Evangelical view of the sacraments

[Naomi4Christ]

For those who are interested, here is a sermon given by the Rev David Holloway, vicar of Jesmond Parish Church.

It gives a good description of what we believe about the two sacraments, baptism and the Lord's Supper.

http://www.church.org.uk/resources/sermondetail.asp?serId=93

[TomUK]

An interesting contrast - thanks.

[SirTimothy]

Important to note this is not the only Evangelical view of the sacraments, Naomi. Our strongly evangelical minister views them differently to that. :)

Timothy

[Naomi4Christ]

Important to note this is not the only Evangelical view of the sacraments, Naomi. Our strongly evangelical minister views them differently to that. :)

Timothy

There's always one :D ;)

[Wiffey]

That was interesting. Although I very much believe in the real presence of God in Holy Communion, I like the point that the important thing is the presence of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the believer. But then I believe that Communion is a Mystery, that none of us fully grasp on earth...and how God's presence occurs is less important than the fact that God is present.

[cathromang]

I do agree with his conclusion:


"The sacraments are for believers. They strengthen faith."

[Tetzel]

That was interesting. Although I very much believe in the real presence of God in Holy Communion, I like the point that the important thing is the presence of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the believer. But then I believe that Communion is a Mystery, that none of us fully grasp on earth...and how God's presence occurs is less important than the fact that God is present.

I also believe in real presence, but the most important aspect of receiving communion properly as far as I am concerned is what luther wrote in his small catechism "
"Who, then, receives such Sacrament worthily?
Fasting and bodily preparation is, indeed, a fine outward training; but he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins.
But he that does not believe these words, or doubts, is unworthy and unfit; for the words For you require altogether believing hearts."

[Mysterium_Fidei]

I consider that article 'dangerously misleading', frankly. :sick: ;)

[Naomi4Christ]

I consider that article 'dangerously misleading', frankly. :sick: ;)

It's not an article - it's a sermon.

What do you think is misleading and who is being misled?

[higgs2]

It's not an article - it's a sermon.

What do you think is misleading and who is being misled?
and what is dangerous about it?

[Mysterium_Fidei]

and what is dangerous about it?
" Three, the Lord's Supper is not a sacrifice. To call it that is dangerously misleading. " Just quoting from the article in jest. :)

[higgs2]

" Three, the Lord's Supper is not a sacrifice. To call it that is dangerously misleading. " Just quoting from the article in jest. :)
:sorry: ^_^ ^_^

There's danger everywhere it seems :o

[Iosias]

" Three, the Lord's Supper is not a sacrifice. To call it that is dangerously misleading. " Just quoting from the article in jest. :)

Well the Lord's supper is not a sacrifice and this is the view of the CofE!

[SirTimothy]

Av1611, to defend that as the view of the CofE will be very VERY hard. The Church of England is a very broad church, with lots of different view points. You'll find that defending one view as the 'view of the Church of England' very tough. Look at the two Archbishops, ++Cantebury is AffCaff and ++York is raging evangelical. :)

Timothy

[Naomi4Christ]

Av1611, to defend that as the view of the CofE will be very VERY hard. The Church of England is a very broad church, with lots of different view points. You'll find that defending one view as the 'view of the Church of England' very tough. Look at the two Archbishops, ++Cantebury is AffCaff and ++York is raging evangelical. :)

Timothy

It's the view of the C of E in as much that it says so in the 39 Articles.

[TomUK]

It's the view of the C of E in as much that it says so in the 39 Articles.

The Church of England existed before the reformation. Why do some people always conclude that what the Church believed in the 17th century is the same as it believes currently? It really baffles me. The 39 articles are historical documents which represent its view at one snapshot moment in time. Let's not make excessive generalisations.

[SirTimothy]

True. But the Church of England has long since stopped emphasising the 39 Articles, which were of course for a particular purpose and a particular time. I'm not saying I disagree with you two--in fact I do, I'm merely saying that defending it as the view of the ENTIRE church of England is almost impossible. :)

Timothy

[Iosias]

Av1611, to defend that as the view of the CofE will be very VERY hard. The Church of England is a very broad church, with lots of different view points. You'll find that defending one view as the 'view of the Church of England' very tough. Look at the two Archbishops, ++Cantebury is AffCaff and ++York is raging evangelical. :)

Timothy

The CofE is defined by our articles, liturgy and homilies which are all Low. Below is the Black rubric which is found at the end of the Lord's supper:

Although no order can be so perfectly devised, but it may be of some, either for their ignorance and infirmity, or else of malice and obstinacy, misconstrued, depraved, and interpreted in a wrong part: And yet because brotherly charity willeth, that so much as conveniently may be, offences should be taken away: therefore we willing to do the same. Whereas it is ordained in the book of common prayer, in the administracion of the Lord's Supper, that the Communicants kneeling should recieve the holy Communion. which thing being well meant, for a signification of the humble and gratefull acknowledging of the benefits of Christ, given unto the worthy reciever, and to avoid the profanication and disorder, which about the holy Communion might else ensue: Lest yet the same kneelyng might be thought or taken otherwise, we do declare that it is not meant thereby, that any adoration is done, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental bread or wine there bodily received, or unto any real and essential presence there being of Christ's natural flesh and bloode. For as concerning the Sacramental bread and wine, they remaine still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored, for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithfull christians. And as concernynge the naturall body and blood of our saviour Christ, they are in heaven and not here. For it is agaynst the trueth of Christes true natural bodye, to be in moe places then in one, at one tyme.

[SirTimothy]

Arguing that the 1549 mass is low would be a bit of a struggle, AV1611, and that was authorized (and still is, I suspect) for the Church of England.

Timothy

[Naomi4Christ]

True. But the Church of England has long since stopped emphasising the 39 Articles, which were of course for a particular purpose and a particular time.

Not really...

I'm merely saying that defending it as the view of the ENTIRE church of England is almost impossible. :)

Timothy

Of course, it is impossible to have unanimity in an organisation as diverse and inclusive as the Church of England. You can't say the entire church believes any one thing (even the virgin birth and the resurrection, apparently).

But the best official position we have is what it says in the 39 Articles. The 1662 prayer book is still the official one, and for good reason.

[TomUK]

But the best official position we have is what it says in the 39 Articles.

The Archbishop of Canterbury sees the eucharistic as sacrificial.

[Naomi4Christ]

The Church of England existed before the reformation. Why do some people always conclude that what the Church believed in the 17th century is the same as it believes currently? It really baffles me. The 39 articles are historical documents which represent its view at one snapshot moment in time. Let's not make excessive generalisations.

I disagree. The 1662 prayer book is licensed into perpetuity. It is the standard for all time. It has been designed this way to prevent radical and fashionable theologies from creeping in and changing doctrine over time.

[Naomi4Christ]

The Archbishop of Canterbury sees the eucharistic as sacrificial.

What do you expect from a druid? :D

Thank God for the Archbishop of York!

[Iosias]

Arguing that the 1549 mass is low would be a bit of a struggle, AV1611, and that was authorized (and still is, I suspect) for the Church of England.

Timothy

The Black Rubric was in the 1552 actually and it explains the doctrine brilliantly.

[TomUK]

I disagree. The 1662 prayer book is licensed into perpetuity. It is the standard for all time. It has been designed this way to prevent radical and fashionable theologies from creeping in and changing doctrine over time.

But the prayer book itself is rooted in fasionable theology.

No matter how hard one tries, the prayer book cannot be divorced for the political circumstances of the day.

[Iosias]

I agree with Naomi4Christ's posts :)

[Naomi4Christ]

:)

[TomUK]

What do you expect from a druid? :D

Thank God for the Archbishop of York!

While i appreciate that your post was in jest, Rowan Williams is the Archbishop Canterbury whether you agree with him or not and i think he deserves a little more respect than accusations of 'drudism' (there's a chance i've just made up a word there!)

[Naomi4Christ]

Why?

[TomUK]

Because he's the leader of our Church.

[Naomi4Christ]

But that doesn't mean we can't be critical of him. He has a lot of flaws...

[TomUK]

But that doesn't mean we can't be critical of him. He has a lot of flaws...

Of course - he irritates me tremedously and i'm happy to tell anyone who listens to me as such! However i don't really think we should be calling brothers (or of course sisters) in Christ, druids.

[Naomi4Christ]

But he is a druid, isn't he? Wouldn't he be the first to admit it? Is he ashamed?

[TomUK]

Certainly he's a member of the Gorsedd of Bards, but contrary to popular opinion the bards have no druid or pagan roots at all.

[Fish and Bread]

This is an easy thing to misunderstand. The Archbishop is, or was, actually a member of an art and poetry society of sorts where they like to dress up in period costume and refer to themselves as a druid society. They are not actually druids in the religious sense of the world. He doesn't pray to any pagan gods or anything like that. It's essentially poetry lovers who like to play dress up. :)

[Naomi4Christ]

I must stop watching the news

[Naomi4Christ]

This is an easy thing to misunderstand. The Archbishop is, or was, actually a member of an art and poetry society of sorts where they like to dress up in period costume and refer to themselves as a druid society. They are not actually druids in the religious sense of the world. He doesn't pray to any pagan gods or anything like that. It's essentially poetry lovers who like to play dress up. :)

He's obviously not very politically astute. Not a good quality for an archbishop.

Also, does anyone understand why he cultures such a scruffy appearance?

[TomUK]

Also, does anyone understand why he cultures such a scruffy appearance?

I suppose people are more inclined to excuse the fact that he's totally ineffectual if he comes across as intellectual by looking scruffy and making up long new words.

[Fish and Bread]

Also, does anyone understand why he cultures such a scruffy appearance?

I don't know if this is why the Archbishop sports the beard in particular, but in bygone years Christian bishops, priests, and monks used to allow their beards to grow out without being trimmed very often, since they viewed shaving as a concession to vanity. The Eastern Orthodox bishops and priests usually still do this, though I'm told there are some in the most recent generation who have deviated from that practice. Also, there are some orders of Roman Catholic monks who keep it up, if I recall correctly.

The Archbishop might like the theology, be adopting the beard as an ecumenical gesture, or simply think he looks spiffy with a beard. :) I haven't heard anything one way or the other, but those are some possible reasons.

Personally, I think beards look good on men. I sport a beard myself when I'm unattached and dateless or have a girlfriend who'll let me get away with it. ;)

[Naomi4Christ]

I don't know if this is why the Archbishop sports the beard in particular, but in bygone years Christian bishops, priests, and monks used to allow their beards to grow out without being trimmed very often, since they viewed shaving as a concession to vanity. The Eastern Orthodox bishops and priests usually still do this, though I'm told there are some in the most recent generation who have deviated from that practice. Also, there are some orders of Roman Catholic monks who keep it up, if I recall correctly.

The Archbishop might like the theology, be adopting the beard as an ecumenical gesture, or simply think he looks spiffy with a beard. :) I haven't heard anything one way or the other, but those are some possible reasons.

Personally, I think beards look good on men. I sport a beard myself when I'm unattached and dateless or have a girlfriend who'll let me get away with it. ;)

I think he just looks scruffy, and I think that he has to make an effort to look that bad. It's very un-English (I know he is Welsh) to have hair forward of the ears, and the scruffiness of it just makes him look like some kind of laughing stock. And I think he is trying to make a point, which is even worse.

[karen freeinchristman]

Me thinks it's not the hair OR the beard....









it's the eyebrows.

[Naomi4Christ]

Yeah, I've had the urge to take a pair of scissors to them...

[higgs2]

I think he just looks scruffy, and I think that he has to make an effort to look that bad. It's very un-English (I know he is Welsh) to have hair forward of the ears, and the scruffiness of it just makes him look like some kind of laughing stock. And I think he is trying to make a point, which is even worse.

I think he's adorable :cool:

[pmcleanj]

I think he's adorable :cool:
:thumbsup: And his teddy-bear look-alike even more so. What was the site that was marketting the Archbearship?

[higgs2]

:thumbsup: And his teddy-bear look-alike even more so. What was the site that was marketting the Archbearship?
I don't know, but I wish I had one, cutest teddy bear I've ever seen. :)

[TomUK]

http://www.madeleybears.com/Rowan2frontfull9.jpg

http://www.madeleybears.com/Rowan.htm

[higgs2]

http://www.madeleybears.com/Rowan2frontfull9.jpg

http://www.madeleybears.com/Rowan.htm


:) :) :) :) :)

[Incubator]

Why do you argue your point of tradition from the views held five centuries ago by a church two millennia old? I could perhaps see the point of arguing from tradition in an earlier time if one believes that Christ instituted certain beliefs in the founding of the church. However, using relatively recent views held at a point in which 1,500 years had already passed strikes me as an attempt to not look at the matter with reason. Certainly if we held a view that was errant or disputed we should look into the matter on its merits not on the idea that it was a founding belief. Imagine if The Academy was still around today and forced students to worship Greek gods because it was part of their mission statement.

[higgs2]

So we're not talking about the A of C's personal grooming habits any more? :confused:

[erin74]

So we're not talking about the A of C's personal grooming habits any more? :confused:

apparently not. I hadn't really noticed, but then you only have to look at our current PM to see we have bigger grooming issues to deal with than the AofC.

[Naomi4Christ]

Why do you argue your point of tradition from the views held five centuries ago by a church two millennia old? I could perhaps see the point of arguing from tradition in an earlier time if one believes that Christ instituted certain beliefs in the founding of the church. However, using relatively recent views held at a point in which 1,500 years had already passed strikes me as an attempt to not look at the matter with reason. Certainly if we held a view that was errant or disputed we should look into the matter on its merits not on the idea that it was a founding belief. Imagine if The Academy was still around today and forced students to worship Greek gods because it was part of their mission statement.

Because the tradition 600 years ago was &^G()(&*%.

[gtsecc]

Because the tradition 600 years ago was &^G()(&*%.

Do you say this from a position of understanding the devlopement of Christian doctrine, or was that merely an uninformed and atagonistic statement, which you can't back up?

[Naomi4Christ]

Glen,

Don't you think it is time to ignore our petty differences?

[gtsecc]

Glen,

Don't you think it is time to ignore our petty differences?
I purchased the book on Evangelical Eucharistic views according to your recomendation.
I have the interest and make time to learn more, even if it is from a crowd I generally disagree with.
In some ways, the differences are petty, and I would not bring them up in any situation, other than a web site such as this one, where the forum is for bringing up differnces.

On the other hand, you belong to an organization which doesn't find the differnces petty. Your group has had Anglo-Catholic Priests arrested and prosecuted from doing things such as elevating the sacraments.

[Naomi4Christ]

What group do I belong to, pray tell?

[gtsecc]

What group do I belong to, pray tell?
The Church Society, which procesuted Fr. Mackonochie for elevating the sacraments.

[Naomi4Christ]

How am I a member of The Church Society?

Oh, and did Mackonochie actually break the law? We don't usually go in for spurious law suits in the country.

[karen freeinchristman]

Naomi's church patron is the Church Society. That doesn't mean she is a member of the Church Society.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Because the tradition 600 years ago was &^G()(&*%.

:doh: :confused: :sick: :mad:

[SeenAndUnseen]

Primarily, I find evangelical views such as those put forth in this thread to be not only incredibly distasteful, but also disrespectful of the sacraments of the Church (which by my count are seven and not two) -- but especially to those two which are deemed the greatest ones. The Mass is a sacrifice, and the Holy Eucharist is not some "cute" pile of breadcrumbs to be served to grown-ups with "wine."

[Naomi4Christ]

Primarily, I find evangelical views such as those put forth in this thread to be not only incredibly distasteful, but also disrespectful of the sacraments of the Church (which by my count are seven and not two) -- but especially to those two which are deemed the greatest ones. The Mass is a sacrifice, and the Holy Eucharist is not some "cute" pile of breadcrumbs to be served to grown-ups with "wine."

Good job you are not an evangelical then. It wouldn't do to be distateful, would it, even if it means serving the Lord.

[SeenAndUnseen]

Good job you are not an evangelical then. It wouldn't do to be distateful, would it, even if it means serving the Lord.

Let's just say that my idea of serving the Lord has less to do with arranging Him on a platter beside the crackers and pickles than yours does.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Good job you are not an evangelical then. It wouldn't do to be distateful, would it, even if it means serving the Lord.

Evangelicals may worship God in their own way, and Anglo-Catholics in His. ^_^

[Naomi4Christ]

Pickles?

[karen freeinchristman]

The Mass is a sacrifice, and the Holy Eucharist is not some "cute" pile of breadcrumbs to be served to grown-ups with "wine."

Oh my gosh. Our children are showing an interest in receiving communion. I am saddened by this interpretation of that. :sigh:


Matthew 19:14, Mark 10:14, Luke 18:16 -

"Suffer the little children to come unto me"

[karen freeinchristman]

Evangelicals may worship God in their own way, and Anglo-Catholics in His. ^_^

This is a highly offensive post, smilie face or not.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Oh my gosh. Our children are showing an interest in receiving communion. I am saddened by this interpretation of that. :sigh:


Matthew 19:14, Mark 10:14, Luke 18:16 -

"Suffer the little children to come unto me"

Which I think is SeenandUnseen's point. It's not a big "grown up" dinner party. The Holy Sacrafice of the Mass is for people of all ages. They should be instructed as to it's meaning.

[karen freeinchristman]

Which I think is SeenandUnseen's point. It's not a big "grown up" dinner party. The Holy Sacrafice of the Mass is for people of all ages. They should be instructed as to it's meaning.

And you are inferring that we are not instructing our children?

[Mysterium_Fidei]

This is a highly offensive post, smilie face or not.

So is: Because the tradition 600 years ago was &^G()(&*%.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

And you are inferring that we are not instructing our children?
I wouldn't know. However, assuming the little ones think that the Sacrament is a plate of bread crumbs to be eaten with mommy's wine, one could only infer they know little about it.

[karen freeinchristman]

I wouldn't know. However, assuming the little ones think that the Sacrament is a plate of bread crumbs to be eaten with mommy's wine, one could only infer they know little about it.

Oh, for goodness sake!!! :doh:

The child in question is THREE YEARS OLD!!!

[SeenAndUnseen]

Oh my gosh. Our children are showing an interest in receiving communion. I am saddened by this interpretation of that. :sigh:


Matthew 19:14, Mark 10:14, Luke 18:16 -

"Suffer the little children to come unto me"

I am saddened that the children noticed the bread looked like the bread from church, and so thought it must be served to adults with their ordinary wine -- having no understanding of the difference in plain bread and wine and the Body and Blood of our Lord.

I apologize if it seemed I singled out any of your children -- because I realize this was merely a vignette being passed along and shared on the forum and that hopefully I am missing tons of information that would otherwise have me comforted in the childrens' level of understanding about the Eucharist. While simply noticing from prior experience that bread goes with wine demonstrates no interest in receiving Communion, it might at least indicate a good future for the child in catering or hosting. That is all I meant.

[Naomi4Christ]

I wouldn't know. However, assuming the little ones think that the Sacrament is a plate of bread crumbs to be eaten with mommy's wine, one could only infer they know little about it.

Our communion bread is not crumbs. How hard would that be to administer?

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Our communion bread is not crumbs. How hard would that be to administer?

I wouldn't know. :P

[Naomi4Christ]

I am saddened that the children noticed the bread looked like the bread from church, and so thought it must be served to adults with their ordinary wine -- having no understanding of the difference in plain bread and wine and the Body and Blood of our Lord.

But our bread is ordinary sliced bread (pan, not plain). I think they get it from Tesco. It would be better to get it from Waitrose or Marks & Spencer, but I don't think our verger is up to driving into the next town and battling over parking.


While simply noticing from prior experience that bread goes with wine demonstrates no interest in receiving Communion, it might at least indicate a good future for the child in catering or hosting. That is all I meant.

But it was associated with DD's experience of The Lord's Supper today (she only does this about 3 times a year and this was the first time she talked about it at home). I don't usually eat bread with my wine at home - maybe a few olives, but usually nothing. I was impressed, and I hope it was pleasing to God as well.

[Naomi4Christ]

I wouldn't know. :P

Just think about it!