Is there any doubt that early church Christians were liturgical and ritualistic?

[gtsecc]

Does anyone doubt this?

[gitlance]

There is no doubt. St. Justin Martyr wrote extensively on the liturgy of the Eucharist, and his format for the liturgy is still followed pretty closely in the Anglican prayer-book liturgy.St. Clement of Rome also wrote about the Eucharistic liturgy in great detail. The Didache makes reference to properly celebrating the Sacraments. On and on. There is no doubt that the early Christians were liturgical.

[AngCath]

no doubt from me :)

[svdbygrace]

I do have some doubt, but not that much. This being since the Christian Liturgy follows pretty closely the Jewish order, does it not? :) I guess the reason I doubt this (to a certain degree) is because of my evangelical upbringing... ;)

[gitlance]

I do have some doubt, but not that much. This being since the Christian Liturgy follows pretty closely the Jewish order, does it not? :) I guess the reason I doubt this (to a certain degree) is because of my evangelical upbringing... ;)

Don't worry, it is possible to be delivered from that!! (Speaking from experience.) ;)

[Naomi4Christ]

I doubt that ritual was that big a deal in the very early church. The early church would have looked more like house groups - bit of worship, bit of prayer, bit of teaching. Jesus freed us from rituals, remember.

[karen freeinchristman]

I don't doubt it!
As I understand it, liturgy means the work of the people (from the Greek leitourgos, leit is a varient of laos, and ergon = work), so no doubt there was liturgy in the early church! The one ritual I can see as certain is the ritual of the sacrament of Holy Communion.

[gtsecc]

I doubt that ritual was that big a deal in the very early church. The early church would have looked more like house groups - bit of worship, bit of prayer, bit of teaching. Jesus freed us from rituals, remember.Thank you for responding.
I can show you that this is completely incorrect.
Jesus changed all the rituals to point to him.
Let's have a discussion and work through this.
You seem open minded.
I have hope.
The early church went to the daily cycle of prayers.
Christ instituted the Eucharist.
The Eucharist is a modification of the temple sacrafice.
The gifts of bread and wine are processed form the oblation table to the altar, just as the sacraficial animal was processes from the oblation table to the altar in temple worship. When Christians were first allowed to practice openly, they built Haggia Sophia, specifically for this ritual.

[svdbygrace]

Don't worry, it is possible to be delivered from that!! (Speaking from experience.) ;)

:confused: ^_^ :P :)

[Fish and Bread]

I often see a debate over whether the earliest Christians worshipped liturgically or more like today's evangelical Protestants. Those arguments presuppose that the Church was monolithic in it's practices. Given the persecutions, the slow pace of communications, and the fact that St. Paul had shown a willingness to adapt to the needs of the local communities he preached in; isn't it possible that Christians worshipped in both ways, depending on which community they were apart of?

John

[SeenAndUnseen]

I often see a debate over whether the earliest Christians worshipped liturgically or more like today's evangelical Protestants. Those arguments presuppose that the Church was monolithic in it's practices. Given the persecutions, the slow pace of communications, and the fact that St. Paul had shown a willingness to adapt to the needs of the local communities he preached in; isn't it possible that Christians worshipped in both ways, depending on which community they were apart of?

John

I think so.

[Naomi4Christ]

I often see a debate over whether the earliest Christians worshipped liturgically or more like today's evangelical Protestants. Those arguments presuppose that the Church was monolithic in it's practices. Given the persecutions, the slow pace of communications, and the fact that St. Paul had shown a willingness to adapt to the needs of the local communities he preached in; isn't it possible that Christians worshipped in both ways, depending on which community they were apart of?

John

Exactly.

It's very hard to imagine that the earliest Christians had only one form of worship. I would see them as people so on fire for Christ that they lived and breathed worship - that would mean that some of it would have to be informal. Agape meals, and the like.

[gitlance]

I often see a debate over whether the earliest Christians worshipped liturgically or more like today's evangelical Protestants. Those arguments presuppose that the Church was monolithic in it's practices. Given the persecutions, the slow pace of communications, and the fact that St. Paul had shown a willingness to adapt to the needs of the local communities he preached in; isn't it possible that Christians worshipped in both ways, depending on which community they were apart of?

John

Possible yes. Historically accurate, no. In fact, Irenaeus says that there were no differences in traditions and customs between the churches all over the civilized world.

[Lel]

I doubt that ritual was that big a deal in the very early church. The early church would have looked more like house groups - bit of worship, bit of prayer, bit of teaching. Jesus freed us from rituals, remember.

Amen!

What's more important, liturgy and ritual, or Christ? I like liturgy, but it's not strictly necessary.

[gtsecc]

Amen!







What's more important, liturgy and ritual, or Christ? I like liturgy, but it's not strictly necessary.



Christ and the liturgy are inseparable.



The first thing Christ does to reveal himself to his followers after the resurrection is the liturgy - Luke 24:30. He could have just said, “I’m Jesus!” But, he does the Eucharist. How else can you take that? Time after time, Christ Himself performs rituals.



Everything Christ does is ritualistic.

The covenant with Abraham is ritualistic.

God walks between the animal halves, which means if Israel breaks the covenant, may God’s blood be shed to restore the relationship. Then he fulfils it with the blood of Christ. Everything in the Bible and Church teaching supports the liturgy.



Is there ANY contrary example?

[Lel]

Did Christ say it was necessary to have liturgy, or to be born again?

[gtsecc]

Did Christ say it was necessary to have liturgy, or to be born again?
I think he did everythign possible to show us it was nessecary.
Is there some sort of counter example?

[Philip]

Did Christ say it was necessary to have liturgy, or to be born again?

Is it necessary? No. The thief on the cross shows us that. All that is necessary is God's grace. However, He did provide tools for us to experience that grace. Baptism is one. The Eucharist is one. The Liturgy is one. Why not make use of the tools that Christ has given us?

[gtsecc]

We are present at the cross in the Eucharist.
There is no need for the thief to do the "type of the thing" since he was actually there conversing with Christ.

[PaladinValer]

Christianity is supposed to be the "best of all philosophies," to quote St. Justin the Martyr. It contains the fullness of means of salvation unlike all other religions.

I must echo Philip. We have all the means, so let's use them. :)

[AveMaria]

I suppose it's possible that there may have been a range of how the early church Christians worshipped - something tells me that the Markans and the Johannine communities would not have been in agreement, for example.

But from a broader, more anthropological perspective, I think it's important to note how even early cultures have and value ritual.

[Fish and Bread]

I think he did everythign possible to show us it was nessecary.
Is there some sort of counter example?

Jesus seemed to think that Jewish rituals were unnecessary. He didn't abolish the law, but he rendered the specifics less important than the outcome. It'd didn't matter how you got to loving God and another, it mattered that you got there. He healed on the Sabbath, declined to rebuke his disciples for not washing their hands before meals (As rabbinical custom stipulated), and hung out with "impure" people. I can't picture this same being rebuking people very strongly for skipping the gloria or otherwise condensing the liturgy, or even altering it. In everything he said and did, his message seemed to be that the condition of one's heart was more important than following ritual.

I love liturgy and don't particularly like non-liturgical services, but that's my problem, not Jesus'. To Jesus, I am sure a contemporary non-liturgical service is just as pleasing as a traditional liturgical one, so long as his people are there to worship and love him. :)

John

[svdbygrace]

I would have to agree with John... :)

[gitlance]

Jesus seemed to think that Jewish rituals were unnecessary. He didn't abolish the law, but he rendered the specifics less important than the outcome. It'd didn't matter how you got to loving God and another, it mattered that you got there. He healed on the Sabbath, declined to rebuke his disciples for not washing their hands before meals (As rabbinical custom stipulated), and hung out with "impure" people. I can't picture this same being rebuking people very strongly for skipping the gloria or otherwise condensing the liturgy, or even altering it. In everything he said and did, his message seemed to be that the condition of one's heart was more important than following ritual.

I love liturgy and don't particularly like non-liturgical services, but that's my problem, not Jesus'. To Jesus, I am sure a contemporary non-liturgical service is just as pleasing as a traditional liturgical one, so long as his people are there to worship and love him. :)

John

He didn't do away with Jewish rituals... he replaced them. Circumcision became baptism, the passover became the Eucharistic feast. It is very well-known that the Christian liturgy developed out of the Jewish liturgy. The issue is this: Cyprian, Tertullian, Justin Martyr and others made the very bold statements that the Apostles told them exactly how they were to worship. If the apostles commanded believers to worship in a certain way, that presumably that would be because Christ told them how to worship, then we are under an obligation to worship in the way inherited from the apostles.

You may not know this, but it's claimed by one of the fathers that the only correct way to baptize, according to the apostles, is to have the person stand in a shallow pool, pour water over their head three times, and anoint them with oil.

Either the fathers are right, or the Church went off the rails by about AD 90. And if the Church lost it that early, then we have NO HOPE of recovering the true faith today.

[karen freeinchristman]

Either the fathers are right, or the Church went off the rails by about AD 90. And if the Church lost it that early, then we have NO HOPE of recovering the true faith today.
Do you mean recover the true faith or recover the true ritual?
It seems that you are saying there is no true faith without the 'true' ritual.

Also, I wonder if you might know: when the ancient church baptised whole families, babies included, did the babies stand in the shallow pool as well, or were they held in someone's arms. For it is in scripture that whole families were baptised together. hmm...

[gtsecc]

Do you mean recover the true faith or recover the true ritual?

They are not something you can separate.
Why would you want to separate them?
Are you trying to do the minimum for Jesus, or your best?

[Fish and Bread]

He didn't do away with Jewish rituals... he replaced them.

It's quite possible that Jesus was a fairly liturgical guy prior to his crucifixion, or at least that many of his disciples were fairly liturgical. However, let's not get carried away here. Adhering to a worship formula couldn't possibly be all that impressive in God's eyes. What matters to God is circumcision of the heart, not outward signs and rituals. Wasn't that the whole point of the New Testament no longer requiring us to follow the old law? In fact, Jesus really hammered the people who kept the law perfectly, but didn't love.

Do you really think that God would reject the prayers and adoration of a non-liturgical group or worshipers? I think he's happy whenever people find him and enter into relationship with him, whether they do it with incense and ritual or with a praise band and prayers made up on the spot. If he cares at all about the method people use to worship, I doubt he cares very much.

John

[gtsecc]

If I were God, I would call down fire upon praise bands and video screens.
For what it is worth, I think people exposed to them probably have to spend extra time being purified from the defilement.
So, as I pass through purgatory, I will tip my Biretta to you as you are being processed.

[Naomi4Christ]

If I were God, I would call down fire upon praise bands and video screens.
For what it is worth, I think people exposed to them probably have to spend extra time being purified from the defilement.
So, as I pass through purgatory, I will tip my Biretta to you as you are being processed.

But praise bands are part of the early Anglican church! The organ is relatively new. Our church has minstrel galleries where a variety of musicians performed on individual instruments. The organ only came into vogue because there was a shortage of musicians - and then, of course, it was designed to mimic the original instruments.

As for video screens, what have you got against people being able to see the liturgy and words to songs? What have you got against different types of presentation to illustrate a sermon? Or allowing the whole congregation to witness a baptism by projecting pictures from the baptistry?

But what about defiling the church with electric lighting, heating, and sin-of-sins, toilets!!! And not only toilets, but toilets with baby-change facilities!!!

[gtsecc]

The aesthetic should not be removed from the worship.

When the art of the liturgy is defiled, the worship is defiled.

You might enjoy looking at art on TV, but I find it weird - I would rather view it in person.

[Naomi4Christ]

Good for you, but allow us who see the value in modern methods to worship as we please. We are defiling nothing, and I think it is offensive for you to suggest that we are.

What about music. Do you think it is right to use an organ when the traditional way is to use individual musicians?

[Fish and Bread]

If I were God, I would call down fire upon praise bands and video screens.
For what it is worth, I think people exposed to them probably have to spend extra time being purified from the defilement.
So, as I pass through purgatory, I will tip my Biretta to you as you are being processed.

An interesting aside to this whole discussion, one of my Roman Catholic relatives used to attend a Jesuit parish with a video screen used during mass. I was quite shocked to hear that sort of thing was allowed in the Roman Catholic Church. It's very different from the way things were for me growing up.

Anyhow, I don't want to give the impression that I don't appreciate the liturgy. In terms of my worship preference, I tend to be rather high church, actually. I just view that as a personal preference on my part rather than a decree from God. He created us all differently and sometimes we can follow different paths to him. My path may involve a pipe organ playing Back followed by "Lift High the Cross" and billowing clouds of incernse during an elaborate procession in an old stone church with stained glass windows whereas someone else's path may involve an electric guitarist singing Christian rock as the congregation claps along in a brightly lit auditorium. I think God loves the high-church and the low-church equally. :)

Personally, I'd love to attend a parish that has incense every week, a priest who faces the altar during the Eucharistic Prayer, and the whole nine yards. I'm not sure about wearing a biretta, though. ;)

John

[gtsecc]

Good for you, but allow us who see the value in modern methods to worship as we please. We are defiling nothing, and I think it is offensive for you to suggest that we are.

What about music. Do you think it is right to use an organ when the traditional way is to use individual musicians?
The traditional way is no instruments at all.
I think pipe organs are fine.
I really really don't like any other presentation.

[karen freeinchristman]

The traditional way is no instruments at all.
I think pipe organs are fine.
I really really don't like any other presentation.
I really really don't like pipe organs!!! :sick:
they were not in the early church.
There were lots of other instruments used in worship, though, look at the Psalms!

[karen freeinchristman]

The traditional way is no instruments at all.

May I ask what is your source for this information, please?
How do you know this?

[gtsecc]

May I ask what is your source for this information, please?
How do you know this?
I don't think anyone questions this.
The Eastern Orthodox and the Copts don't use them, and Jews don't.

[gitlance]

But praise bands are part of the early Anglican church! The organ is relatively new. Our church has minstrel galleries where a variety of musicians performed on individual instruments. The organ only came into vogue because there was a shortage of musicians - and then, of course, it was designed to mimic the original instruments.

You do realize that the Church in England was EXACTLY the same the Sunday after the Act of Supremacy as it was before the act, right? She was Roman Catholic, and there were no "praise bands." The concept of a band, as we know it today in contemporary Christian circles, didn't even exist in the Church. The Anglican Church didn't just appear out of nowhere in the 1500s. She has been around for almost 2000 years. You should know that some of the cathedrals in England are close to 1000 years old or more. And many of them have organs from before the time of the Reformation... and if you would study English liturgical music from the 1500s, you would find a great wealth of chant, organ music, and large choir pieces. You WILL NOT, however, find "praise bands".

I would really appreciate it if you would learn the history of the English Church, and then back up your statements with real historic proof.

[gitlance]

As for video screens, what have you got against people being able to see the liturgy and words to songs? What have you got against different types of presentation to illustrate a sermon? Or allowing the whole congregation to witness a baptism by projecting pictures from the baptistry?



Video screens are nothing but an accomodation for laziness. We have prayer books and hymnals if people wanna see the words. If people are so self-centered and lazy that they can't pick up a book, but instead have to look at a video screen, then there is something seriously wrong with their attitude toward religion. Christianity is not supposed to be easy and cavalier. And neither is worship. Christian worship is supposed to be an expression of the glory and magnificence of God. Go read Isaiah and Revelation for a glimpse into heaven's worship. Make note of the incense.

And don't say that the parish can't afford hymnals or prayer books. I happen to know how much a projector screen and all that technology costs, and 50 BCPs certainly don't cost more. (or Common Worship).

[gtsecc]

You can't hold the projector and read the catechism, or look up the daily office, or the lectionary, or read the collects, ect...

[gtsecc]

Television has ruined many people's ability to discerner what is in poor taste. Projectors in a place of worship are just plain tacky.

[karen freeinchristman]

You can't hold the projector and read the catechism, or look up the daily office, or the lectionary, or read the collects, ect...
No one has to hold the projector, gtsecc, it sits on a stand or is fixed into the ceiling.

[gtsecc]

No one has to hold the projector, gtsecc, it sits on a stand or is fixed into the ceiling.
You missed my point.
If one owns a BCP, they can use it almost every day in both private and corporate prayer life.

[karen freeinchristman]

You missed my point.
If one owns a BCP, they can use it almost every day in both private and corporate prayer life.
what a great point to make! and to think I missed it. :sigh:
what does that have to do with using a projector and screen in church?

[gtsecc]

People don't get in the habit of reading their BCP or even owning one when a parish has a projector.

[Naomi4Christ]

You do realize that the Church in England was EXACTLY the same the Sunday after the Act of Supremacy as it was before the act, right? She was Roman Catholic, and there were no "praise bands." The concept of a band, as we know it today in contemporary Christian circles, didn't even exist in the Church. The Anglican Church didn't just appear out of nowhere in the 1500s. She has been around for almost 2000 years. You should know that some of the cathedrals in England are close to 1000 years old or more. And many of them have organs from before the time of the Reformation... and if you would study English liturgical music from the 1500s, you would find a great wealth of chant, organ music, and large choir pieces. You WILL NOT, however, find "praise bands".

I would really appreciate it if you would learn the history of the English Church, and then back up your statements with real historic proof.

So why do we have a minstrel gallery in our church?

[Naomi4Christ]

Video screens are nothing but an accomodation for laziness. We have prayer books and hymnals if people wanna see the words. If people are so self-centered and lazy that they can't pick up a book, but instead have to look at a video screen, then there is something seriously wrong with their attitude toward religion.

What about breastfeeding women? Have you ever thought about them, Git?

[Naomi4Christ]

People don't get in the habit of reading their BCP or even owning one when a parish has a projector.

Why would you read a BCP when you can easily read a bible?

[gitlance]

So why do we have a minstrel gallery in our church?

Your church may, but I have never encountered an Anglican parish that did. And neither have I found any precedent for that in English history.

[gitlance]

What about breastfeeding women? Have you ever thought about them, Git?

Seeing as how God has not provided any other natural means by which children may be nursed, I fail to see your point. What exactly are you trying to say?

[gitlance]

Why would you read a BCP when you can easily read a bible?

Lex orandi, lex credendi. Correct prayer leads to correct belief.

[Tetzel]

I don't think anyone questions this.
The Eastern Orthodox and the Copts don't use them, and Jews don't.

I was at a wedding in a synagogue and I noticed a large pipe-organ

[Naomi4Christ]

Lex orandi, lex credendi. Correct prayer leads to correct belief.

You mean the bible isn't good enough for us?

purgamentum, indeed!

[Tetzel]

Video screens are nothing but an accomodation for laziness. We have prayer books and hymnals if people wanna see the words. If people are so self-centered and lazy that they can't pick up a book, but instead have to look at a video screen, then there is something seriously wrong with their attitude toward religion.

One could say the same of hymnals. If you really cared you could memorize the liturgy.

[gitlance]

One could say the same of hymnals. If you really cared you could memorize the liturgy.

I COMPLETELY AGREE! Our Roman and EO brothers and sisters do. Our priests and clergy do. Why can't our parishioners?

[gitlance]

You mean the bible isn't good enough for us?

purgamentum, indeed!

The Bible is not all there is. It is not sufficient by itself. It needs the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the Church's bishops for proper interpretation.

[higgs2]

I COMPLETELY AGREE! Our Roman and EO brothers and sisters do. Our priests and clergy do. Why can't our parishioners?

In our church we treasure our visitors, as well as our parishioners, and we are glad that they can participate in our liturgy using the BCP even if they don't have it memorized.

Personally I don't care for overhead projectors but to each his own.

[higgs2]

No one has to hold the projector, gtsecc, it sits on a stand or is fixed into the ceiling.

LOL!

[Philip]

I don't think anyone questions this.
The Eastern Orthodox and the Copts don't use them, and Jews don't.

The history of instruments in the Church is interesting. It is true that the Easterners and Orientals do not use any instrument other than the human voice. Were it not for Palestrina, it is quite likely that the Roman Church would not have instuments either.

[gitlance]

In our church we treasure our visitors, as well as our parishioners, and we are glad that they can participate in our liturgy using the BCP even if they don't have it memorized.

Personally I don't care for overhead projectors but to each his own.

And Rome (I don't know about the East) provides a Missal in the pews for those not familiar with the liturgy. We should of course be mindful to our visitors, but not at the expense of our worship.

[Lel]

I suspect that the early church had neither books nor projectors, seeing as how there was no printing press then and no electricity. So let's can the BCP, projectors, all that and just memorize everything.

I really, really can't see why Jesus would care one way or the other....maybe He would condemn the Pharisees for caring, but that's about it....

[higgs2]

We should of course be mindful to our visitors, but not at the expense of our worship.

I totally disagree. People are more important than liturgy.

And as far as memorization goes, I love the variations in the 1979 BCP and I'd hate to lose those for the sake of memorizing one form.

[Philip]

And Rome (I don't know about the East) provides a Missal in the pews for those not familiar with the liturgy. We should of course be mindful to our visitors, but not at the expense of our worship.

Well, for the most part, we don't have pews, but most parishes have copies of the liturgy near the entrence.

[AveMaria]

What about breastfeeding women? Have you ever thought about them, Git?

I'm not Gitlance, but I thought I would share the following observation:

Four friends of mine from church have had babies this past year.

One has managed quite well juggling BCP, hymnal, and baby. She doesn't stand or kneel as much, she typically sits.

The second is able to stand, kneel and sit and her husband holds the BCP or hymnal for her, so they can both see it.

The third steps out if the baby needs to be fed during the 90 minute service because she prefers to not breastfeed in front of other people - she's quite shy.

The fourth is assisted by various friends, much like #2 and her husband.

[Naomi4Christ]

The Bible is not all there is. It is not sufficient by itself. It needs the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the Church's bishops for proper interpretation.

That is such nonsense and contrary to the Articles of Faith.

We cope absolutely fine in our church without the BCP, as do many churches in England. Where does it say in the bible that the Holy Spirit only works through bishops? Hint: it doesn't - God sends his spirit to anyone.

I find it hard to understand how anyone can think that if someone can't get meaning from the bible, that they are going to get it from the BCP. :scratch:

[karen freeinchristman]

I really, really can't see why Jesus would care one way or the other....maybe He would condemn the Pharisees for caring, but that's about it....
This is exactly how I feel.
Perhaps we still have a few modern-day Parisees hanging around?

[FivePointCalvinist]

Does anyone doubt this? None at all. T'is part of the reason why I'm Anglican and not Presbyterian.

[gitlance]

That is such nonsense and contrary to the Articles of Faith.

We cope absolutely fine in our church without the BCP, as do many churches in England. Where does it say in the bible that the Holy Spirit only works through bishops? Hint: it doesn't - God sends his spirit to anyone.

I find it hard to understand how anyone can think that if someone can't get meaning from the bible, that they are going to get it from the BCP. :scratch:

Have you ever read the Articles? While they say that nobody can be required to believe anything pertaining to salvation that is outside of the Scriptures (as understood by the Church), they do not say that the scriptures contain all truth.

The Articles also state that we must believe the Creeds, and many of their statements will not be found explicitly in Scripure.

They go on to say that Baptism and Holy Communion are required for salvation, and both of those statements are most definitely found in the Bible. Yet, you like to say that we are saved by faith only, which would mean Baptism and the Eucharist are not necessary. However, the Scriptures say they are, the Articles say they are, the Catechism says they are... need I go on?

[gtsecc]

Why would you read a BCP when you can easily read a bible?
The bible is not self explainatory. Nor is it an instruction book for salvation. Many things are more clearly explained in the BCP.

[gtsecc]

That is such nonsense and contrary to the Articles of Faith.

We cope absolutely fine in our church without the BCP, as do many churches in England. Where does it say in the bible that the Holy Spirit only works through bishops? Hint: it doesn't - God sends his spirit to anyone.

I find it hard to understand how anyone can think that if someone can't get meaning from the bible, that they are going to get it from the BCP. :scratch:

Articles of faith are only in the BCP as a historic document and can be ignored.

The catechism, which cannot be ignored says clearly the church interprets scripture.
Let me quote it:
Q. How do we understand the meaning of the Bible?

A. We understand the meaning of the Bible by the help of the Holy Spirit, who guides the Church in the true interpretation of the Scriptures.

[Naomi4Christ]

I've always advocated reading the bible in the power of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is given to ordinary Christian folk, and "the church" is the people - the body of Christ.

Here's a good article on the 39 articles of faith: 39 Articles (http://www.churchsociety.org/issues/doctrine/iss_doctrine_39articles.htm)

Ignoring on of the key documents within the Anglican communion sounds like cherry-picking to me. We are to ignore this but absorb every word of St. someone-or-other from the dark ages. :scratch:

[Lel]

Q. How do we understand the meaning of the Bible?

A. We understand the meaning of the Bible by the help of the Holy Spirit, who guides the Church in the true interpretation of the Scriptures.

Very well, but where does that mention bishops playing a role in interpreting the meaning of the Bible?

[Lel]

I've always advocated reading the bible in the power of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is given to ordinary Christian folk, and "the church" is the people - the body of Christ.

Here's a good article on the 39 articles of faith: 39 Articles (http://www.churchsociety.org/issues/doctrine/iss_doctrine_39articles.htm)

Ignoring on of the key documents within the Anglican communion sounds like cherry-picking to me. We are to ignore this but absorb every word of St. someone-or-other from the dark ages. :scratch:

The 39 Articles are there, but we don't have to adhere to all of them. We also don't have to adhere to all the Early Church Fathers either. Really, it seems that we all cherry pick in some way or another, preferring one source of enlightenment to another.

[gtsecc]

Very well, but where does that mention bishops playing a role in interpreting the meaning of the Bible?
Well, where there are Bishops, you have the Church.
No Bishops - no Church.
But, I never mentioned Bishops.

[gtsecc]

That article from the Church Society is an attack on the Bride of Christ!


They are some self-declared surgeons arrogantly proposing to do an extreme make over on her!

Get thee behind me!

Please see John Henry Newman’s Tract 90 for the truth.

[gitlance]

I've always advocated reading the bible in the power of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is given to ordinary Christian folk, and "the church" is the people - the body of Christ.



So, if the Holy Spirit is guiding all individuals who read the Bible, how is it that there are over 20000 protestant denominations/sects/cults worldwide? Most of them can't even agree on what we may call the "bare essentials". Either the Holy Spirit is a liar and is leading all of these people into falsities, or the people are misguided and are operating in a way that the Holy Spirit does not intend to operate? Which do you think is more likely? Don't forget that for at least 1000 years, the Church was absolutely one in every sense of the word.

If I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

There is only one right answer. God works in absolutes.

[gitlance]

Here's a good article on the 39 articles of faith: 39 Articles (http://www.churchsociety.org/issues/doctrine/iss_doctrine_39articles.htm)

Ignoring on of the key documents within the Anglican communion sounds like cherry-picking to me. We are to ignore this but absorb every word of St. someone-or-other from the dark ages. :scratch:

The problem with the Articles is that they were never agreed upon, as St. Vincent of Lerins said, "everywhere, always, and by all". The nature of bishops being the guardian and proper interpreter of the Scriptures, has. Look at the commonalities between Rome, East, and England. What have they all historically taught? What did the Church historically teach before the 1500s? If there is even one thing that was always agreed upon, then we of necessity must believe it ourselves.

The Fathers said that without bishops ordained in proper succession, there is no church. The councils backed this statement up.

The 39 Articles, while an attempt to reconcile two opposing views of Christianity in England in the 1500s, were never meant to replace or subdue the Catholic faith. They were an attempt at one point in history to reconcile two groups of people. In many respects, they have failed. Thanks in part to the Oxford movement, historic Catholicity is alive and well in Anglicanism.

You should check out the original six articles of King Henry VIII, written AFTER the break with Rome. There's some interesting historic Anglicanism for you.

[Philip]

I've always advocated reading the bible in the power of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is given to ordinary Christian folk, and "the church" is the people - the body of Christ.


The individual believers the body of Christ? Or, are they members of the Body of Christ?

[svdbygrace]

Aren't the 39 Articles still official in the Church of England?

[gitlance]

Aren't the 39 Articles still official in the Church of England?

The ordinals for deacons, priests, and bishops in the C of E make no provision that the ordinand must uphold the Articles. They are not even mentioned. If you ask me, they cannot possibly be official if the clergy are not required to uphold them.

[Naomi4Christ]

The ordinals for deacons, priests, and bishops in the C of E make no provision that the ordinand must uphold the Articles. They are not even mentioned. If you ask me, they cannot possibly be official if the clergy are not required to uphold them.

CANON C15 OF THE DECLARATION OF ASSENT

1(1) The Declaration of Assent to be made under this Canon shall be in the form set out below:

PREFACE

The Church of England is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church worshipping the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation. Led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. In the declaration you are about to make will you affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith as your inspiration and guidance under God in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making Him known to those in your care?

DECLARATION OF ASSENT

I A B, do so affirm, and accordingly declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness; and in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, I will use only the forms of service which are authorised or allowed by Canon.

[Naomi4Christ]

The individual believers the body of Christ? Or, are they members of the Body of Christ?

What do you think?

[Naomi4Christ]

So, if the Holy Spirit is guiding all individuals who read the Bible, how is it that there are over 20000 protestant denominations/sects/cults worldwide? Most of them can't even agree on what we may call the "bare essentials". Either the Holy Spirit is a liar and is leading all of these people into falsities, or the people are misguided and are operating in a way that the Holy Spirit does not intend to operate? Which do you think is more likely? Don't forget that for at least 1000 years, the Church was absolutely one in every sense of the word.



There is only one right answer. God works in absolutes.

These questions are similar in style to that used by satan when he tempted Jesus in the wilderness. Think about it, Git. These questions don't even merit a response.

[Naomi4Christ]

The problem with the Articles is that they were never agreed upon, as St. Vincent of Lerins said, "everywhere, always, and by all". The nature of bishops being the guardian and proper interpreter of the Scriptures, has. Look at the commonalities between Rome, East, and England. What have they all historically taught? What did the Church historically teach before the 1500s? If there is even one thing that was always agreed upon, then we of necessity must believe it ourselves.

The Fathers said that without bishops ordained in proper succession, there is no church. The councils backed this statement up.

The 39 Articles, while an attempt to reconcile two opposing views of Christianity in England in the 1500s, were never meant to replace or subdue the Catholic faith. They were an attempt at one point in history to reconcile two groups of people. In many respects, they have failed. Thanks in part to the Oxford movement, historic Catholicity is alive and well in Anglicanism.

You should check out the original six articles of King Henry VIII, written AFTER the break with Rome. There's some interesting historic Anglicanism for you.

There was the small matter of the Reformation in there somewhere though. If you want to hark back to the times before them, why don't you join the RCC? That is a serious question. I really don't see a place within the Anglican communion for such narrowmindedness and arrogant attitudes.

To be honest, I care very little about church history through the ages. It really doesn't matter to me how it came about (beyond what is written in canonical scripture), and much of it seems political and self-serving. The most important thing is where we are now and the work we have to do in these days for the Lord. Anything else misses the point and is a snub to the sacrifice that Christ made for us.

[Tetzel]

So, if the Holy Spirit is guiding all individuals who read the Bible, how is it that there are over 20000 protestant denominations/sects/cults worldwide?


This argument is very odd coming from someone who is a member of a denomination that would be counted among the 20000 by the originators of this argument.

[Philip]

What do you think?

1 Corinthians 12:27
Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it.

[gtsecc]

To be honest, I care very little about church history through the ages. It really doesn't matter to me how it came about (beyond what is written in canonical scripture), and much of it seems political and self-serving.
It really does matter.
People who say it does not matter are trying to change the faith from the one Jesus Christ established.

[gtsecc]

This argument is very odd coming from someone who is a member of a denomination that would be counted among the 20000 by the originators of this argument.

There is one church, currently in 3 main branches: RCC, EO, and AC.

If the EO and RCC reunite, then we have no legitimacy and will have to join them or not be a part of the Body.

[Tetzel]

There is one church, currently in 3 main branches: RCC, EO, and AC.

If the EO and RCC reunite, then we have no legitimacy and will have to join them or not be a part of the Body.



Some Anglicans may consider themselves among the RCC and EO, but if you are why is the ECUSA in joint communion with the ELCA (lutherans) and not the RCC and EO?

[gtsecc]

Some Anglicans may consider themselves among the RCC and EO, but if you are why is the ECUSA in joint communion with the ELCA (lutherans) and not the RCC and EO?
IF ECLA gets its Apostolic Succession back, then they will be part also.

[Naomi4Christ]

Let's ignore all the other protestant denominations, shall we?

[Philip]

If the EO and RCC reunite, then we have no legitimacy and will have to join them or not be a part of the Body.


Don't worry. I don't see it happening anytime soon.

[Tetzel]

IF ECLA gets its Apostolic Succession back, then they will be part also.

The ELCA now has Apostolic succession, it was part of the CCM agreement. However it seems highly doubtful that the ELCA would join the EO and RCC.

[Tetzel]

Don't worry. I don't see it happening anytime soon.

I agree

[gtsecc]

Let's ignore all the other protestant denominations, shall we?
They in no way resemble the faith started by Christ.
You can go with John Smyth, but I'm going with Jesus.
Seriously.
Do they have Bishops?
Do they have Priests?
Do they have the WHOLE Bible, or have they removed some books?
Do they have a Eucharist?
Do they read the bible they way it has always been read, or do they have a new tradition about it?
Do they have the power to absolve sin?
Do they mean the same thign the Church has always ment when they say the creeds?

[gitlance]

CANON C15 OF THE DECLARATION OF ASSENT

1(1) The Declaration of Assent to be made under this Canon shall be in the form set out below:

PREFACE

The Church of England is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church worshipping the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation. Led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. In the declaration you are about to make will you affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith as your inspiration and guidance under God in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making Him known to those in your care?

DECLARATION OF ASSENT

I A B, do so affirm, and accordingly declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness; and in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, I will use only the forms of service which are authorised or allowed by Canon.

But the public declaration and promises made according to the 1662 BCP do not make any reference to historic formularies or the Articles.

[gitlance]

These questions are similar in style to that used by satan when he tempted Jesus in the wilderness. Think about it, Git. These questions don't even merit a response.

Their response is contingent on salvation. You don't want to answer them because you already know what the answer is. The Jews were not allowed to "privately interpret" the Law. Only the ruling priests could do that. The Church is the fulfillment of Israel. Only the Church's clergy, under the power of the Holy Spirit can correctly interpret Scripture.

In all actuality, the Protestant belief of private interpretation is nothing but a religious extension of post-modernism.

[gitlance]

There was the small matter of the Reformation in there somewhere though. If you want to hark back to the times before them, why don't you join the RCC? That is a serious question. I really don't see a place within the Anglican communion for such narrowmindedness and arrogant attitudes.

To be honest, I care very little about church history through the ages. It really doesn't matter to me how it came about (beyond what is written in canonical scripture), and much of it seems political and self-serving. The most important thing is where we are now and the work we have to do in these days for the Lord. Anything else misses the point and is a snub to the sacrifice that Christ made for us.

Where we are now is completely based on history. Were it not for a Pope, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, there would not be any Protestant denominations.

I think that perhaps the reason you don't care about history is because you know that if you read Church history, you would come to the conviction that what your "Church Society" is teaching you is not in line with the traditional and historic Catholic faith.

[gitlance]

This argument is very odd coming from someone who is a member of a denomination that would be counted among the 20000 by the originators of this argument.

I am not a member of a "denomination". I am a member of the Holy Catholic Church. The Anglican Church never disavowed the Catholic faith. She kept the Succession, the seven Sacraments, the Scriptures in their entirety, and the Tradition. None of the other reformation groups did that. Rome never even questioned England's orders until the end of the 19th century, and even then Pope Leo XIII's arguments don't hold historic merit. We are in full communion with the Old Catholic church, and from them have received an additional line of Succession. Rome considers their orders valid.

The Catholicty of England cannot be denied.

[gitlance]

Let's ignore all the other protestant denominations, shall we?

That's what St. Irenaeus advocated...

[gitlance]

And by the way, Tetzel, I am very happy that we are in communion with the ELCA. It will be good to see the ELCA's full catholicty restored by reintroducing the Apostolic Succession.

[Philip]

I think that perhaps the reason you don't care about history is because you know that if you read Church history, you would come to the conviction that what your "Church Society" is teaching you is not in line with the traditional and historic Catholic faith.

Isn't ignoring Church History the same as ignoring the work of the Holy Spirit over the last 2000 years?

[gtsecc]

Isn't ignoring Church History the same as ignoring the work of the Holy Spirit over the last 2000 years?
Exactly.

[Naomi4Christ]

I think that perhaps the reason you don't care about history is because you know that if you read Church history, you would come to the conviction that what your "Church Society" is teaching you is not in line with the traditional and historic Catholic faith.

What bollox

[Naomi4Christ]

Isn't ignoring Church History the same as ignoring the work of the Holy Spirit over the last 2000 years?

Why do you say that?

How can I ignore how the Holy Spirit is working in my life today?

Please explain.

[Philip]

Why do you say that?

Countless Christians have been guided by the Spirit over the last 2000 years. Why ignore what He taught them? Why ignore what He taught through them?


How can I ignore how the Holy Spirit is working in my life today?


I don't understand this question? Are you suggesting that the Spirit doesn't want you to learn the history of His Temple?

[Naomi4Christ]

Countless Christians have been guided by the Spirit over the last 2000 years. Why ignore what He taught them? Why ignore what He taught through them?

It's not a question of ignoring church history - it's a case of it being important or not. I happen to think that it is very low priority compared to the work of the Holy Spirit today.



I don't understand this question? Are you suggesting that the Spirit doesn't want you to learn the history of His Temple? Why would he? I don't see why you think the HS would find the history important at all. It's not exactly canonical scripture, is it?

I think history is interesting to some people, and as a general academic subject it is very important. Some of us have brains that are wired differently and don't see the attraction of this topic. It doesn't make us lesser Christians, and you should not feel superior and smug for your liking of the topic. We are not all meant to be the same or think the same way, otherwise the body of Christ would be a real misfit.

[Philip]

I don't think I can answer your questions without breaking the rules of STR.

[gitlance]

Isn't ignoring Church History the same as ignoring the work of the Holy Spirit over the last 2000 years?

Yes it is. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He does not change. What was true in His Church during the lives of St. Ignatius, St. John, St. Irenaeus, St. Clement, and all the rest is still true in His Church today.

[gitlance]

Why do you say that?

How can I ignore how the Holy Spirit is working in my life today?

Please explain.

Because what you say He is doing is not in line with what He has done for the past 2000 years. There is a contradiction there.

[gitlance]

It's not a question of ignoring church history - it's a case of it being important or not. I happen to think that it is very low priority compared to the work of the Holy Spirit today.



Why would he? I don't see why you think the HS would find the history important at all. It's not exactly canonical scripture, is it?

I think history is interesting to some people, and as a general academic subject it is very important. Some of us have brains that are wired differently and don't see the attraction of this topic. It doesn't make us lesser Christians, and you should not feel superior and smug for your liking of the topic. We are not all meant to be the same or think the same way, otherwise the body of Christ would be a real misfit.

---

Our ignorance of history causes us to slander our own times.

[Fish and Bread]

Yes it is. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He does not change. What was true in His Church during the lives of St. Ignatius, St. John, St. Irenaeus, St. Clement, and all the rest is still true in His Church today.

Was what God did prior to Christ's coming the same as what he after Christ came? Or were they rather steps in a progression towards the kingdom of heaven? Jesus implied that the Holy Spirit would continue his work in the same way that he continued his Father's work until the kingdom was at hand.

John

[gitlance]

Was what God did prior to Christ's coming the same as what he after Christ came? Or were they rather steps in a progression towards the kingdom of heaven? Jesus implied that the Holy Spirit would continue his work in the same way that he continued his Father's work until the kingdom was at hand.

John

Jesus came to fulfill that which had been promised from the beginning. Nothing He did was unexpected by the Law and the Prophets.

Yes, God grants continued understanding into His ways, but a better understanding of something cannot contradict a previous understanding. That is the problem with Protestantism... it contradicts the previous understanding of the Church held for 1500 years.

[Fish and Bread]

Jesus came to fulfill that which had been promised from the beginning. Nothing He did was unexpected by the Law and the Prophets.

Yes, God grants continued understanding into His ways, but a better understanding of something cannot contradict a previous understanding. That is the problem with Protestantism... it contradicts the previous understanding of the Church held for 1500 years.

Jesus' teachings contradicted the previous understanding of the majority of God's people at the time he came. Yes, some of his views were held already as a minority opinion by some Jews at the time of his coming, but so too has salvation by faith always been an opinion present in the Church, under though the majority fell away from it for a while. In addition to the scriptures themselves, I'd also point you towards St. Gregory of Nyssa's work, "The Life of Moses", which I am told is a very early example of someone who agreed with St. Paul and, later, St. Martin. Unfortunately, I haven't yet had a chance to read St. Gregory's book myself, but it's definitely on my "to read" list when financial circumstances permit.

John

[gtsecc]

It's not a question of ignoring church history - it's a case of it being important or not. I happen to think that it is very low priority compared to the work of the Holy Spirit today.

Unless you know history, you have no reason for believe the Spirit guiding you is the Holy Spirit. The Muslims are guided by the Holy Spirit also, they think. Knowing history is how you know which Spirit is guiding you.

[FivePointCalvinist]

That article from the Church Society is an attack on the Bride of Christ!


They are some self-declared surgeons arrogantly proposing to do an extreme make over on her!

Get thee behind me!

Please see John Henry Newman’s Tract 90 for the truth. John Henry Newman betrayed Anglicanism and swam the Tiber. Why should anybody listen to him?

[FivePointCalvinist]

Unless you know history, you have no reason for believe the Spirit guiding you is the Holy Spirit. The Muslims are guided by the Holy Spirit also, they think. Knowing history is how you know which Spirit is guiding you. That's ridiculous. Islam doesn't have a Holy Spirit.

[Philip]

That's ridiculous. Islam doesn't have a Holy Spirit.

I take it you have not read the Qur'an. There are several references to the Spirit.

“He sends down the Spirit from His command, upon those of His servants He chooses, in order to warn people of the Day of Meeting.” (Ghafir: 15)

“Say: The Holy Spirit brought it down from your Lord with the truth, to strengthen those who believe, and as a guidance and good tidings to the Muslims.” (An-Nahl: 102)

“We gave Jesus, son of Mary, clear signs, and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit…” (Al-Baqarah: 253)

“Then Allah will say, O Jesus son of Mary! Remember My favor upon you and upon your mother; how I strengthened you with the Holy Spirit…” (Al-Ma'idah: 110)

The problem is they identify the Spirit with an angel, usually the Archangel Gabriel.

[gtsecc]

The point is, how can you know if it is the Holy Spirit or an evil spirit ... church History.

[Naomi4Christ]

Unless you know history, you have no reason for believe the Spirit guiding you is the Holy Spirit. The Muslims are guided by the Holy Spirit also, they think. Knowing history is how you know which Spirit is guiding you.

I don't need to know history to know that. I do not believe in salvation through knowledge. History is part of the material world, but faith is part of the spiritual world. They, and their relationship to my life, are not interdependent.

Unless I know history - indeed!

[Naomi4Christ]

The point is, how can you know if it is the Holy Spirit or an evil spirit ... church History.

Tell me that this is just a poor attempt at humour and that you don't seriousl believe it.

[gtsecc]

Tell me that this is just a poor attempt at humour and that you don't seriousl believe it.
I am dead serious.
The Muslims will say they were given revelation by the Angel Gabriel.
You say you are given revelation by the Holy Spirit.
You guys are in the same boat if you don't compare it to church history.

[Naomi4Christ]

ROFL - keep taking the tablets, gtsec

[Fish and Bread]

I am dead serious.
The Muslims will say they were given revelation by the Angel Gabriel.
You say you are given revelation by the Holy Spirit.
You guys are in the same boat if you don't compare it to church history.

I don't agree completely with this argument, but I do think gtsecc makes a really important point here that could make for an interesting discussion. Though any religion involves a large component of faith, after a certain point one needs to define some way of determining what new ideas and expressions are authentic to the faith and which are inauthentic. For Roman Catholics, it is the judgement of the Pope, which they believe is guided by God to be infallible on certain matters under certain conditions. For the Eastern Orthodox, everything must be in accordance with church tradition. For sola scriptura Protestants, all things must be tested by comparing them to the words of scripture. Anglicans tend to be a little more vague in we define this, though I think the normative test that Anglicans have applied for most of post-reformation history has been scripture, with a role also for tradition and reason.

A question that Christians of all stripes are facing more and more in this modern would is how to adjust to changing social circumstances and new scientific advancements and discoveries. We can go back to tradition, but early church leaders did not have the knowledge and experience that we have today on several issues. We can go back to scripture, but, again, most scripture writers did not know all the things we do now, even though the moral judgements and understandings for the most part transcend limitations such as time. And if we were inclined to the turn to the Pope, I'm guessing we'd be in OBOB and not in STR. So, how do we as Christians figure out how to move forward and listen to God's revelations through the Holy Spirit while still staying true to our roots? I know some folks are itching to say bishops, but our bishops certainly don't seem to be speaking with one voice right now on many controversial subjects. Anyhow, maybe this is where the "reason" part of the three-legged stool comes into play. When we're facing things that aren't in scripture and not properly understood by tradition, maybe we have to use the minds God can us to prayerfully decide what the proper Christian response is to the modern world. Just a thought.

John

[marciebaby]

So, if the Holy Spirit is guiding all individuals who read the Bible, how is it that there are over 20000 protestant denominations/sects/cults worldwide? Most of them can't even agree on what we may call the "bare essentials". Either the Holy Spirit is a liar and is leading all of these people into falsities, or the people are misguided and are operating in a way that the Holy Spirit does not intend to operate? Which do you think is more likely? Don't forget that for at least 1000 years, the Church was absolutely one in every sense of the word.



There is only one right answer. God works in absolutes.

There is on thing we agree on: That Jesus loves us and died for our sins. There is so much dissension within the body of Christ, and it was there from the beginning.

1 Corinthians 1:11-12, My brothers, some from Chloe's houshold have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."
There are always going to be differences and disagreements. I wish we could appreciate and understand and respect those differences.

[Fish and Bread]

There is on thing we agree on: That Jesus loves us and died for our sins. There is so much dissension within the body of Christ, and it was there from the beginning.

1 Corinthians 1:11-12, My brothers, some from Chloe's houshold have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."
There are always going to be differences and disagreements. I wish we could appreciate and understand and respect those differences.

Excellent post!

John