post from?

[Naomi4Christ]

The Anglican church by definition is a mixture of different churchmanships... has been from day one. Some churches attempt to meet the needs of their communities in different ways... and a lot of of the 'low-church evangelical' churches which you are saying are not Anglican are in fact growing, hugely, and fully approved of by the Church of England.

Timothy
Absolutely.

The Church of England has a duty to serve all its parishioners - which inevitably means a mixture of worship styles. It is madness to suggest that one-size should fit all or that we should stay fixed in the 17th century.

[gitlance]

Gitlance,

Where is the quote in this post from?

http://www.holycomm.org/anglocatholic.htm

The Rector of gtsecc's parish wrote that.

[SirTimothy]

The Church of England has a duty to serve all its parishioners - which inevitably means a mixture of worship styles. It is madness to suggest that one-size should fit all or that we should stay fixed in the 17th century.

Exactly. This is the major difference between the Anglican church any many others... we value unity, not conformity.

Timothy

[pmcleanj]

It's great if you had a priveledged upbringing and never had to deal with problems of everyday people, but that doesn't mean that God doesn't love those people and want us to minister to them.

Different "everyday people" have different problems. Your solution of not reading the Lessons in church because we're all literate, for example, fails to deal with the problem of illiteracy, dislexia, and refugees who do not yet read in our language.

No-one is suggesting removing handicapped access.

We can discuss different ways of doing things, without slipping in oblique suggestions that the "other" way is privileged or callous.

[Naomi4Christ]

Oh for goodness sake!

[holyshe]

[/color][/size][/color][/font]
[/size]

Appealing to what people want (and in the process dumbing down our own Traditions and Doctrine) in a church is post-modernism.


i agree i think if you water down traditions and doctrine too much you end up with nothing. tradition is important for with out tradition we would not be the people we are today....

just think about it let dis regard traditions and see what you are left with...


no christmas dinner with all the trimmings (that is a tradition)
no easter eggs ....(and the chocolate ones yummy are a modern tradition)
no birthdays presents that is a tradition
no thanks giving in america that is a tradition
no havest feastible that is a tradition
no sunday roast that is a tradition.

and many many more

with out our traditions many people would even be touched by christianity, and our history which make us who we are.....

think of the average joe who does not attend church unless a christianing or wedding .... would he even know about christ and him dieing on the cross and reserection?
i think our traditions keep us who we are. remembering who we can from.

[karen freeinchristman]

Quote " One of the fatal flaws of the mega-church movement (Willow Creek, and places like it) is that it caters to that true American god, choice. The logic runs like this: More people like Rock bands than classical music. More people like a casual atmosphere than a formal one. Most people are not intellectual and they watch TV more than they read books, so sermons should be anecdotal, funny, and sentimental. It is easier to read a power-point presentation on a screen than fumble with a prayer book. Therefore, we will make church look just like what people want. It’s as simple as that. We will do it, and we will grow.




The fatal flaw in this strategy is that giving people what they want is an ever-moving target. Tastes change more quickly than the weather. Furthermore, giving people what they want may not be helpful. In fact, it may even be destructive. I am convinced, that in terms of what passes for Christianity in many places, it is destructive because it re-enforces the subtle, and yet ever so insidious notion, that worship is about us. Worship is never about us. It is never about what we can get out of it. It isn’t a product to be produced nor consumed, bought nor sold. " end quote





First of all, may I say that I do not think it is very clever to claim that America's true God is choice. How can the writer of this piece know this? It is a stereotype that is unfair.


Secondly, its not a case of making church look just like what people want, its making it a place that people will feel comfortable in so that they can open up to hearing the message. It's about reaching people where they are, and admitting to the reality of where they are, culturally. It's not about imposing what may be your idea of what is the highest form of music, either.

A changing culture IS an ever-moving target, but so what??? We need to reach them!








I agree that worship isn't about us, but sometimes that realisation comes only after maturity.





Quote: "Secondly, Anglo-Catholics rejoiced that the Apostolic Succession had been preserved for us, thereby insuring the validity of our Sacraments. Without this gift of Holy Orders, an ecclesial body could not properly be called church per se. " end quote.




Does this mean that you think only Catholics and Anglicans should properly be called "Church"? :scratch:


(sorry about the spaces and quote arrangement, I couldn't seem to quote from that original post)

[SirTimothy]

Does this mean that you think only Catholics and Anglicans should properly be called "Church"?

I found that offensive too, actually, but I was prepared to let it slide... but since you raised the point...

Timothy

[Naomi4Christ]

It's like when Ratzinger called the Church of England an 'ecclesiastical community'

[ChessCastle]

I think the High/Low levels of trimmings is most accurate - or high level of formality vs low level - or high level of tradition vs low level. It think it is to do with how the service is packaged rather than the message or the theology.

I don't think High/Low has much to do with theological view - although there is clearly a strong correlation between highly sacramental parishes and being high.

You'll find that many large CofE parishes offer a mixture in a typically English/Anglican common sense way. There is a certain duty within the CofE to cater for the whole community.

For example, our church has 4 Sunday services - a solemn BCP; a stricter CW with robes, choir and organ; an informal service with no robes, modern music and creativity; and a very informal, more charasmatic service. Saying that, the charasmatic service isn't a separate congregation - it's those from the morning services who come back for more, although anyone is welcome (of course).


Is CofE Church of England?

[Naomi4Christ]

Is CofE Church of England?

Yes

[SirTimothy]

Yes, well, we ARE an ecclesiastical community. We're also an almost 2000 year established church, but never mind that small trivial unimportant detail...

Timothy

[puppy]

ive read this thread and still not sure which i am, sorry

[karen freeinchristman]

:wave:
ive read this thread and still not sure which i am, sorry

High and low really just refer to the style of the services (and perhaps the way the building is set up or which objects are used in services), and are a reflection of the tradition of the particular congregation.

Can you describe what your church services are like?

[Naomi4Christ]

Thanks, Karen

[gitlance]

Does this mean that you think only Catholics and Anglicans should properly be called "Church"? :scratch:


I will answer with a quote from St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch and disciple of St. John the Beloved Apostle. This is from his letter to the Trallians regarding obedience to the ministers of the Church:

When you are submissive to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are not living as ordinary men, but according to Jesus Christ ... it is therefore necessary that you should do nothing without the bishop; and that is your practice. Submit yourselves also to the presbytery, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ, our hope ... Likewise let all men respect the deacons as they reverence Jesus Christ, just as they must respect the bishop as the counterpart of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and the college of Apostles; without those no church is recognized. He who is within the sanctuary [church] is pure: he who is outside is not pure; that is, he who acts independently of bishop and presbytery and deacons. Such a man is not pure in his conscience.

[Naomi4Christ]

:confused: What does this mean?

[puppy]

:wave:


High and low really just refer to the style of the services (and perhaps the way the building is set up or which objects are used in services), and are a reflection of the tradition of the particular congregation.

Can you describe what your church services are like?

well we have old style hymns and use rite b if that makes any sense, its a very old church and we use a chalice for holy communion, i cant think what else would be relevant

[gitlance]

:confused: What does this mean?

It means that the only valid churches are those which possess the Apostolic Succession as expressed through validly ordained bishops, priests, and deacons. Only those churches have the true ministry and the true sacraments. Those churches are Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Old Catholics, Oriental Orthodox, and a few others (most of whom are in full communion with one of the larger groups). Every "church" which has rejected the Apostolic Succession has rejected Christ's authority, and therefore have no right to call themselves "churches." This is a statement which was universally agreed upon by the early orthodox Fathers, and by the ecumenical councils of the undivided Church.

[karen freeinchristman]

It means that the only valid churches are those which possess the Apostolic Succession as expressed through validly ordained bishops, priests, and deacons. Only those churches have the true ministry and the true sacraments. Those churches are Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Old Catholics, Oriental Orthodox, and a few others (most of whom are in full communion with one of the larger groups). Every "church" which has rejected the Apostolic Succession has rejected Christ's authority, and therefore have no right to call themselves "churches." This is a statement which was universally agreed upon by the early orthodox Fathers, and by the ecumenical councils of the undivided Church.

wow. I just don't know what to say at this point. :eek:

[gitlance]

wow. I just don't know what to say at this point. :eek:

It's a tough doctrine, yes. But it's what the Church has univerally taught for 2000 years. It's what separates us from the world, and it's what gives us our validity. No other religion can claim what the Catholic Church claims, because no other religion has what the Catholic Church has.

[Naomi4Christ]

What do you mean by 'validity'?

[gitlance]

What do you mean by 'validity'?

I mean that in order for the truth to be preserved, the sacraments to be genuine, and the faith to be secure, a person who calls himself a minister must be able to prove that he received his authority from someone who had it to give. That means that he must have been ordained by a bishop in the Apostolic Succession, who must have been ordained a bishop in the Apostolic Succession, etc etc ... who must have been ordained a bishop by one of the Apostles, who was ordained by Jesus Christ Himself. If a person cannot trace his authority back to Christ, then he has no authority to preach the Word, administer the Sacraments, or lead the Church. And all those who separate themselves from this Apostolic Succession are in a state of schism -- needing reunion with the Holy Catholic Church of Christ.

[karen freeinchristman]

I mean that in order for the truth to be preserved, the sacraments to be genuine, and the faith to be secure, a person who calls himself a minister must be able to prove that he received his authority from someone who had it to give. That means that he must have been ordained by a bishop in the Apostolic Succession, who must have been ordained a bishop in the Apostolic Succession, etc etc ... who must have been ordained a bishop by one of the Apostles, who was ordained by Jesus Christ Himself. If a person cannot trace his authority back to Christ, then he has no authority to preach the Word, administer the Sacraments, or lead the Church. And all those who separate themselves from this Apostolic Succession are in a state of schism -- needing reunion with the Holy Catholic Church of Christ.

Is there any specific Scripture you could reference to back these assertions up?

[Naomi4Christ]

Phew!

I think we are safe! Although we are in interregnum at them moment, our former vicar was indeed properly inducted by the bishop, and our curate has undergone all the proper ceremony.

For our next vicar, I know that the bishop is coming to his induction because no doubt I will be doing some kind of food preparation.

[Lel]

So what happens to all the schismatics who don't have Apostolic Succession?

[karen freeinchristman]

I guess Heaven won't be as crowded as I thought!

[gitlance]

Phew!

I think we are safe! Although we are in interregnum at them moment, our former vicar was indeed properly inducted by the bishop, and our curate has undergone all the proper ceremony.

For our next vicar, I know that the bishop is coming to his induction because no doubt I will be doing some kind of food preparation.

If your parish is genuinely Anglican (being in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury), you should not have anything to worry about. Episcopal ordinations usually have at least three bishops present to make sure that the transfer of the succession is without a doubt. We, as Anglicans, have much to be thankful for. None of the other reformation churches preserved the Apostolic Succession. That is our primary claim to Catholicity.

[Naomi4Christ]

Oh yes, we know the hirsute one...

[gitlance]

So what happens to all the schismatics who don't have Apostolic Succession?

I have no idea. That is entirely up to Christ. I would say this, though: it is already hard enough to live out salvation in the Church, so it must be that much harder being outside the Church, where there is no guarantee of the sacraments or the truth. Some will tell you that, following Jesus' statements in John 6, salvation is nearly impossible without a valid Eucharist, but I try not to get caught up in that area. I just rejoice in the fact that the Anglican Church has preserved the Catholic truth.

Of course there is truth outside the Church. But the only guarantee of the FULLNESS of the UNDEFILED truth of salvation is to be found within the Catholic Church.

[Naomi4Christ]

Those schismatics are all having Agape meals instead of Holy Communion...

[Naomi4Christ]

What's a valid Eucharist?

[gitlance]

What's a valid Eucharist?

A valid Eucharist is one in which the bread and wine are transformed, by the power of Christ acting through a validly ordained priest or bishop, into the saving and forgiving Body and Blood of our Savior. Jesus Christ, physically and spiritually, comes into our midst. No other activity on earth gives us that kind of communion with the second person of the Blessed Trinity.

[trooper]

Gitlance,

What is your personal response to the claim by the RCs that we do not hold valid succession? or to the claims by FIF'ers that the succession is not valid in those parts of the Communion that have women bishops?

just wondering what your answers are, not trying to be argumentative. I'm starting to lean towards the RC position, maybe you can lean me back.

Also, what do we do about the Anglicans who might shortly no longer be in Communion with Canterbury at all? Does there succession remain valid if they don't respect the authority of +++Williams?

[Naomi4Christ]

In our church, with validly ordained clergy, we don't believe that we are transforming the bread and wine into anything. We are doing it "in remembrance" of Christ, and are clear that the bread and wine are symbols of body and blood.

I know that those with wheat allergies do not eat the bread and those who have problems with alcohol do not slug the wine (presumably from negative experiences). Why would this be an issue if there were transubstantiation.

[Naomi4Christ]

Also, what do we do about the Anglicans who might shortly no longer be in Communion with Canterbury at all? Does there succession remain valid if they don't respect the authority of +++Williams?

No idea what you are talking about, but if their bishops had hands laid on them while they were still Anglican, then presumably they can carry on the succession. The same deal as what happened in Henry VIII's time.

[gtsecc]

Does this mean that you think only Catholics and Anglicans should properly be called "Church"? :scratch:
No, the Coptics, Old catholic, and Eastern Orthodox also can claim this.
But, if you do not have Bishops and Apostolic Succession, you can't seriously claim to be part of the Church Christ founded.

[Naomi4Christ]

But all denominations claim to be a church.

The issue seems to be that certain denominations refute those claims.

There's too much negativity, and it's infighting with the body of Christ.

Why don't we worry about the non-Christians instead? That's not as controversial.

[gtsecc]

Gitlance,

What is your personal response to the claim by the RCs that we do not hold valid succession? or to the claims by FIF'ers that the succession is not valid in those parts of the Communion that have women bishops?

just wondering what your answers are, not trying to be argumentative. I'm starting to lean towards the RC position, maybe you can lean me back.

Also, what do we do about the Anglicans who might shortly no longer be in Communion with Canterbury at all? Does there succession remain valid if they don't respect the authority of +++Williams?

The RCC disavowed our Succession specifically because of some words which we did not say during ordination. However, those words were ommitted years ago in RCC succession, so no one takes their claim seriously. It would make there own succession ilicit also. The Eastern Orthodox, for example the Patriarch of Russia, have issued declairations that our orders are valid.

[Fish and Bread]

In our church, with validly ordained clergy, we don't believe that we are transforming the bread and wine into anything. We are doing it "in remembrance" of Christ, and are clear that the bread and wine are symbols of body and blood.

I know that those with wheat allergies do not eat the bread and those who have problems with alcohol do not slug the wine (presumably from negative experiences). Why would this be an issue if there were transubstantiation.

The way in which that's worded seems to take two extremes of simple memorial meal and transubstantiation and implying that one must choose one or the other. Actually, there have been many historically who have taken a middle view. The Lutherans believe in what's called consubstantiation, where the bread and the wine are still present, but so are body and blood simultaneously in, above, and around the bread and the wine. John Calvin believed that the Holy Spirit moved among those believers celebrating the Lord's Supper in a special way while they were partaking of bread and wine.

As Anglicans, we have historically endorsed the "Real Presence", which allows us to affirm any one of those perspectives. We're able to admit that we're not chomping down on someone's bones and drinking white blood cells and stuff in a literal sense while still affirming that in some way Christ is manifest when we come to his table and that we are still in some mysterious way dining on his body and blood, at least in some spiritual sense, even if perhaps not quite in a literal one. We don't deny what the senses and science God has given us are saying, but we don't deny what the faith of our forebears says either. We're paved a middle way that I think makes a lot of sense and gives us a bit of room for mystery rather than forcing us to come up with a narrowly defined definition of something that is by nature very hard to define.

John

[gitlance]

In our church, with validly ordained clergy, we don't believe that we are transforming the bread and wine into anything. We are doing it "in remembrance" of Christ, and are clear that the bread and wine are symbols of body and blood.

I know that those with wheat allergies do not eat the bread and those who have problems with alcohol do not slug the wine (presumably from negative experiences). Why would this be an issue if there were transubstantiation.

If it's a symbol, then why celebrate it at all? Seems like a waste of time to me...

[AveMaria]

There is nothing distasteful or dumbing down about this - they indeed make a joyful noise which is more pleasing that a church organ.

I'd call that a matter of musical taste. Some folks prefer organ, piano, or acapella, others prefer rock/folk type music groups, still others prefer services with no music.

Casual is indeed very meritable. Worrying about formality means that you are taking your focus away from the real agenda. More importantly, you alienate newcomers by excessive formality. One of our primary goals as Christians is to drag new people in - in our post-Christian era, you can't do that with bells and smells.

I'm not so sure I'd agree with that- while the amazing growth experienced by some contemporary, casual mega-churches would suggest that there are people out there drawn to a very casual church environment, there are also a lot of folks out there seeking the opposite end of the spectrum.

Two quick examples: My own church parish has a beautiful Sung Compline service on Sunday nights - lots of incense and candles. It is very well attended, particularly by folks who are currently unchurched but seeking to connect with God, seeking something greater than themselves. For many, this service serves as a way to draw them into the church.

On a similar note, the Sunday night Compline service at St. Marks in Seattle draws an astonishing 500 people a week (primarily youth and young adults), and is also broadcast on the radio.

[pmcleanj]

This is an official moderator post.

This is a reminder to everyone, go and re-read the Christian Forums rules (http://www.christianforums.com/rules). Along with the funky change in the look of the page that we got this weekend, there has been an update to the rules. While the intent is unchanged, some aspects have been clarified and additional examples given.

In particular, check out the no-flaming rule, especially section 2.5: 2.5 You will not start a thread or post a reply directed at another member. Replies must be directed at another member’s post, not the individual. Individual communication should be done via PM.
Let me explain this a little: You can post "I don't understand this post, what did you mean by it". You can post "I disagree with what you said in this post". You cannot post "you don't know what you're talking about" or "you always say things without giving supporting evidence". To be sure that you are addressing a particular post, please use the "quote" button, or tick the "quote message in reply" checkbox so that the post you are directing your reply to shows up. Then you can edit out any parts of the original post that aren't relevant to your reply.


Please also pay attention to rule 1.3: 1.3 You will only post negative statements about another individual’s belief or religious organization (including non-Christian religions) with objective evidence provided. Members are allowed to say “The doctrines X church is false because of Y scriptures and Z other relevant evidence”.
Let me explain this one, too. You may disagree with someone else's belief, and do so openly. What you can't do, is disagree carelessly or flippantly. You must provide a discussion or explanation of why you disagree. That means one-liner put-downs are out.


Finally, please also pay particular attention to rule 7.17.1 You will not post about a specific staff member (or staff members) or about the specific actions of a staff member (or staff members) in any public area of the site including the Chatbox. The exception is through the Staff Feedback Form
This means, that you can't say "this moderator post was directed at me", or "the moderators deleted my post last week". You can reply to a moderator post if you need clarification of what it meant. You can't debate it, except privately.

There have been several violations of rules 1.3 and 2.5 in this thread. They will be separated out and deleted; and each person who has a post deleted will receive one notice to that effect. Any future violations in this thread (or any other thread in this forum) will also be deleted, and may of course incur warnings. So please, please, re-read the rules!


Regards,
Pamela Mclean

[Lel]

No, the Coptics, Old catholic, and Eastern Orthodox also can claim this.
But, if you do not have Bishops and Apostolic Succession, you can't seriously claim to be part of the Church Christ founded.

Then what do you think all the other Christian bodies actually are? Are they followers of Christ if there are no bishops or Apostolic succession?

There are Anglicans (such as in my own parish) who have Bishops, respect them, and have Apostolic Succession, but think it's all just a nice thought but kind of silly and unnecessary.

[Naomi4Christ]

If it's a symbol, then why celebrate it at all? Seems like a waste of time to me...

It's not a symbol.

We have communion so that our church family can be of one body because we all share in one bread. That's not a waste of time in my book. But we only do it once a month, in any case.

[Fish and Bread]

If it's a symbol, then why celebrate it at all? Seems like a waste of time to me...

Jesus didn't seem to think it was a waste of time to "do this in rememberance of me". For many who don't believe in the real presence, it's in some respects a memory tool. Through ritual, taste, and so forth, many Christians can experience Jesus' story and remember the meaning beyond his life, death, and resurrection in a unique way. For me as someone who believes in the real presence, I feel as though I get that same experience that the folks who just believe in a memorial meal get *plus* something additional, Christ manifest in the sacrament. It'd still be worth doing to me even if there was no real presence, though, for the reasons that I describe above and also simply because Jesus told me to do it and it's one of the few admonitions of God that isn't at all hard to follow. :)

John

[gitlance]

It's not a symbol.

We have communion so that our church family can be of one body because we all share in one bread. That's not a waste of time in my book. But we only do it once a month, in any case.

You just said that it was bread and wine are symbols of body and blood. Which is it gonna be? Is it a symbol or not??

[PaladinValer]

Apostolic Succession is indeed necessary, but let us remember that many Christian groups' clergy are probably illicit, but still quite valid.

A priest who leaves, say, the Anglican Church. He cannot validly ordain, though he himself is a validly and licitly consecrated Apostolic priest. He in turn ordaines new bishops with the Sacrament of Holy Orders out of extreme circumstance. Now since this priest isn't a bishop, it is an illicit Rite, but is it really invalid? Is there not intent? Is there a genuine belief that there is an exception? I would sirmise that this is still "valid" but definitely illicit. These new bishops are not bishops in the proper sense, but they do function like real bishops and they have a sense of Apostolic Sucession, though not the fullness of it. ((Yes, this is John Wesley+ I am speaking of here)

Now let's have a bishop convert from the Eastern Orthodox to, say, the American Baptists **Pauses for the "Is Outrage" cry to settle down so as to continue making his point**. He's still a bishop, though now he's now outside real Catholicacy. He ordaines numerous pastors, who in turn ordain numerous pastors. Their lines are illicit, but they are valid.

I do believe you need a valid and licit Apostolic priest or bishop to consecrate in the fullest sense, but a valid but illicit cleric still does "something," even if he or she doesn't believe so or even if it doesn't become necessarily the Body and Blood. I would argue that it is simply a spiritual sense; a taste if you will, just as these clerics are a taste of what an Apostolic cleric is.

[Naomi4Christ]

You just said that it was bread and wine are symbols of body and blood. Which is it gonna be? Is it a symbol or not??

I was talking about the whole of Holy Communion, not just the bread and wine.

I like to think holistically - at the big picture.

[gtsecc]

Then what do you think all the other Christian bodies actually are? Are they followers of Christ if there are no bishops or Apostolic succession?

There are Anglicans (such as in my own parish) who have Bishops, respect them, and have Apostolic Succession, but think it's all just a nice thought but kind of silly and unnecessary.
They are certainly Christian, but they are not part of the Church. If the reformation was right about not needing Bishops, the rest of the Church would have accepted that as a new teaching. East, West, and Anglican, they rejected it.

[Naomi4Christ]

What about the notion that bishops and priests are equal to one another?

[gtsecc]

Dogsbody, can you show me a single person in the Church who did not accept the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist prior to 1500? If not, then your parish is teaching new doctrine, contray to the doctrine that the entire church has always believed.

[Naomi4Christ]

They are all dead, so no I can't.

But harking back to the middle ages is hardly relevent in a reformed church. It's the doctrine now that matters - not then.

[gtsecc]

What about the notion that bishops and priests are equal to one another?
We are all equal in Christ, and the primary Preisthood of the Church is the layperson. That is where the bulk of the work of the body is done. However, holy orders, Priest, Bishop, and Deacon, are clearly established, and you would need an eccumenical council to change that understanding.

[gtsecc]

They are all dead, so no I can't.
Yeah, but thousands and thousands of them wrote what they thought, and we still have their writings, and you can read a ton of it online.

[Naomi4Christ]

It's a management structure over practical matters. There is no biblical distinction between a presbyter and a bishop. Therefore, in churches where they don't have bishops are churches nonetheless.

[gtsecc]

But harking back to the middle ages is hardly relevent in a reformed church. It's the doctrine now that matters - not then.

You can't look at one time period. You have to ask yourself, "what has the Church always taugh?" There are certain things, like the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, that have always been taught by the Church, not just during the middle ages. What define and upholds truth on this earth? The Church!
Timothy 3:15 But if I should be delayed, I have written so that you will know how people ought to act in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

They are all dead, so no I can't.

But harking back to the middle ages is hardly relevent in a reformed church. It's the doctrine now that matters - not then.

And of the reformers, only Zwingli repudiated the Real Presence. Both Calvin and Luther upheld it.

Zwinglian eucharistic theology is very popular amongst evangelicals these days, but this is a modern phenomenon.

[gtsecc]

It's a management structure over practical matters. There is no biblical distinction between a presbyter and a bishop. Therefore, in churches where they don't have bishops are churches nonetheless.

Not at all. It is the structure which safegaurds the truth. They were primarily concerned with matters of doctrine, not pratical matters - go read the councils. You may not find the answer in the Bible. It is not an all encompassign answer book. The Church interprets scripture (It even says so in the Chatechism of the Episcopal CHurch, so I bet Church of England says it too) - always has, just to prevent folks from having those sort of misunderstandings.

[pmcleanj]

Closed for moderator review.

Take the time, while we are reviewing, to re-read your own posts and decide which ones need to be reworded or rewritten in a spirit of kindness to your brothers and sisters.

[pmcleanj]

Opened to allow posters to make requested edits.

Additional edits may be requested.

Please review the rules before posting any new posts in this thread.

[PaladinValer]

Dogsbody, yes you can. Study Patristics and try to find one.

However, the Church Fathers (and some Mothers) did agree in a Real Presence, both bodily and spiritually, of Christ in Holy Communion.

And Gitlance, while they may be no longer In Communion with Canterbury, the continuing churches do have valid lines that are also licit, so long as new ordinations are from apostolic bishops. While I share with you the importance of unity, that shouldn't cloud our better judgments when we both know the Catholic way of things. :)

[gitlance]

Dogsbody, yes you can. Study Patristics and try to find one.

However, the Church Fathers (and some Mothers) did agree in a Real Presence, both bodily and spiritually, of Christ in Holy Communion.

And Gitlance, while they may be no longer In Communion with Canterbury, the continuing churches do have valid lines that are also licit, so long as new ordinations are from apostolic bishops. While I share with you the importance of unity, that shouldn't cloud our better judgments when we both know the Catholic way of things. :)

Wouldn't they be valid but illicit since they do not have the permission of the Anglican church/one of her provinces to consecrate?

[Fish and Bread]

I've had the opportunity to visit a lot differences churches from various denominations. In almost all of those churches, I saw people who were encountering God. Sometimes I think it's possible that in getting caught up in legalities, we miss the fact that God wants to have a relationship with as many folks as possible. If your son or daughter had a few mistaken notions every once in a while on a few minor topics, would you disown him or her? It's quite possible that apostolic succession and three-fold ministry of bishops, priests, and deacons are the way God wants things to be, but if it is, that doesn't mean that God wouldn't still make himself present when those denominations without succession or bishops celebrate the Eucharist or, as they sometimes call it, the Lord's Supper.

Remember, God is doing everything in his power, while still respecting our free will and acting in a moral way, to reach out to people, even in their imperfections and sometimes lack of knowledge. He created us as imperfect beings with imperfect understandings, so I'd imagine there was an intentionality to that and that he understands when we mess things up occasionally and cuts us a little, or a lot of, slack at times.

Besides all that, I think we can see the good fruits of God in a lot of different Christain denominations. God is with those denominations, to a large degree. I could be wrong, but I think when we get up to heaven we're going to find out that God cares a lot more about our love for him and for our fellow human beings than about who laid hands on whom (Which isn't to say the latter should be ignored completely, just that in the grand scheme of things, it may well be rather minor).

John