Eucharistic Adoration

[AveMaria]

I'm curious - anyone's parish do Adoration? If so, how often?

And for that matter, what do y'all think about Eucharistic Adoration in general? Useful spiritual discipline or historically outdated superstition? Neither of the above?

My current parish doesn't. It's something I've found spiritually useful in the past, so I'm researching to see if it's offered at any nearby parishes.

[Naomi4Christ]

We don't do it.

I always thing 'idolatry'.

[gitlance]

Every Sunday I adore Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar. We keep the Blessed Sacrament in reserve in two different chapels at the parish.

Gtsecc's parish does a formal Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament at least once a month.

[pmcleanj]

This is an official moderator post.

Please, 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 1.3. While the example of calling someone else's practice "idolatry" is not given, it is included in the intent of this rule. This site is about uniting Christians; this forum within the site is about providing a place for fellowship for Anglicans and Old Catholics. Discussion of different ideas does indeed build understanding -- and hence build unity and fellowship. BUT, discussion -- rather than bickering -- requires thoughtful discourse, mutual respect. Please avoid one-liners that are likely to incite resentment. If you must say something hurtful about someone else's tradition, history or praxis pray first, and then choose words that will increase both your understanding and theirs, and that will avoid inflicting all but the absolutely necessary pain.

Regards,
Pamela Mclean

[Fish and Bread]

My parish back in Maryland did not have Eucharistic adoration. I don't really have a problem with it in theory, it seems as though it's useful for many in connecting with God. I do think that it's always good to make sure we don't overdue it with things like this, though, since they aren't things that Jesus instructed us to do. The central focus of our community life should be on the things that are in the scripture -- consuming the eucharist, studying scriptures and other Christian devotionals, prayers, and good works. To focus on living in Christ is to focus on living like he did and according to his instructments in communion with him. These other things are fine, so long as they're secondary focuses and not a primary emphasises.

That's just my two Arizonaian cents, though. ;)

John

[TomUK]

I'm curious - anyone's parish do Adoration? If so, how often?

And for that matter, what do y'all think about Eucharistic Adoration in general? Useful spiritual discipline or historically outdated superstition? Neither of the above?

My current parish doesn't. It's something I've found spiritually useful in the past, so I'm researching to see if it's offered at any nearby parishes.

Not enough is the simple answer.

During Lent this year Benediction and adoration happened each Sunday. Typically however it's the first Sunday of the month.

[holyshe]

we have benediction and it is so special and makes you feel surrounded by god's presences

[romaneagle13]

I am in agreement with Dogsbody. As Anglicans we are both protestant and catholic. But Eucharistic Adoration just seems too Catholic to me. I'm sure there are many of us who are in the more reformed camp who disagree with the practice of Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. Of course, those who are more Anglo-Catholic are more likely to participate in this and we who are more protestant-leaning don't begrudge them their personal devotion. But I think as a whole, our church does not usually consider it a necessity like the Catholics do. It falls under optional practices and personal piety like praying the rosary and believing in the Immaculate Conception and/or Assumption. But the bottom line remains that historically speaking, our church has not supported the practice (see Articles XXV and XXVIII), and therefore the majority of Anglican Churches don't offer Adoration.

As to whether or not it is idolatry, I think it really depends upon the person's view of the Holy Eucharist. Those who subscribe to a more Lutheran or Calvinist view of it will consider Adoration to be worshipping of bread and wine. Those who hold more Catholic opinions like transubstantiation will continue to regard the Eucharistic host as containing the eternal presence of Christ and therefore should be adored. I peronally hold the more Lutheran view and find Eucharistic Adoration not warranted. But I respect those who get spiritual fulfillment from the practice.

[ChessCastle]

I am in agreement with Dogsbody. As Anglicans we are both protestant and catholic. But Eucharistic Adoration just seems too Catholic to me. I'm sure there are many of us who are in the more reformed camp who disagree with the practice of Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. Of course, those who are more Anglo-Catholic are more likely to participate in this and we who are more protestant-leaning don't begrudge them their personal devotion. But I think as a whole, our church does not usually consider it a necessity like the Catholics do. It falls under optional practices and personal piety like praying the rosary and believing in the Immaculate Conception and/or Assumption. But the bottom line remains that historically speaking, our church has not supported the practice (see Articles XXV and XXVIII), and therefore the majority of Anglican Churches don't offer Adoration.

As to whether or not it is idolatry, I think it really depends upon the person's view of the Holy Eucharist. Those who subscribe to a more Lutheran or Calvinist view of it will consider Adoration to be worshipping of bread and wine. Those who hold more Catholic opinions like transubstantiation will continue to regard the Eucharistic host as containing the eternal presence of Christ and therefore should be adored. I peronally hold the more Lutheran view and find Eucharistic Adoration not warranted. But I respect those who get spiritual fulfillment from the practice.

Sorry to get off track but something you said caught my attention. Is there some disagreement on the Immaculate Conception?

As for idolatry, isn't there a difference between adoration and worship?

CC

[gitlance]

Sorry to get off track but something you said caught my attention. Is there some disagreement on the Immaculate Conception?

As for idolatry, isn't there a difference between adoration and worship?

CC

Anglicans are not required to believe in the Immaculate Conception of our Blessed Mother, though many do. It is not seen as a necessary salvific issue.

[PaladinValer]

I worship the death cookie :P

[Naomi4Christ]

Simplistically:

Idolatry = worship of man-made things
Adoration = worship of God and Jesus

Virgin birth = AFAIK, I have not been commanded to believe anything specifc about this, but when you apply reason, you would conclude that Mary was a virgin at the time of conception and a good chance at the time of Jesus' birth.

After that, in my church we are taught that Jesus had brothers (eg James), therefore Mary was not a perpetual virgin. It doesn't seem important as to whether she was a virgin or not.

[Naomi4Christ]

Sorry, I was talking about virgin birth. I don't know anything about Mary's own conception and all that original sin stuff. Is it important to the message of love and salvation that Jesus brings?

[Naomi4Christ]

isn't there a difference between adoration and worship?

CC

Worship is everything we do in a service

Adoration is praising God - that means loving him for who he is - so a subset of worship.

[gitlance]

Sorry, I was talking about virgin birth. I don't know anything about Mary's own conception and all that original sin stuff. Is it important to the message of love and salvation that Jesus brings?

It is important to properly understand the Incarnation of our Lord.

And yes, Our Lady remained a virgin after she gave birth to Christ. She did not have any other children. The "brothers" of Christ were his adelphos, his cousins (in Greek). Mary may have also been the step-mother of children Joseph brought from a previous marriage.

Either way, if Mary had other children like the protestants assert, it would have been unthinkable in that culture for Jesus to entrust the care of His Mother to a man (St. John) who was in no way related to them.

Praise the ever-virginity of our Blessed Mother, Mary the Theotokos!

[Naomi4Christ]

It is important to properly understand the Incarnation of our Lord.

And yes, Our Lady remained a virgin after she gave birth to Christ.

Not necessarily. But why is it important?

[Naomi4Christ]

like the protestants assert

Ooo, that pesky breed.

[trooper]

CC, the reference is to Mary being born without sin.. and to that there is disagreement amongst Anglicans....

My current parish doesn't offer adoration, but my previous one did. I am in favor.

[Naomi4Christ]

But why does Mary's original sin, or lack thereof, matter one iota? Please someone explain!

[gitlance]

Not necessarily. But why is it important?

In order for Christ to be perfectly sinless, it was necessary not only that he not have a human father, but that his human Mother be free from the stain of sin herself. Therefore, our blessed Mother, through the saving merits of Her Son, was redeemed by His power at the very moment of Her conception. I think it's quite a beautiful testament to Christ's mercy, grace, and saving power.

[Naomi4Christ]

Well, I have full faith that Jesus was sinless until that very moment on the cross when he took on our sins. It doesn't matter to me whether his mother was sinless or not. God, the omnipotent, could easily have used an ordinary woman, and still had a sinless Jesus. The whole point of the virgin birth, to me, is that it was clearly a miraculous conception and that there could be no question of a natural earthly father. The circumstances of that virgin's own conception seem rather irrelevent in the big picture.

And obviously in light of original sin being a controversial topic to begin with.

[gtsecc]

After that, in my church we are taught that Jesus had brothers (eg James), therefore Mary was not a perpetual virgin. It doesn't seem important as to whether she was a virgin or not.

Mary's PERPETUAL virginity is somethign the entire church believed both before and after the New Testament was canonized. James has always been understood to NOT be a biological brother of Christ. If that is nto clear to someone reading the Bible, they only have to look at what everyone in the entire grouop of people who put forth the Bible said - and that is that she was perpetually a virgin. This is preciesely why "Bible alone" can lead to gross misunderstanding.

[higgs2]

Mary's PERPETUAL virginity is somethign the entire church believed both before and after the New Testament was canonized. James has always been understood to NOT be a biological brother of Christ. If that is nto clear to someone reading the Bible, they only have to look at what everyone in the entire grouop of people who put forth the Bible said - and that is that she was perpetually a virgin. This is preciesely why "Bible alone" can lead to gross misunderstanding.

But do you think it is important?

[ChessCastle]

CC, the reference is to Mary being born without sin.. and to that there is disagreement amongst Anglicans....

My current parish doesn't offer adoration, but my previous one did. I am in favor.


Ok I really need to brush up on my terminology. I always though the immaculate conception was the term used to describe the birth of Jesus. When I asked if there was disagreement I thought there was debate about how Jesus was concieved.

[gtsecc]

But do you think it is important?
Absolutely.
But, what I think is not important.

It is better to look at it like this - the entire group of people who knew Christ personally held that Mary is the most important created being ever, and that she was perpetually a virgin.

If you are going to believe that the Bible is the word of God, then you are believing that because of faith in the Church. It doesn't then make sense NOT to believe what the Church, which put forth the scriptures, said about their meaning.

[Fish and Bread]

In order for Christ to be perfectly sinless, it was necessary not only that he not have a human father, but that his human Mother be free from the stain of sin herself.

I don't understand why either of the items you mention are necessary, in some strict sense. Why couldn't someone with a human father be sinless if he was the Son of God (There's no reason why, in theory, God couldn't have designed someone to be a member of the trinity and yet also have two human parents)? The only way he'd have to be sinful under that scenario is if one believes that sex is an inherently sinful act that is transmuted to the next generation, which is thinking that thankfully began to fade away with the end of the dark ages, for the most part. And we know that the sins of the mother, whatever they may have been, are not automatically passed down to children.

The fact is, neither the Virgin Birth nor the Immaculate Conception were strictly necessary. The reason for the Virgin Birth seems to be chiefly to make Jesus' parentage clear and I do believe that happened. The Immaculate Conception, I sincerely doubt happened, because I believe it makes the most sense for Christ alone to have been the lone sinless lamb, a perfect sacrifice. If Mary was sinless, she could have died for our sins and that makes Christ much less unique and less important, and really poses big theological issues. The pieces fit together best, from my perspective, when we say that Mary was a wonderful saint, honored amongst women, but that, like the rest of us, she was a human being with certain failing and probably occasionally sinned. Thus, her the son, who was also the Son of God, was needed because his divine nature made him sinless and allowed him to fulfill God's plan of salvation.

John

[higgs2]

Absolutely.
But, what I think is not important.

It is better to look at it like this - the entire group of people who knew Christ personally held that Mary is the most important created being ever, and that she was perpetually a virgin.

If you are going to believe that the Bible is the word of God, then you are believing that because of faith in the Church. It doesn't then make sense NOT to believe what the Church, which put forth the scriptures, said about their meaning.
But, but... as far as I know, the Episcopal Church (ECUSA) does not hold the perpetual virginity of Mary to be dogma that must be adhered to. So if I look to the "Church", I would not see this belief to be important. So then does that mean that you are speaking of something else when you talk about the "Church"? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I am truly interested in your point of view.

[Fish and Bread]

Ok I really need to brush up on my terminology.

Virgin Birth=Jesus had no human father, Mary conceived him and gave birth to him having never had sex prior to that point.
Perpetual Virginity of Mary=Mary never had sex, even after giving birth to Jesus
Immaculate Conception=Mary was completely sinless from her conception until the end of her time on earth.

The Virgin Birth is in the bible and the creeds, and believed by 99% of Christians (With a few folks dissenting here and there). The perpetual virginity of Mary is believed by all Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, some Anglicans, and a few Protestants; but not affirmed by some Anglicans and a majority of Protestants. The Immaculate Conception is a Roman Catholic dogma affirmed in 1854 by the Pope and believed primarily just by Roman Catholics along with a few select others. Even most Anglicans and Old Catholics disagree with the Immaculate Conception, though, at least in Anglicanism, people are permitted to believe in it if they want to and a few choose to do so.

John

[gtsecc]

Ok I really need to brush up on my terminology. I always though the immaculate conception was the term used to describe the birth of Jesus. When I asked if there was disagreement I thought there was debate about how Jesus was concieved.
It refers to Mary's conception.
If you want to believe it, that is fine.
I think the Eastern Church has a better understanding because they emphasize that death came to us from Adam, as opposed to a western view which seems to say there is a particle of matter called sin which became part of the human genome from Adam and Eve. That western view then seems to require Mary to be sinless since Christ's humanity came from Mary.

[gtsecc]

But, but... as far as I know, the Episcopal Church (ECUSA) does not hold the perpetual virginity of Mary to be dogma that must be adhered to. So if I look to the "Church", I would not see this belief to be important. So then does that mean that you are speaking of something else when you talk about the "Church"? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I am truly interested in your point of view.

The entire Church founded by Jesus Christ teaches Mary's perpetual virginity. If parts of ECUSA are not teaching this, they have made up new doctrine which is not backed by the rest of the church through out history and across the world. They really don't have the authority to question it outside of an eccumenical council. And, that brings up a great point - it hasn't been put forth by an eccumenical council because no one has ever questioned it.

[karen freeinchristman]

My vicar doesn't believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, and I am in a "broad" Church of England. He speaks of Jesus' brothers as being real blood brothers. How can we know that they weren't?

BTW, we also do not do Eucharistic Adoration.

[higgs2]

The entire Church founded by Jesus Christ teaches Mary's perpetual virginity. If parts of ECUSA are not teaching this, they have made up new doctrine which is not backed by the rest of the church through out history and across the world. They really don't have the authority to question it outside of an eccumenical council. And, that brings up a great point - it hasn't been put forth by an eccumenical council because no one has ever questioned it.
So are you for perpetual virginity and against immaculate conception? I probably should know this, but are you Anglo-catholic? It's so interesting to see how diverse the Anglican church is when it comes to theology.

[gtsecc]

My vicar doesn't believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary,

Ask him if he can find ANY person in the Church who didn't believe it before 1500. If not, then how did someone 1500 years later get to have a better understanding of Mary, which is completely different that everything the people who knew her and wrote about her?

[gtsecc]

So are you for perpetual virginity and against immaculate conception? I probably should know this, but are you Anglo-catholic? It's so interesting to see how diverse the Anglican church is when it comes to theology.
Every Church believes in the perpetual Virginity.
Only the Western Church believes in the immaculate conception.

[higgs2]

Every Church believes in the perpetual Virginity.
Only the Western Church believes in the immaculate conception.
So Anglicans, being a part of the Western Church, should believe in immaculate conception?

[karen freeinchristman]

Ask him if he can find ANY person in the Church who didn't believe it before 1500. If not, then how did someone 1500 years later get to have a better understanding of Mary, which is completely different that everything the people who knew her and wrote about her?

I will ask him, and get back to you on that one.

[Lel]

Ok I really need to brush up on my terminology. I always though the immaculate conception was the term used to describe the birth of Jesus. When I asked if there was disagreement I thought there was debate about how Jesus was concieved.

Ah, the stages of Anglican learning:

1. Wow, there's a whole new world here! This is neat! There's so much to learn!

2. HELP! How am I ever going to learn all this? This is just way too much to learn!

3. It's all nice, but I don't get everything yet. Once you have the basics down, that's when further learning really occurs. :)

As for Eucharistic Adoration, if you see the bread and wine as the body and blood of Jesus Christ, it's got to be an awesome spiritual practice of being in the real presence of Christ. If you don't see it as much more than symbolic, it looks like worshipping bread and wine.

[Naomi4Christ]

Mary's PERPETUAL virginity is somethign the entire church believed both before and after the New Testament was canonized.;

Well the entire church doesn't believe it now. We don't believe it in our C of E church

James has always been understood to NOT be a biological brother of Christ.

Nope, I have to disagree with you there.

If that is nto clear to someone reading the Bible, they only have to look at what everyone in the entire grouop of people who put forth the Bible said - and that is that she was perpetually a virgin. This is preciesely why "Bible alone" can lead to gross misunderstanding.

The bible tells us what we need to know, not what we want to know. There is no gross misunderstanding about this because whether Mary consummated her marriage to Joseph and had more children is not important!

[Naomi4Christ]

I was just glancing over the website of our patron, The Church Society, to find that one of its primary objectives is:


To resist all efforts to reinstate in the Church of England the sacrifice of the Mass, adoration of the Presence of Christ in or under the form of the consecrated elements, reservation of the Sacrament, cultus of the Virgin Mother of our Lord, Image worship, and all like usages renounced by the Church of England at the time of the Reformation.

[karen freeinchristman]

I was just glancing over the website of our patron, The Church Society, to find that one of its primary objectives is:

that is really interesting, and important for us to take in.

[SirTimothy]

Calm down, again, guys!

We don't practice Adoration. (Although our locum priest who's minister back home is SSC would probably like us to)

Remember, keep the thread on track. This is about Adoration. Whether you do or don't do it. Mary is another issue, which should be taken onto a new thread, so that people like me (who come in 5 pages late) don't think 'what'?

Timothy

[gitlance]

So this group, "The Church Society" is heretical and anti-catholic? I hate to say it, but everything they are against is pretty widespread in the Anglican world. Things like reservation of the blessed Sacrament, belief in the Real Presence (which was most certainly upheld by the Anglican Church in the reformation), devotion to our blessed Mother, veneration of icons, and other such things are all commonplace in one form or another in a lot of Anglican parishes. In fact, I don't think I've been to a parish that didn't have at least one icon, and that didn't reserve the blessed Sacrament.

[Naomi4Christ]

With respect, Gitlance, I believe you still have an awful lot to learn about what goes on in the rest of the Anglican world.

[Naomi4Christ]

and if that post is overly personal and breaks the forum rules, I am most sorry. But my intentions are good.

[gtsecc]

Well the entire church doesn't believe it now. We don't believe it in our C of E church

Then your parish is teachign the faith differently than it has always been taught. Christ's humanity comes from Mary, so a proper understanding of her is important for a proper understanding of Christ. There are thousands of denominations, and I am sure you would agree plently can hardly be called Christian, that back their teachings up with their new understanding of Scripture. If you come up with a new understanding of Scripture, and can't back it with Churhc Fathers, then you can't reasonably claim ot be part of the visible Church. Mormons, for example, point to the Bible to back up their teachings, but these teachings are different than what has always been taught by the Fathers. They generally say that they are Christian, but will admit that their teaching is a new revelation. Your parish may well have discovered a new teaching, but the rest of the Church doesn't buy it.

[gitlance]

With respect, Gitlance, I believe you still have an awful lot to learn about what goes on in the rest of the Anglican world.

With respect to you as well, I think you have an awful lot to learn about what goes on in the rest of the Anglican world. Looking at the "Church Society's" website, it seems that they are a minority even in the Church of England. If somebody wants a protestant church, let them go become Presbyterian. That is not what the Anglican Church is. She is the via media, part of the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and to deny the catholicity of her is to deny history and truth.

[gitlance]

The fact of the matter is this: of the world's roughly 2 billion Christians, 1.5 billion of them believe in the literal physical and spiritual presence of Christ, maintain the seven sacraments, possess the Apostolic Succession in all of its fullness, and teach from the ORIGINAL canon of the Holy Scriptures, as set forth and interpreted by the Holy Catholic Church. Protestantism is a small minority in the larger scheme of things.

[Naomi4Christ]

With respect to you as well, I think you have an awful lot to learn about what goes on in the rest of the Anglican world. Looking at the "Church Society's" website, it seems that they are a minority even in the Church of England. If somebody wants a protestant church, let them go become Presbyterian. That is not what the Anglican Church is. She is the via media, part of the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and to deny the catholicity of her is to deny history and truth.

But the Kirk professes to believe in the holy catholic church, so what is your point?

As for minorities - are we suddenly saying that numbers matter? (although where your numbers came from I have no clue - is it to do with the number of patronages? If so that is hardly an indicator of anything).

The Church of England is a broad church and a protestant church (by definition), as is right and proper for it to be. It has a duty to serve a diverse population and one size doesn't fit all. I wish you could take on board this statement instead of repeating the constant you-know-what, even if it is shrouded in religiosity and church jargon. It is extremely offensive to many people and organisations for you to refer to them as heretical etc. and it makes it hard to take seriously very much of what you say.

I am not in any way putting down the anglo-catholic wing of the church, or high church. I am happy that the Church of England has the ability to reach many different segments of the population. You do no one any good by alienating those who have different worship needs and you are going against what Jesus commanded us to do - which was to go and make disciples. He has given us the tools to do this job and he wants us to use them.

God would not have made Alpha such a success if he did not approve of the type of message it was delivering; he would not have given stewardship of Alpha to HTB if he did not believe it was the right church to champion this. Keep your eye on what is important, Gitlance - Jesus and God, and not yourself and those like you.

[svdbygrace]

The fact of the matter is this: of the world's roughly 2 billion Christians, 1.5 billion of them believe in the literal physical and spiritual presence of Christ, maintain the seven sacraments, possess the Apostolic Succession in all of its fullness, and teach from the ORIGINAL canon of the Holy Scriptures, as set forth and interpreted by the Holy Catholic Church. Protestantism is a small minority in the larger scheme of things.

There may be the "Catholic" and "Protestant" groups within Christianity but Anglicanism is indeed in the middle. We are all Christians, followers of Christ. There is One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. I could argue all day about whether people are "Catholic" or "catholic" but I won't. I don't think it was what Christ had in mind. I am a member of Christ's one universal Church, which is made up of all believers, no matter what denomination or sect. Let's all pray for Christian unity. :crossrc: :prayer: :preach: :priest:

[Naomi4Christ]

I could argue all day about whether people are "Catholic" or "catholic" but I won't. I don't think it was what Christ had in mind. I am a member of Christ's one universal Church, which is made up of all believers, no matter what denomination or sect. Let's all pray for Christian unity. :crossrc: :prayer: :preach: :priest:

Allelulia!

This bickering about with who deserves to be an Anglican and who doesn't is exactly what the enemy wants.

[gtsecc]

If there is one faith, then one is correct and the others are wrong.
Does your faith match the Church started by Christ or some other faith?
If you do not have theological continuity back to the eccumenical councils and before that to Christ, then you are a differnt faith.

[Naomi4Christ]

I don't know why I am bothering to respond to you. If your read about the early church in the New Testament, you''ll find that mine matches it pretty well.

[gtsecc]

I don't know why I am bothering to respond to you. If your read about the early church in the New Testament, you''ll find that mine matches it pretty well.
laughable.
Go say that on TAW or OBOB or OO.
Demons I tell you. Beware!

[gtsecc]

Don't you get it?

Every denomination can somehow interpret Scripture to show they are in accord.

The Bible alone is not a guarantee of the faith.

Bishops that are in accord with the teachings of the church through out history are the guarantee of faith.

[Naomi4Christ]

I take that as a personal attack.

[gtsecc]

Dogsbody, you clearly believe that parts of the church became corrupt.

How is it hard for you to believe that it could happen again?

You really really can’t go with scripture alone to figure out doctrine.

The branch dividians used the Bible – do you think that was the second coming or false teaching? Again, I tell you what the church has ALWAYS taught, that the arbiter of truth is the Church which is understood to be run by Bishops in Apostolic succession teaching in accord with the ecumenical councils and the Fathers.

[gitlance]

God would not have made Alpha such a success if he did not approve of the type of message it was delivering; he would not have given stewardship of Alpha to HTB if he did not believe it was the right church to champion this. Keep your eye on what is important, Gitlance - Jesus and God, and not yourself and those like you.

And the Mormons are arguably the richest church in the world, and the fastest-growing religion in America. Does that mean God approves them?

What you are advocating is that you and your little parish know more about the New Testament and the Church then the people who wrote it, established it, taught it, and died for it in the very beginning! "The blood of the Martyrs is the seed of the Church." (Tertullian) If your faith does not match that of the early Christian martyrs, then you need to do some re-evaluating. What makes you honestly believe that 1500 years after the Church was founded, the protestants suddenly discovered the truth? That is preposterous, and it flies in the face of reason, logic, and the revealed truth of the Church for 2000 years!

[gitlance]

Allelulia!

This bickering about with who deserves to be an Anglican and who doesn't is exactly what the enemy wants.

The enemy wants to pervert the Gospel and prevent the truth of the Church from shining forth. But, PRAISE GOD, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Holy Catholic Church.

[svdbygrace]

If there is one faith, then one is correct and the others are wrong.
Does your faith match the Church started by Christ or some other faith?
If you do not have theological continuity back to the eccumenical councils and before that to Christ, then you are a differnt faith.

Again, there is One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. Let us pray for peace and understanding. We are ALL part of the one faith, the one Church that was set up by Christ.

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jew or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; we have all be made to drink into one Spirit." 1 Corinthians 12:13 KJV

A Prayer for Christian Unity:

O God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, our only Savior,
the Prince of Peace: Give us grace seriously to lay to heart the
great dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions; take away
all hatred and prejudice, and whatever else may hinder us
from godly union and concord; that, as there is but one Body
and one Spirit, one hope of our calling, one Lord, one Faith,
one Baptism, one God and Father of us all, so we may be all
of one heart and of one soul, united in one holy bond of truth
and peace, of faith and charity, and may with one mind and
one mouth glorify thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen.

BCP 1979 PG 818

[gitlance]

Again, there is One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. Let us pray for peace and understanding. We are ALL part of the one faith, the one Church that was set up by Christ.

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jew or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; we have all be made to drink into one Spirit." 1 Corinthians 12:13 KJV



How can we all be part of the one faith? You have one group that teaches there is no Trinity, another that says there is. You have one group that teaches Christ becomes literally present in the Eucharist, another that says He doesn't. One group says that Baptism confers forgiveness of sins, another group says it's only symbolic. One group says that bishops should run the church, another says that it should be a council of elders. One group baptizes infants, one group doesn't. One group has 66 books in their bible, another group has 73. One group says you must have works to be saved, another group says it's only by grace. One group says once-saved-always-saved, another group says you can lose your salvation. Need I go on?

And yet, ALL of those groups claim to be Christians with the right interpretations of the Bible. So tell me, who is correct? Where is the one faith that you claim we all hold to?

[holyshe]

How can we all be part of the one faith? You have one group that teaches there is no Trinity, another that says there is. You have one group that teaches Christ becomes literally present in the Eucharist, another that says He doesn't. One group says that Baptism confers forgiveness of sins, another group says it's only symbolic. One group says that bishops should run the church, another says that it should be a council of elders. One group baptizes infants, one group doesn't. One group has 66 books in their bible, another group has 73. One group says you must have works to be saved, another group says it's only by grace. One group says once-saved-always-saved, another group says you can lose your salvation. Need I go on?

And yet, ALL of those groups claim to be Christians with the right interpretations of the Bible. So tell me, who is correct? Where is the one faith that you claim we all hold to?
exactly!!!

amen to you brother xxx

[svdbygrace]

How can we all be part of the one faith? You have one group that teaches there is no Trinity, another that says there is. You have one group that teaches Christ becomes literally present in the Eucharist, another that says He doesn't. One group says that Baptism confers forgiveness of sins, another group says it's only symbolic. One group says that bishops should run the church, another says that it should be a council of elders. One group baptizes infants, one group doesn't. One group has 66 books in their bible, another group has 73. One group says you must have works to be saved, another group says it's only by grace. One group says once-saved-always-saved, another group says you can lose your salvation. Need I go on?

And yet, ALL of those groups claim to be Christians with the right interpretations of the Bible. So tell me, who is correct? Where is the one faith that you claim we all hold to?

But aren't some of those things the same in the Anglican Church as well as other Catholic churches?


Belief in God, the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. Belief that Christ died for our Sins, rose from the grave, is seated at the right hand of the Father, and will come again in Glory to judge the living and the dead, and that his kingdom will have no end.

Again, Let us all pray for Christian Unity instead of making accusations that others aren't members of Christ's true church. :groupray:

[gitlance]

This is the shared believe between all true believers (which is based both on Scripture and Tradition)...
Belief in God, the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. Belief that Christ died for our Sins, rose from the grave, is seated at the right hand of the Father, and will come again in Glory to judge the living and the dead, and that his kingdom will have no end.

Again, Let us all pray for Christian Unity instead of making accusations that others aren't members of Christ's true church. :groupray:

Even that is not shared! Some groups don't even hold to Holy Tradition as authoritative! Modalists (oneness Pentecostals) teach that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all just different expressions of the same one person. That is not a shared belief.

Some groups teach that Christ died for our sins to appease the wrath of God. Others teach that Christ died purely of His own free will out of sacrificial love for us. Again, those two points are not mutually agreed upon in Christianity.

Some groups teach that Christ physically rose from the dead; others say it was only a "spiritual resurrection". Not mutually compatible.

Some people believe that Christ literally occupies a throne at the right hand of the Father, others teach that it is only metaphoric of His relation to the Father. Those are not shared beliefs.

And do I even need to go into eschatological beliefs? Some say he has already come and established His 1000-year (metaphorical) reign; others teach amillennialism, pre-tribulationism, mid-tribulationism, post-tribulationism, preterist, and a thousand other "-ism"s. Those are not compatible views!!!

Again, who is right? The only thing *most* "Christians" agree upon is that there is a Celestial Being and somebody named Jesus. Tell me: in the face of all these conflicting beliefs within the broad umbrella of "Christianity," WHO IS RIGHT? Who possesses the pure, undefiled truth of Christianity? Who is it?

[ChessCastle]

Even that is not shared! Some groups don't even hold to Holy Tradition as authoritative! Modalists (oneness Pentecostals) teach that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all just different expressions of the same one person. That is not a shared belief.

Some groups teach that Christ died for our sins to appease the wrath of God. Others teach that Christ died purely of His own free will out of sacrificial love for us. Again, those two points are not mutually agreed upon in Christianity.

Some groups teach that Christ physically rose from the dead; others say it was only a "spiritual resurrection". Not mutually compatible.

Some people believe that Christ literally occupies a throne at the right hand of the Father, others teach that it is only metaphoric of His relation to the Father. Those are not shared beliefs.

And do I even need to go into eschatological beliefs? Some say he has already come and established His 1000-year (metaphorical) reign; others teach amillennialism, pre-tribulationism, mid-tribulationism, post-tribulationism, preterist, and a thousand other "-ism"s. Those are not compatible views!!!

Again, who is right? The only thing *most* "Christians" agree upon is that there is a Celestial Being and somebody named Jesus. Tell me: in the face of all these conflicting beliefs within the broad umbrella of "Christianity," WHO IS RIGHT? Who possesses the pure, undefiled truth of Christianity? Who is it?

If by *most* we mean literally more than 50%, I think it is safe to say that the things listed by svdbygrace are truly believed by most christians. I understand what you're implying by listing the various differences held by the denominations, but what is the answer? There are differences even within the Catholic Church. My question is, are all the differences on crucial aspects of worship? My understanding limited as it may be is that the Anglican church with its Via Media philosophy allows for some latitude among its flock. I don't mean this to say that I understand the Anglican church to be 'anything goes', if that were the case I wouldn't want any part of it. But I don't think from parish to parish we should expect identical teaching in every matter. That doesn't change the fact that we are one faith and one church, imho.

CC

[gtsecc]

The problem is that just being Anglican doesn't guarantee you have the fullness of the faith. If you want the full revelation, you can look at everything the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox hold in common, and you are getting the fullness of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. So, why would someone not want that?

[gtsecc]

BTW, my parish does Eucharistic Adoration in the form of Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.

However, this is not something the undivided church does.
The Romans Catholics do.
The Eastern Orthodox do not.

I would not say that it is requied for full Catholicity.
Catholicity means in accord with the fullness of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which we have defined in other threads.

[gitlance]

If by *most* we mean literally more than 50%, I think it is safe to say that the things listed by svdbygrace are truly believed by most christians. I understand what you're implying by listing the various differences held by the denominations, but what is the answer? There are differences even within the Catholic Church. My question is, are all the differences on crucial aspects of worship? My understanding limited as it may be is that the Anglican church with its Via Media philosophy allows for some latitude among its flock. I don't mean this to say that I understand the Anglican church to be 'anything goes', if that were the case I wouldn't want any part of it. But I don't think from parish to parish we should expect identical teaching in every matter. That doesn't change the fact that we are one faith and one church, imho.

CC

I am just making a point with regards to the necessity of the Apostolic Succession for preserving the Truth, along with the authority of the Church to provide the correct interpretation of the Scriptures.

[ChessCastle]

I am just making a point with regards to the necessity of the Apostolic Succession for preserving the Truth, along with the authority of the Church to provide the correct interpretation of the Scriptures.

Ah, then on this we agree.

[pmcleanj]

Closed for moderator review.

Review the rules, please; review your posts, please.

Decide whether it's time to take a time-out on responding to the particular poster or posters who are getting your goat. Put someone on ignore if necessary.

Decide which of your posts need to be editted once the thread is reopened, and how you plan to edit them in order to discuss your differences in all Christian humility.