A Reformed Liturgy

[Iosias]

Please contribute if you want: http://www.christianforums.com/t2910955-a-reformed-liturgy.html#post23388840 :)

[gtsecc]

As I said in the other thread - a Good place to start would be by reading Dom Gregory Dix's Shape of the Liturgy.

[AngCath]

thanks for the invitation, but I don't think i'll be contributing to a Reformed Liturgy.

[Iosias]

thanks for the invitation, but I don't think i'll be contributing to a Reformed Liturgy.

I dont suppose you will.

[Naomi4Christ]

Good luck with your project, AV1611.

I'm not a liturgist at heart, but I am happy to read anything you produce. :)

God bless you.

[SirTimothy]

As I said in the other, our evangelical church in the UK was always very happy with the ASB and is even happier with CW's new flexibility, it means we can use as much or as little of it as we like. :)

[ContraMundum]

Reforming the Reformed liturgy? Well, I suppose that taking "Semper Reformanda" all the way!

Good luck, but I hope you don't just re-invent the wheel.

[gtsecc]

The only glarign problem with our liturgy is the Words of Institution and Epiclesis have been reversed in all but the 1549 Prayer book. Otherwise, we have the best liturgy in Chrisendom.

[PaladinValer]

Ah, but in the liturgy I wrote, the Words of Institution and the Epiclesis were restored to their right order :)

[skimbro]

For a "Reformed Liturgy" I would look to the Diocese of Sydney Australia.

[karen freeinchristman]

For a "Reformed Liturgy" I would look to the Diocese of Sydney Australia.


Hi skimbro!:wave:
Welcome to CF and the Anglican board, STR!

[ContraMundum]

Ah, but in the liturgy I wrote, the Words of Institution and the Epiclesis were restored to their right order :)

Does anyone use your liturgy?

[PaladinValer]

Not the point.

[Naomi4Christ]

Does anyone use your liturgy?

We modify Common Worship to meet our needs.

[PaladinValer]

I did use Common Worship as a resource. Nice bit of Anglican liturgy...rather Anglo-Catholic in many places.

[Naomi4Christ]

I did use Common Worship as a resource. Nice bit of Anglican liturgy...rather Anglo-Catholic in many places.

That's why it needs modifying - to take out the epiclesis, for example.

[ContraMundum]

Not the point.

Yeah, I suppose not.

I think that you may have a point here- if we all wrote our own liturgies to suit our own ideas or theological "discoveries" we would indeed have a truly individualistic church and that would encapsulate everything there is to like about having a "Reformed" (aka modern Protestanised) liturgy. No one would complain about the liturgy anymore- the perfect idea!

On the other hand, for those that think the 1549 and subsequent liturgies are theologically sound they can always remain stuck in their "tradition".

I think I should write my own liturgy too. I'd like to get rid of all the parts where I have to stand. The problem is, that my heart would be troubled. Deep down, I see most of the obsession to change Anglicanism "for the better" as a form of iconclasm. What am I gonna do? I like things the way they were and still are in some places. Oh my, I'm doomed to be a heretic forever.

[PaladinValer]

That's why it needs modifying - to take out the epiclesis, for example.

No epiclesis, no valid Sacrament.

[Naomi4Christ]

righty-oh

[karen freeinchristman]

righty-oh

OK, now I'm curious! What do you feel is wrong with the epiclesis? (just asking - I'm not going to debate your position).

[Naomi4Christ]

OK, now I'm curious! What do you feel is wrong with the epiclesis? (just asking - I'm not going to debate your position).

You can't call the Holy Spirit down on an object...or people that have already been filled with the Holy Spirit

[karen freeinchristman]

You can't call the Holy Spirit down on an object...or people that have already been filled with the Holy Spirit

:idea:

Makes sense to me!

[ContraMundum]

No epiclesis, no valid Sacrament.

So the Blessed Apostles in the Gospels and St Paul as well as the early witness of the Fathers in such works as the Didache did not instruct us properly? They taught us how to have an invalid sacrament, but kept the "episclesis" secret? Gnosticism anyone?

[ContraMundum]

You can't call the Holy Spirit down on an object...or people that have already been filled with the Holy Spirit

Well, here's a can of worms to open up. The discussion on sacerdotalism will get lengthy if we get into it. There's a whole bunch of factors to consider but you have a good point- God is not our genie.

But, on the other hand, He has made objects holy (as in the Old Testament), but we seem to be restricted to reacting only to His direct commandments on this. We can't get a cigarrette and pray over it to make it holy. In the New Covenant, what commandments do we have in this regard?

[PaladinValer]

Makes sense to me!

Every single Prayer Book has included the epiclesis, with the exception of the second Edwardian one.

Furthermore, see my last paragraph below.

So the Blessed Apostles in the Gospels and St Paul as well as the early witness of the Fathers in such works as the Didache did not instruct us properly? They taught us how to have an invalid sacrament, but kept the "episclesis" secret? Gnosticism anyone?

Gnosticism? Hardly. Fallacy of Appealing to Ignorance. No formal declaration of the Holy Trinity either until Nicaea I; does that mean that's Gnostic too?

The epiclesis has been in Christian theology since at least St. Justin the Martyr (2nd century), though most likely earlier. It has been a part of Eucharistic liturgy since at least St. Irenaeus (also 2nd century), though most likely earlier too. And he was a 3rd generation bishop at that, being ordained by St. Polycarp who was, in turn, ordained by St. John the Apostle.

[Naomi4Christ]

But should the epiclesis be there, theologically, logically.

Or is it a fallacy of appealing to the herd mentality?

[PaladinValer]

Theologically, yes: The historic Christian belief is in the Real, bodily Presence. Among the earliest proofs of this outside the Bible is the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who wrote of such Presence in his Letter to the Philadelphians. He was a 3rd generation bishop, who lived in the 1st century, and is in a direct link with St. Peter (who ordained St. Evodius who ordained St. Ignatius).

Logically, yes: the Gospel according to St. John 6 makes it very clear that we must partake of His literal Flesh and Blood. He wasn't joking; Jesus said that it was a hard teaching because such a thing would be against Jewish ritual/holiness Law, to eat human flesh and drink blood.

[Naomi4Christ]

BTW, the earliest trace of an invocation of the Holy Spirit is from the third century...from an anonymous writer believed to be Hippolytus.

[PaladinValer]

St. Irenaeus used the epicelsis. He's over 100 years before Hippolytus.

[Naomi4Christ]

How predictable

[ContraMundum]

Interesting that someone who doesn't believe in the final and sufficient authority of scripture believes so whole-heartedly in the authority of the Early Church Fathers.

Gnosticism? Hardly. Fallacy of Appealing to Ignorance. No formal declaration of the Holy Trinity either until Nicaea I; does that mean that's Gnostic too?

Yes, Gnosticism. You've used the "Fallacy of Appealing to false syllogism" here.

Fact: There is no epiclesis in the earliest Christian writings- eg: the Scriptures, or the Didache.

Secondly, your citation of Ireneaus using the Epiclesis is lacking- please provide precise details.

Thirdly, there is nothing wrong with the Epiclesis but it is a long stretch to say that it's lack invalidates the sacrament. The scriptures are written so that you may have eternal life and there is no mention of that prayer. Likewise, if it was vital to the validation of the sacrament it's wording would be far more precise and less open to variation than it has been throughout history.

I think you equate tradition with inspired doctrine. In fact, perhaps you elevate it above inspired scripture. That's how you come across.

Now, about the "Trinity needs the church" kick you go on about. For the last time: The Trinity is precisely outlined in the scriptures. You continually tell us that no one had a clue about it until the First Ecumenical Council. Please prove that the scriptures do not teach the same doctrine as that Council or desist from attacking the Bible (and therefore the credibility of the Council!). The Councils have their authority from the Bible, and must teach only what they have received, otherwise they are reduced to mere opinions like the Pharisaical Councils.

[PaladinValer]

Interesting that someone who doesn't believe in the final and sufficient authority of scripture believes so whole-heartedly in the authority of the Early Church Fathers.

Good Anglicans like Henry VIII did believe in the authority of the Early Church Fathers.

Yes, Gnosticism. You've used the "Fallacy of Appealing to false syllogism" here.

Hardly. Show your logical proof please.

Fact: There is no epiclesis in the earliest Christian writings- eg: the Scriptures, or the Didache.

Earliest writings that we currently have.

Secondly, your citation of Ireneaus using the Epiclesis is lacking- please provide precise details.

Happily, when I am back home and have my patristics books in front of me again.

Thirdly, there is nothing wrong with the Epiclesis but it is a long stretch to say that it's lack invalidates the sacrament.

I disagree.

The scriptures are written so that you may have eternal life and there is no mention of that prayer.

Not without the Bread of Life, which is His literal Body, as shown in the Gospel according to St. John chapter 6.

Likewise, if it was vital to the validation of the sacrament it's wording would be far more precise and less open to variation than it has been throughout history.


Unless the wording wasn't important but the fact that it was performed was.

I think you equate tradition with inspired doctrine. In fact, perhaps you elevate it above inspired scripture. That's how you come across.

Holy Tradition is inspired. Or is the Trinity or the hypostatic union of Christ non-inspired?

Now, about the "Trinity needs the church" kick you go on about.

Sorry, but I never said that. I never even implied it. I said that the formal delcaration of the Trinity as definitive and explicit is found only in Tradition.

For the last time: The Trinity is precisely outlined in the scriptures.

As Three Persons equally of the same One Substance? No.

You continually tell us that no one had a clue about it until the First Ecumenical Council.

That's a lie. Please retract.

Please prove that the scriptures do not teach the same doctrine as that Council or desist from attacking the Bible (and therefore the credibility of the Council!).

No explicity.

The Councils have their authority from the Bible, and must teach only what they have received, otherwise they are reduced to mere opinions like the Pharisaical Councils.

No Canoned Bible until after Constantinople I. What of the first two Ecumenical Councils? Or of the Council of Jerusalem? Heck; most books of Canoned Scripture hadn't even been written yet!

[ContraMundum]

Good Anglicans like Henry VIII did believe in the authority of the Early Church Fathers.

Henry XIII was a "good Anglican?"

Sheesh...I'd hate to think what a bad one would be like!

Not without the Bread of Life, which is His literal Body, as shown in the Gospel according to St. John chapter 6.

Here your whole argument falls into shipwreck.

Let's stick with St John's Gospel for a moment, shall we?

Joh 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

St John wrote all we need for salvation in his Gospel, including the teaching of John Ch 6. When you find the Epiclesis in scripture, let me know. Until then, I'll stick with salvation by grace through faith.



Holy Tradition is inspired. Or is the Trinity or the hypostatic union of Christ non-inspired?

Prove Holy Tradition is inspired, then define it. Or, do it the other way around, which would be more "logical", right?

The Trinity, the Hypostatic Union and anything else you like is inspired because it is found in the scriptures!

Sorry, but I never said that. I never even implied it. I said that the formal delcaration of the Trinity as definitive and explicit is found only in Tradition.

You realise that's just reducing the significance of the doctrine to the level of mere opinion, don't you? It's no difference to saying "The Lambeth Quadrilateral as the formal principle of modern Anglicanism is found only in tradition". It's a statement of history, not a statement of theology. Here's where you are obviously very confused. You confuse historical documents with inspired doctrine. The Councils didn't define anything. They are not God breathed. The scriptures determine the doctrine, the church merely recognises it. To confound the two is to set theology on a collision course with humanism.

As Three Persons equally of the same One Substance? No.

The scriptures clearly teach that the Three Persons of the Trinity are equally of the same substance, etc etc. Where do you think the Councils got it from? Just because you have not been taught from the scriptures how to defend that truth does not mean it is not there.

No Canoned Bible until after Constantinople I. What of the first two Ecumenical Councils? Or of the Council of Jerusalem? Heck; most books of Canoned Scripture hadn't even been written yet!

Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish. Liberal, modernist, higher criticism Public Television rubbish. The Bible was written before the death of the last Apostle. Simple. It was read and recognised as such before the Councils. The Council of Jerusalem of course was an exception because the writers of the scriptures who were directly led by the Holy Spirit were there. The later Conciliar Church (which incidentaly didn't know much Hebrew, which I find interesting) merely settled any minor disputes regarding the canon in later times.

Do you believe in the Bible PV? Can you find Jesus as your personal Saviour from reading it or not?

[PaladinValer]

Henry XIII was a "good Anglican?"

Sheesh...I'd hate to think what a bad one would be like!

You got what I meant. If you want to split draws, be my guest.

Here your whole argument falls into shipwreck.

Let's stick with St John's Gospel for a moment, shall we?

Yes, let's:

6:49-53;60-61:

"Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." The Jews then disputed among themselves, sayingm "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" So Jesus said to them, "Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." When many of His disciples heard it, they said, "This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?" But Jesus said, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, "Does this offend you?"

He doesn't say, like He told Nicodemus, that they were taking Him too literally. He accepts that it is offensive. Therefore, I am right, according to both Scripture and Tradition when I said we partake of the literal Body and Blood when we Eucharist.

The Trinity, the Hypostatic Union and anything else you like is inspired because it is found in the scriptures!

The hypostatic union, which is that Jesus is 100% human and 100% God, completely equally, with two natures and two wills, is not found in Scripture. It is implied, but it isn't stated outright in how much of each. It took Ecumenical Council to finish that, and the Holy Spirit provided that those councils took place and that Truth was reached.

The scriptures clearly teach that the Three Persons of the Trinity are equally of the same substance, etc etc.

Quotes?

Where do you think the Councils got it from?

Inspired interpretations of the scrolls by the Apostles who handed it down.

Do you believe in the Bible PV?

In terms of doctrine, faith, and salvation, yes.

Can you find Jesus as your personal Saviour from reading it or not?

Yes, but it isn't my only source, thank God.

Edit: St. Irenaeus wrote, in Against Heresies, "When, therefore, the mixed cup and baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist..." That's an epiclesis right there. True, it isn't talking about the Holy Spirit, but since the point is the epiclesis in and of itself, it is a moot point as I'm sure you agree.

[ContraMundum]

Yes, let's:

(John) 6:49-53;60-61:

He doesn't say, like He told Nicodemus, that they were taking Him too literally. He accepts that it is offensive. Therefore, I am right, according to both Scripture and Tradition when I said we partake of the literal Body and Blood when we Eucharist.

The real presence is not the topic. The Epiclesis is. No mention of such a prayer in John's Gospel, which is written so that we may have life.

The hypostatic union, which is that Jesus is 100% human and 100% God, completely equally, with two natures and two wills, is not found in Scripture. It is implied, but it isn't stated outright in how much of each. It took Ecumenical Council to finish that, and the Holy Spirit provided that those councils took place and that Truth was reached.

Well, if you understand what the Bible says about God, then the doctrine of the hypostatic union is not merely implied, it is explicitly stated. God cannot be divided. There are not degrees of Divinity, only Divinity itself. Yet Christ is born of a woman. There is your Hypostatic Union, fully, comprehensively and explicitly stated, 100% each.

Quotes?

Quotes to state the full unity and equality of the Trinity in the scriptures? Easy. First of all, as I said before, God is One. (Dt 6:4) Secondly, God is Holy, and thus not part of creation. (Ex. 3:5, Lev 19:2). Thirdly, God is eternal, and cannot change, be added to or divided, diminished or otherwise altered. (Gen 21:33, Is 44:6-8 etc). Now, Jesus shares these qualities, therefore He must be fully God as God cannot be any less God or partially God. (Rev 1:17, 22:13, Rom 9:5 etc etc etc ect). Likewise, the Holy Spirit shares these same attributes (Acts 5:3,4, Rev 14:3 etc etc ect).

It's simple, establish the nature of God from scripture and there is your unity. The mystery begins when we see both the Son and the Spirit equal in attributes to the Father. The only possible honest conclusion, taken from scripture, is that the Godhead is One, co-eternal, equal etc etc. (Col 2:9, Rom 1:20)

I have no idea why you haven't been taught this while studying theology.


Edit: St. Irenaeus wrote, in Against Heresies, "When, therefore, the mixed cup and baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist..." That's an epiclesis right there. True, it isn't talking about the Holy Spirit, but since the point is the epiclesis in and of itself, it is a moot point as I'm sure you agree.

You can't believe in a liturgical epiclesis being taught here, because this could easily be a reference to the Words of Institution alone. What I'm saying is really very simple- only a few of the Eastern Orthodox (and those whose indulge in cross-pollenation with them) consider that part of the Eucharistic prayer to be essential to the validity of the sacrament. Most schools of thought, particularly in the west following after Augustine, believe the sacrament is validated by the promise and the promise is in the Word of God. Thus, the words of institution are the Word that makes the bread and wine sacraments. The same for baptism, which is attached to the Name of the Trinity. Incidentaly, even some baptismal liturgies had an epiclesis (invocatio) but no one has ever argued that it was essential to the sacrament.

I think you will find the Eastern Teaching that the epiclesis as essential to the sacrament is a post-schism emphasis, and thus it should be rejected. I can accept it as a useful and important complement to the words of institution, but cannot accept it otherwise as being essential to the sacrament.

You should not be shocked to see that Anglicans don't swallow this stuff just because you do. Our position is not the same as the East's, although we do practice it as a complement to the Eucharist. Likewise, you shouldn't speak ex cathedra about it when discussing it on an Anglican forum, because you appear to know more about Eastern doctrine than Anglican. Can I suggest you check out some old-school Anglican texts?

[PaladinValer]

The real presence is not the topic. The Epiclesis is. No mention of such a prayer in John's Gospel, which is written so that we may have life.

I thought I agreed with that. My apologies for mistaking your post in this regard.

Well, if you understand what the Bible says about God, then the doctrine of the hypostatic union is not merely implied, it is explicitly stated. God cannot be divided. There are not degrees of Divinity, only Divinity itself. Yet Christ is born of a woman. There is your Hypostatic Union, fully, comprehensively and explicitly stated, 100% each.

I'm sorry, but that's an interpretation of Scripture, not what Scripture explicitly states. There is a difference between the two.

Quotes to state the full unity and equality of the Trinity in the scriptures? Easy. First of all, as I said before, God is One. (Dt 6:4) Secondly, God is Holy, and thus not part of creation. (Ex. 3:5, Lev 19:2). Thirdly, God is eternal, and cannot change, be added to or divided, diminished or otherwise altered. (Gen 21:33, Is 44:6-8 etc). Now, Jesus shares these qualities, therefore He must be fully God as God cannot be any less God or partially God. (Rev 1:17, 22:13, Rom 9:5 etc etc etc ect). Likewise, the Holy Spirit shares these same attributes (Acts 5:3,4, Rev 14:3 etc etc ect).

Again, this is interpretation. I agree that they are powerful verses that back up the interpretation; one that I agree with. However, they are not explicit.

I have no idea why you haven't been taught this while studying theology.

I was taught how to interpret. I was taught against seeing implicity as explicity.

You can't believe in a liturgical epiclesis being taught here, because this could easily be a reference to the Words of Institution alone.

Normally, I would agree, except that the word received is there. What was asked so that it received? There was an invocation, and the Words of Institution are not an invocation; the epiclesis is.

[ContraMundum]

I'm sorry, but that's an interpretation of Scripture, not what Scripture explicitly states. There is a difference between the two.[/FONT]



Again, this is interpretation. I agree that they are powerful verses that back up the interpretation; one that I agree with. However, they are not explicit.



I was taught how to interpret. I was taught against seeing implicity as explicity.

The scriptures are meant to be interpreted (exegetically of course).

Luk 10:26 He said to him, What is written in the Law? How do you read it?

2Ti 2:15 Study earnestly to present yourself approved to God, a workman that does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth.

While it is wise to know the difference between implicit phrase and explicit, I would argue that the doctrine of the Trinity is hardly merely implicated, but that direct, literal reading of the text without watering it down leaves us no other conclusion, and thus, it is a doctrine scripture protects by making it very clear, thus explicit.

Normally, I would agree, except that the word received is there. What was asked so that it received? There was an invocation, and the Words of Institution are not an invocation; the epiclesis is.

I understand your point, but what does the quote say that the Bread and Wine recieve? The Word of God, that's what.

"When, therefore, the mixed cup and baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist."

This lines up with the understanding that the Words of Institution, spoken by God the Son at the Last Supper is what makes the sacrament valid. I don't think this is particularly convincing citation to prove an Epiclesis, but it is a good one to demonstrate the Western position.

[Naomi4Christ]

Incidentaly, even some baptismal liturgies had an epiclesis (invocatio) but no one has ever argued that it was essential to the sacrament.

It may not be essential, but it would be reasonable to call down the Holy Spirit on someone who is being baptised (especially in infant baptism where there is no element of choice). In scripture, the Holy Spirit only ever comes down on people - not objects.

We do call on the Holy Spirit at other times in church life - for example in confirmation services (which doesn't seem right because the candidate should already be filled), and in Alpha courses (where people are showing a desire to leave their old lives behind).

From an evanglical point of view, we have to do what we are told and use Common Worship in our formal communion services (we can modify it to an extent). I think some wordings of the epiclesis can make us feel uncomfortable when contrary to scripture. To be honest, I think the wording of the Collect for Purity is enough.

[pjw]

just about every liturgy or form of worship i've ever read has had a prayer for the blessing of the elements to be to us Christ's Body and Blood, (even Reformed Churches)

liturgy of the reformed churches:
O most merciful God and Father, we beseech thee, that Thou wilt
be pleased in this Supper (in which we celebrate the glorious
remembrance of the bitter death of thy beloved Son Jesus
Christ) to work in our hearts through the Holy Spirit, that we
may daily more and more with true confidence, give ourselves up
unto thy Son Jesus Christ, that our afflicted and contrite
hearts, through the power of the Holy Ghost, may be fed and
comforted with his true body and blood; yea, with him, true God
and man, that only heavenly bread; and that we may no longer
live in our sins, but he in us, and we in him, and thus truly be made partakers of the new and everlasting covenant of grace.



Presbyterian Directory for Public Worship:
Earnestly to pray to God, the Father of all mercies, and God of all
consolation, to vouchsafe his gracious presence, and the effectual
working of his Spirit in us; and so to sanctify these elements both of
bread and wine, and to bless his own ordinance, that we may receive by
faith the body and blood of Jesus Christ, crucified for us, and so to
feed upon him, that he may be one with us, and we one with him; that he
may live in us, and we in him, and to him who hath loved us, and given
himself for us.

anglican bcp 1662
Hear us, 0 merciful Father, we most humbly beseech thee; and grant that
we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine, according to thy
Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his
death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood:

[erin74]

MOD NOTE:

Closed for staff review.