Choice of worship ?

[gtsecc]

It used to be that the terms "market," "niche" and "brand" were specifically related to consumables. Everyone knows the Pillsbury Doughboy and Tony the Tiger. But consider this: Once Bibles were printed in the language of the people: Greek, Latin, German, English, Spanish, etc., But now, even the Holy Scriptures are printed to a certain market niche. I recently received a catalog that offers study Bibles specifically printed for women, teens, bikers, backpackers, surfers, children and more. Even one in magazine format for the busy executive. And this by a well-known, very established company that promises to offer "the most translations in the most languages," as if having many different English translations were a good thing (a topic for another day).
We shop for Bibles, and we even shop for church. Church shopping, if in fact it needs to be defined, is this: When one moves to a new city (or simply grows tired with his old church), it is common to spend at least a few months of Sundays bouncing from one local church to another trying to find "a place where I feel comfortable." Or "a place where I like the music." Or "a place that has people like me." When children are involved, very often, the family will look for a parish home that pleases the youngsters. Many times, it is the tiniest children who make the "purchase," when asked by their parents after a visit or two, "Should we make this our church home?"
Market niche also has appeared, and remains uncontested, in the worship services of various churches. Today, in addition to the extremely lamentable, un-Christian and also blindly accepted denominationalism from which one might choose a church, he or she also can decide from among "worship styles," that is, attending church services crafted in categories such as contemporary, traditional, ancient, postmodern, charismatic, etc.
This menu also includes the following options: band, organ, a cappella or no music; early or late service, or Saturday or Sunday night so I can sleep in or golf Sunday morning; "live" worship or TV feed at a campus or in my living room.
In extremis, one can also choose Jesus with or without a cross, a bodily resurrection or one that is only symbolic, even a God either who has condemned from the beginning or, to the contrary, who accepts me where I am, and doesn't expect anything else from me because "I was made this way."
All of this choice paralyzes churches in a market-driven model unrelated to anything Christian at any time or in any place in history. Beware!
And it is defended by use of ice-cream shop imagery: as many flavors and options as people. Everyone can find what he or she likes. It is interesting that the term "heresy" means "sect, opinion or choice," that is, choosing something other than what is the Gospel.
In fact, although perhaps well-intended, such choice actually contradicts the Gospel, since the Gospel presupposes that it is we who must conform and be conformed to God and his ways, and not the reverse.
The church's teaching about Christ is what it is not because it is popular (or not), but because it was revealed to her by Christ himself and handed down through the ages (the very meaning of "tradition").
Likewise, the church's worship life is what it is precisely because it is related to the life, actions, teachings and commands of Jesus himself.
For example, we don't decide to serve Communion or not because the people want it or don't, but because Jesus Christ said, "Do this ..." (1 Corinthians 11:24). And we serve it Sunday mornings because it is specifically related to Jesus' resurrection: "very early in the morning" (Mark 16:2).
We sing certain hymns because they are time-tested, because they speak the clear truth about God and because they are directly related to the celebration at hand, and not because "This is my favorite."
Is there room for choice in the Gospel? Yes, but much less than the contemporary "Christian marketplace" would have us believe. According to the most ancient Christian Catechism, the Didache (c. 70), the most basic and uncontested choice is rooted here: "There are two ways, one of life and one of death, and there is a great difference between these two ways." This was no foreign concept, even to Moses, 1,500 years earlier, who exhorted Israel to "choose life" (Exodus 30:19).
The Christian task is holiness, perfection in Christ. Since Jesus walked this Earth, this "lifestyle" has involved the casting off of the ways of the world.
St. Paul put it like this: "Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind" (Romans 12:2).
This is accomplished by laying down my will, my desires, my favorites, my likes, my choice and, ultimately, my own self and life for God and his kingdom.

[gtsecc]

This is an article written by a good friend of mine.

[pmcleanj]

Hmmm.

I worship in a church that never uses the liturgy of my beloved BCP. The worship music never embraces my preferred musical choices. I don't tend to agree with the incumbant's theological and political bent; and the sermons aren't generally top-drawer.

But I go because the pure word is preached and the sacraments duly celebrated and my family is there and it's the closest church to my home where those elements come together.

Seems to me that it's not those who see liturgy as a matter of choices; but those who see it as a matter of essentials and absolutes and who see omitting this or allowing to be anathema, who are likely to drive across town past other 'erroneous' churches, to find just the right recipe of 'time-tested' 'clear truth'.

Could it be that those who are most worried about the consumerism inherent in "church shopping", who most need to ask what they themselves would be willing to accept in order to return to the historic pattern of attending their own parish church regardless of its churchmanship?

[ebia]

Could it be that those who are most worried about the consumerism inherent in "church shopping", who most need to ask what they themselves would be willing to accept in order to return to the historic pattern of attending their own parish church regardless of its churchmanship?
:thumbsup:
Those who complain most about this sort of stuff seem to be those who expect everyone else to conform to the way they do stuff.

[TomUK]

:doh: I was about to write an awfully gushing post about how some day you are destined to be St. Glenn. Then you wrote this...

This is an article written by a good friend of mine.

My sincere thanks to your friend. A truely amazing article.

[Fleurette]

Can I confess, I don't really see the point? It's not as if there's a lot of choice. When I became a Christian, the only obvious choice of where to worship was either at the local Methodist church, or the local CofE church in the next street. No idea what Catholics did. For whatever reason I went to the CofE church first, and found it so welcoming that I stayed. Never been to the Methodist one, but from the outside they don't look that dissimilar, and they definately have an older congregation (I love the fact that the CofE seems to have so many young people, which is a bit odd considering we're supposed to be dying out and full of OAPs).

But clearly we're not going to going to see eye-to-eye, since I spent my first few months when I moved to uni looking for a church that truely wanted new people. The most perfect church in the world is no good if noone speaks to you. I went to one particular church twice, and the only person who ever spoke to me during the entirity of the two services was another visitor. I didn't even get a "Welcome" or "Hello" from the chap handing out notice sheets outside the door. I'm sure you would have loved that church, it was very traditional. But, after that second time, I never went back - indeed, because I would never have felt comfortable there. I was still very new in my walk with God, I needed a living church to nourish me and help me grow. That church just felt dead - as I'm afraid, do too many churches today.

I suppose you think that's a bad thing. Indeed, seeing this forum, I'm still questioning whether or not I'm an Anglican. I see nothing of my personal experience of God and relationship with him in the regimented sameness of a prayer book :( Indeed, a lot of the stuff you mention between you, I've never even heard of.

[Naomi4Christ]

Can I confess, I don't really see the point? It's not as if there's a lot of choice. When I became a Christian, the only obvious choice of where to worship was either at the local Methodist church, or the local CofE church in the next street. No idea what Catholics did. For whatever reason I went to the CofE church first, and found it so welcoming that I stayed. Never been to the Methodist one, but from the outside they don't look that dissimilar, and they definately have an older congregation (I love the fact that the CofE seems to have so many young people, which is a bit odd considering we're supposed to be dying out and full of OAPs).

But clearly we're not going to going to see eye-to-eye, since I spent my first few months when I moved to uni looking for a church that truely wanted new people. The most perfect church in the world is no good if noone speaks to you. I went to one particular church twice, and the only person who ever spoke to me during the entirity of the two services was another visitor. I didn't even get a "Welcome" or "Hello" from the chap handing out notice sheets outside the door. I'm sure you would have loved that church, it was very traditional. But, after that second time, I never went back - indeed, because I would never have felt comfortable there. I was still very new in my walk with God, I needed a living church to nourish me and help me grow. That church just felt dead - as I'm afraid, do too many churches today.

I suppose you think that's a bad thing. Indeed, seeing this forum, I'm still questioning whether or not I'm an Anglican. I see nothing of my personal experience of God and relationship with him in the regimented sameness of a prayer book :(

Wonderful post. :)

Research says that people stay at a church because they feel welcome and make friends.

Christianity is as much about a relationship with with one another as it is about a relationship with God. Jesus told us to love one another. That's what we have to do, and that means having fellowship with them, and helping one another grow in faith, among other things.

I agree, very little on this board reflects that Anglican church as I know it. We can go, and leave them to their talk about canticles, candles and vestments, or we can stick around and show them a different path. WWJD?

[RadixLecti]

Research says that people stay at a church because they feel welcome and make friends.

Christianity is as much about a relationship with with one another as it is about a relationship with God. Jesus told us to love one another. That's what we have to do, and that means having fellowship with them, and helping one another grow in faith, among other things.

So true. All of my housemates and I go to the same church.

[karen freeinchristman]

The most perfect church in the world is no good if noone speaks to you.
Certainly it wouldn't be a perfect church if no-one spoke to newcomers!

Indeed, seeing this forum, I'm still questioning whether or not I'm an Anglican. I see nothing of my personal experience of God and relationship with him in the regimented sameness of a prayer book :( Indeed, a lot of the stuff you mention between you, I've never even heard of.
You are not alone in that! :) I hadn't heard of a lot of it either before coming to this forum. But for me, it has been very interesting and broadening to learn about these other churchmanships. I also have become a converted lover of church history, because learning about it adds to the richness of my faith.

[Inside Edge]

This is accomplished by laying down my will, my desires, my favorites, my likes, my choice and, ultimately, my own self and life for God and his kingdom.
This really doesn't make sense outside of context, or when applied broadly.

That article is only good for an academic excersize. It serves to make us think about, from time to time, how we choose the church we attend and why. Perhaps, in the process, checking ourselves against indulging personal desires and preferences that may not be what God intended.

Beyond that, it's near useless, logically speaking. Take it seriously enough, and we all have to conclude that there's 1 church and 1 style of worship and 1 system of choosing a church that is acceptable.

Well guess what, life's a little more complicated than that, and we have little control over it. There happens to be many denominations and styles of worship, and we have a choice to make - having a choice of church is not an option for most of us, it is simply a fact.

So no matter what church your friend walks into on Sunday, chances are he chose to attend that church for various reasons, just like the people who didn't choose his church.

[gtsecc]

This Take it seriously enough, and we all have to conclude that there's 1 church and 1 style of worship and 1 system of choosing a church that is acceptable.

That was written by an Orthodox Priest, so his position is exactly that - 1 church and 1 style of worship and 1 system of choosing a church that is acceptable.

On the other extreme we fall into the trap of thinking worship is about us.

[gtsecc]

.

[Inside Edge]

On the other extreme we fall into the trap of thinking worship is about us.
I agree. But I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. If we're wary enough to keep these things in mind, then I think that's enough for God to keep us in line.

As I said before, even this priest made his own choice of church - so if he feels his point is valid in the extreme sense, then all he's really saying is, "Everyone should worship the same way I do because I think it's what God thinks is right."

[gtsecc]

then all he's really saying is, "Everyone should worship the same way I do because I think it's what God thinks is right."
but, he can back it up by showing continuity with folks all over the world and all over time.

[Fleurette]

but, he can back it up by showing continuity with folks all over the world and all over time.

Doesn't mean a thing.

[gtsecc]

Doesn't mean a thing.
Tell me more.
It means tons to me, but I may not have the same questions you have.
Explore this with me.
I want to know what you are thinking.
:)

[TomUK]

Doesn't mean a thing.

But surely continuity helps protect us from false doctrines. The ability to trace our faith through history means that when David Icke makes absurd claims we can see them to be false as they have no root in Christ and the faith he perfected.

[Fleurette]

Hmmm. I'll come back and answer this evening, I don't have enough time right now to give it justice.

[gtsecc]

Hmmm. I'll come back and answer this evening, I don't have enough time right now to give it justice.
Think about someone who is say, Mormon.
Now, they will tell you they are Christian, and you might not agree.
The only way you can show that they are doing somethign that is different than Christianity is by an examination of what has be taught always and everywhere, and showing what they believe is new and different.

[Fleurette]

Alright. I'm still a bit short of time, since a friend's supposed to be ringing me any moment, but I'll give you gist of my thoughts:

Apologies for perhaps being a bit too sensationalist - Tom's perfectly right, and I'm not disagreeing with what he's saying. I don't think though, that "because it's always been done" is a sufficient answer to "why should I do this, not something else?". In fact, it can become a dangerous trap, by which one justifies anything "traditional", and rejects anything "new" out of hand. Where would we be today without reform?

[gtsecc]

Where would we be today without reform?
One Church, and one doctrine, and in a much better position to evangelize.

[AngCath]

Where would we be today without reform?

Reform, when necessary, is a good thing. However, one could hardly argue that the Reformation actually "reformed" the Roman Catholic Church. All too often when we say "reform" we mean schism.

[Naomi4Christ]

Alright. I'm still a bit short of time, since a friend's supposed to be ringing me any moment, but I'll give you gist of my thoughts:

Apologies for perhaps being a bit too sensationalist - Tom's perfectly right, and I'm not disagreeing with what he's saying. I don't think though, that "because it's always been done" is a sufficient answer to "why should I do this, not something else?". In fact, it can become a dangerous trap, by which one justifies anything "traditional", and rejects anything "new" out of hand. Where would we be today without reform?

Usually when people say, "it's always be done," when you do a smidgeon of research, you find that it wasn't always done that way. Or when they say, "everyone has always agreed," that turns out not to be true either.

With reform, both major and minor, you get checks and balances. You can continually return the faith to the one that was founded at Pentecost, 33 (plus or minus).

In this post-Christian society, doing things the way they were done either 50 or 500 years ago just doesn't hack it, in respect of the work that Jesus left us to do. In the UK, people just do not go to church 'for show'. If they do, they get their reward in full.

[Naomi4Christ]

Reform, when necessary, is a good thing. However, one could hardly argue that the Reformation actually "reformed" the Roman Catholic Church. All too often when we say "reform" we mean schism.

But we have a duty to distance ourselves from false teaching.

[gtsecc]

But we have a duty to distance ourselves from false teaching.
But, the only way we can know false teaching from true teaching is to look and see what it says in the Bible. If two views can be suportedt by the Bible, then we look to what was always believed in all places.

The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is one of those beliefs.

I can't prove this belief is true and the other is false, but it is fairly straight forward to show that Real Presence is the belief always held by the Church, and memorial only is held only recently and by a few splinter groups.

To hold to memorial only, you have to believe that:

everyone from Pentecost on was wrong.
And, only in the 16th century did God reveal his plan.
And, He did so to a few individuals who broke off of the larger group.
And, he wanted the church to split over this, and continue to splinter into more and mroe and more groups, each with sligtly different views and competing voices, all claiming to be the truth.
And, finally, you have to believe God left us with no way of knowing the truth, for the Bible can suport multiple views.1 Cor 14:33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.

Which looks like the Tower of Babble with people focused on personal revelation?
All the cacophony of protestant denominations, or the Historic faiths guided by Bishops, speaking with one consistent voice for over 2,000 years?

[AngCath]

But we have a duty to distance ourselves from false teaching.

that is fine and at times very important... but saying that by seperating you are "reforming" is a bit of a misnomer in my opinion.

[Fleurette]

I didn't just mean religion. I was being much more general than that... perhaps a mistake on CF!

[karen freeinchristman]

I didn't just mean religion. I was being much more general than that... perhaps a mistake on CF!

Reforms in social justice, then?

I agree, where would we be without that? And I also believe that social justice is God-driven.

[gitlance]

Fantastic composition! Fr. Breck?

[ebia]

But, the only way we can know false teaching from true teaching is to look and see what it says in the Bible. If two views can be suportedt by the Bible, then we look to what was always believed in all places.
Why does it follow that because it's been the majority view for most of history it's neccessarly the correct one?


The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is one of those beliefs.

I can't prove this belief is true and the other is false, but it is fairly straight forward to show that Real Presence is the belief always held by the Church, and memorial only is held only recently and by a few splinter groups.

I'm happy to concede that it's been the majority view, but is it possible to show that that no-one has believe otherwise? I wouldn't have thought that were possible.


To hold to memorial only, you have to believe that:
everyone from Pentecost on was wrong.

Or rather, that everyone who expressed a recorded opinion.
And, only in the 16th century did God reveal his plan.
Or God has been revealing it all along, but no-one was listening.
And, He did so to a few individuals who broke off of the larger group.
Because the larger group wouldn't listen.

And, he wanted the church to split over this, and continue to splinter into more and mroe and more groups, each with sligtly different views and competing voices, all claiming to be the truth.
Maybe, unlike us, God doesn't feel threatened by a diversity of opinion. Perhaps the whole obsession with doctrinal minutiae is an irrelevence.

And, finally, you have to believe God left us with no way of knowing the truth, for the Bible can suport multiple views.
Perhaps the wish to have a way of answering every academic question is just wishful thinking. Perhaps God is more interested in us asking the interesting questions than in giving us the answers.


1 Cor 14:33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.
Diversity of opinion is only confusion if think it's a bad thing. I.e. if you are afraid of it.

(N.B. I do believe in real presence - I just don't have a problem with others not.)

[Inside Edge]

All the cacophony of protestant denominations, or the Historic faiths guided by Bishops, speaking with one consistent voice for over 2,000 years?
Problem is, they haven't been conistent or always as "one."

The bible supporting multiple views is not a big deal. If what you're looking at is the truth, does it matter from what angle you're viewing it? Isn't truth absolute?

[gtsecc]

Fantastic composition! Fr. Breck?
Fr. Parker

[gtsecc]

Problem is, they haven't been conistent or always as "one."

True, but they are consstant on a number of views:
Mary's perpetual Virginity for example.
Also, on views where they differ, the Asumption of Mary and Dormition of Mary - they are consistant that she was taken up into heaven bodily.
And, we also know when the Church speaks with one voice, it is lead by the Holy Spiirt.

[TomUK]

True, but they are consstant on a number of views:
Mary's perpetual Virginity for example.
Also, on views where they differ, the Asumption of Mary and Dormition of Mary - they are consistant that she was taken up into heaven bodily.
And, we also know when the Church speaks with one voice, it is lead by the Holy Spiirt.

The perpetual virginity one does baffle me. Many of the Church Fathers who lived soon after Mary, perhaps who even had met her, declared in one unanimous voice that she was an ever virgin. Why all of a sudden have some not accepted what the church has universally taught.

EDIT: Few changes made as i am an idiot.

[karen freeinchristman]

:confused:

The perpetual virginity one does baffle me. Many of the Church Fathers who lived soon after Mary, perhaps who even had met him, I assume you meant to write 'her', not 'him'?

declared in one unanimous voice that she was an ever virgin. Why all of a sudden have some accepted what the church has universally taught.
This doesn't make sense to me. Do you mean to say, "why all of a sudden have some not accepted..." ???

[TomUK]

Lol

*tom makes a mental note- 'always read your posts before you press submit*

[gitlance]

Pardon my intrusion...

I noticed some discussion concerning the early Church and Our Lady's perpetual virginity. Thought this canon from the Council of Constantinople II (553) would be considered interesting by some here.

If this post in any way disrupts the unity of this thread, please feel free to delete it.

If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, the one from all eternity of the Father, without time and without body; the other in these last days, coming down from heaven and being made flesh of the holy and glorious Mary, Mother of God and always a virgin, and born of her: let him be anathema.

[Inside Edge]

True, but they are consstant on a number of views:
Mary's perpetual Virginity for example.
Also, on views where they differ, the Asumption of Mary and Dormition of Mary - they are consistant that she was taken up into heaven bodily. And, we also know when the Church speaks with one voice, it is lead by the Holy Spiirt.
Ok, and this is sort of my point. Even narrowing down these criteria, there's still a choice of church to be made. There's probably at least 3 or 4 church bodies to choose from, and lots of variation of style within each one.

Again, the only way to really believe in the posited idea is to say, "well, my church is the best one so everyone should conform to it."

Truth is absolute, but there's there's more than one way to look at or experience it - even within the more literal restrictions handed down to us in the Bible.

As such, I don't think there's a need to be too preoccupied with the variations in the Church. We're all asking the same God to show us the way. According to Him (scripture), if we ask such a thing, we'll receive.

[artrx]

Maybe, unlike us, God doesn't feel threatened by a diversity of opinion. Perhaps the whole obsession with doctrinal minutiae is an irrelevence.


Perhaps the wish to have a way of answering every academic question is just wishful thinking. Perhaps God is more interested in us asking the interesting questions than in giving us the answers.



Diversity of opinion is only confusion if think it's a bad thing. I.e. if you are afraid of it.

(N.B. I do believe in real presence - I just don't have a problem with others not.)

Truth is absolute, but there's there's more than one way to look at or experience it - even within the more literal restrictions handed down to us in the Bible.

As such, I don't think there's a need to be too preoccupied with the variations in the Church. We're all asking the same God to show us the way. According to Him (scripture), if we ask such a thing, we'll receive.


:thumbsup: :amen: In the midst of all the strong views, deeply held beliefs and informative dialog there is also a need to stop, step back and kneel humbly before our God. It also helps me to look at the gorgeous kaleidascope of human understandings that help bring us closer to our Creator.

[Ravenonthecross]

Hmmm.

I worship in a church that never uses the liturgy of my beloved BCP. The worship music never embraces my preferred musical choices. I don't tend to agree with the incumbant's theological and political bent; and the sermons aren't generally top-drawer.

But I go because the pure word is preached and the sacraments duly celebrated and my family is there and it's the closest church to my home where those elements come together.

Seems to me that it's not those who see liturgy as a matter of choices; but those who see it as a matter of essentials and absolutes and who see omitting this or allowing to be anathema, who are likely to drive across town past other 'erroneous' churches, to find just the right recipe of 'time-tested' 'clear truth'.

Could it be that those who are most worried about the consumerism inherent in "church shopping", who most need to ask what they themselves would be willing to accept in order to return to the historic pattern of attending their own parish church regardless of its churchmanship?

question? what's your BCP

[Ravenonthecross]

True, but they are consstant on a number of views:
Mary's perpetual Virginity for example.
Also, on views where they differ, the Asumption of Mary and Dormition of Mary - they are consistant that she was taken up into heaven bodily.
And, we also know when the Church speaks with one voice, it is lead by the Holy Spiirt.
i'd thought that the theology concerning Mary's perpetual virginity was just a Catholic doctrine, I hadn't a clue that Anglicans were proponents of the doctrine.

[pmcleanj]

question? what's your BCP
The Book of Common Prayer 1662, as revised in 1917 and again in 1959 to meet local needs of this Province. The changes from the 1662 are minor, though: I could quite happily accept the 1662 that is still the BCP in England. Most of the Anglican Provinces have closely retained the essence of the 1662 in their national versions of the BCP; even while offering modern-language alternatives. And for that matter, the alternatives retain the essence of the BCP far better than one would think for the amount of whinging one occasionally hears from people constrained to change from their preferred version (whichever it is) to the other version.

The church I normally worship in doesn't use either the 1959 BCP, nor anything vaguely resembling even the Book of Alternative Services (BAS).

[Naomi4Christ]

The perpetual virginity one does baffle me. Many of the Church Fathers who lived soon after Mary, perhaps who even had met her, declared in one unanimous voice that she was an ever virgin.

No they did not.

[Naomi4Christ]

i'd thought that the theology concerning Mary's perpetual virginity was just a Catholic doctrine, I hadn't a clue that Anglicans were proponents of the doctrine.

On my side of the church, they definitely teach that, after Jesus' birth, Mary had normal relations with Joseph, and Jesus had brothers and sisters. The chance that Mary did otherwise is never brought up, tbh.

Does it really matter? Does it alter the nature of salvation, or the nature of living out a Christlike life?

This is not to belittle Mary in any way, btw. We have tremendous respect and admiration for the way she handled the challenges God gave her, and she is an example of a person of great faith.

[karen freeinchristman]

On my side of the church, they definitely teach that, after Jesus' birth, Mary had normal relations with Joseph, and Jesus had brothers and sisters. The chance that Mary did otherwise is never brought up, tbh.

Does it really matter? Does it alter the nature of salvation, or the nature of living out a Christlike life?

This is not to belittle Mary in any way, btw. We have tremendous respect and admiration for the way she handled the challenges God gave her, and she is an example of a person of great faith.

I agree, Naomi. This is what my church teaches about Mary, too. See Mark 3:31-32, and Mark 6:3. Jesus had brothers and sisters, according to these verses.

[Fleurette]

On my side of the church, they definitely teach that, after Jesus' birth, Mary had normal relations with Joseph, and Jesus had brothers and sisters. The chance that Mary did otherwise is never brought up, tbh.

Does it really matter? Does it alter the nature of salvation, or the nature of living out a Christlike life?

This is not to belittle Mary in any way, btw. We have tremendous respect and admiration for the way she handled the challenges God gave her, and she is an example of a person of great faith.

I also agree that this is what I was taught. The idea that Mary might have remained a virgin was brought up, but only in the context of it being an RC belief.

[gitlance]

Just as a clarification, the acceptance of the perpetual virginity of Mary is not unique to the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches also believe this. Martin Luther and John Calvin held to it as well.

[higgs2]

I also agree that this is what I was taught. The idea that Mary might have remained a virgin was brought up, but only in the context of it being an RC belief.
Yes, it's certainly not a normative Anglican view. Or protestant view either.

[karen freeinchristman]

Simply because the EO believe in something, or even Calvin or Luther, doesn't mean it is true, I hate to say.
I still do not see any evidence in this from Scripture, and I see a lot of evidence to the contrary.

[gtsecc]

i'd thought that the theology concerning Mary's perpetual virginity was just a Catholic doctrine, I hadn't a clue that Anglicans were proponents of the doctrine.
Coptics, who split off in the 4th century hold it.
Eastern Orthodox hold it.
Roman Catholics hold it.
Anglicans can choose to believe what ever they want, but the clear teaching of the church is hard to ignore.
Further more, when the church speaks with one voice it is the Holy Spirit speaking to us.
The Church speaks with one voice that Mary was a perpetual Virgin.

It hurts all of Christianity when we are not in agreement on issues. If you all can't agree on Mary's perpetual virginity, how can you be sure Christ was God? How can you be sure the Bible is the word of God?

We believe that Christi was fully God and came back from the grave. This is the lynch pin of Christianity. Why do we believe it? The diaspora, those who were the church, said so.


Why do we believe the Bible is the word of God?
The diaspora, those who were the church, said so.

Why do we believe Mary was perpetually a virgin?
The diaspora, those who were the church, said so.

When we pick and choose what we believe from the church, we undermine its authority. If they are wrong about Mary’s perpetual virginity, which is something we know people can do, are they a credible witness about coming back to life, something we have no modern example of?

Why isn’t it in the Bible?
The Bible is primarily about Christ.
All the teaching are not in it, especially those that are minor and involve other folks.
All the Apostles were killed for the faith – an important teaching, but nto in the bible.

Why not? The bible is about Christ.


What about the brothers and sister thing?
The Greek means cousins or brothers.
For 2,000 years it was understood to mean cousins?
So where id the teaching that Mary have other children come up:
1. Poor exegesis – some folks just don’t know the language well enough, and didn’t check it against the teaching of the Church.
2. Reaction against a perception, an in cases a reality that Mary was worshiped in part of the church. So, to correct it, they want her to seem more like an ordinary person. Good intention, but short sighted.

[gitlance]

Coptics, who split off in the 4th century hold it.
Eastern Orthodox hold it.
Roman Catholics hold it.
Anglicans can choose to believe what ever they want, but the clear teaching of the church is hard to ignore.
Further more, when the church speaks with one voice it is the Holy Spirit speaking to us.
The Church speaks with one voice that Mary was a perpetual Virgin.

It hurts all of Christianity when we are not in agreement on issues. If you all can't agree on Mary's perpetual virginity, how can you be sure Christ was God? How can you be sure the Bible is the word of God?

We believe that Christi was fully God and came back from the grave. This is the lynch pin of Christianity. Why do we believe it? The diaspora, those who were the church, said so.


Why do we believe the Bible is the word of God?
The diaspora, those who were the church, said so.

Why do we believe Mary was perpetually a virgin?
The diaspora, those who were the church, said so.

When we pick and choose what we believe from the church, we undermine its authority. If they are wrong about Mary’s perpetual virginity, which is something we know people can do, are they a credible witness about coming back to life, something we have no modern example of?

Why isn’t it in the Bible?
The Bible is primarily about Christ.
All the teaching are not in it, especially those that are minor and involve other folks.
All the Apostles were killed for the faith – an important teaching, but nto in the bible.

Why not? The bible is about Christ.


What about the brothers and sister thing?
The Greek means cousins or brothers.
For 2,000 years it was understood to mean cousins?
So where id the teaching that Mary have other children come up:
1. Poor exegesis – some folks just don’t know the language well enough, and didn’t check it against the teaching of the Church.
2. Reaction against a perception, an in cases a reality that Mary was worshiped in part of the church. So, to correct it, they want her to seem more like an ordinary person. Good intention, but short sighted.




You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to gtsecc again.

[karen freeinchristman]

What about the brothers and sister thing?
The Greek means cousins or brothers.


You know, this kind of thing really annoys me. Why is it that in all the translations I have, it says brothers/sisters instead of cousins? Even in the notes of my NRSV Study Bible, it doesn't say anything about cousins. These more modern translations were supposed to be done by scholars who have translated these things more accurately than ever before. Why doesn't it say cousins, if the Greek means cousins?

[gtsecc]

You know, this kind of thing really annoys me. Why is it that in all the translations I have, it says brothers/sisters instead of cousins? Even in the notes of my NRSV Study Bible, it doesn't say anything about cousins. These more modern translations were supposed to be done by scholars who have translated these things more accurately than ever before. Why doesn't it say cousins, if the Greek means cousins?
Even in modern English, brothers can mean both.
i suspect if you check the greek or other language translation, particularly the Coptic one, you will fine little or no ambiguity.

[Epiphanygirl]

the non-belief of the Holy Mothers ever virginity is something that has come about recently...even way after the reformation.

[karen freeinchristman]

the non-belief of the Holy Mothers ever virginity is something that has come about recently...even way after the reformation.

Is this a fellowship post, or a question?

[gtsecc]

Is this a fellowship post, or a question?
Surely professing the universality of Church's testimony about the BVM is not contentious.
Those denying it have changed.
Honestly, why do traditional Christians have to always argue for what has always been believed, while the revisionists are considered the default?

[gtsecc]

Is this a fellowship post, or a question?
And, the OBOB folks hear much more inflamatory statments from me all the time, like why does the Anglican sacrament taste like flesh and blood and your tastes like bread.

[Ravenonthecross]

:scratch: just, curious what theological/doctrinal or liturgical differences seperate High Anglicanism from the Catholic Church. I politely inquire out of curiosity.

[gtsecc]

:scratch: just, curious what theological/doctrinal or liturgical differences seperate High Anglicanism from the Catholic Church. I politely inquire out of curiosity.

Anglicans have a range of beliefs - therefore, they tend to try to explain things and persuade parishoners to understand the theology. The RCC, because of their teaching authority, may at times, unintentioanlly come across as less than loving when telling someone what the doctrine is.
Anglicans reject the authority of bishops outside of their own See - same as the Orthodox.

Anglican priests make about $40,000 more per year than RCC priests.

Anglicans have been doing the mass in English for 500 years. RCC for only 40 years.

Anglican altars are prettier.

[ebia]

Anglican priests make about $40,000 more per year than RCC priests.

How much do yu pay your priests over there?

[gtsecc]

How much do yu pay your priests over there?
There is a broad range, but let's say a RCC Priest makes $20,000 and an Episcopal Priest makes $60,000.

[Finella]

There is a broad range, but let's say a RCC Priest makes $20,000 and an Episcopal Priest makes $60,000.
But Episcopal priests are often married and have children, while RCC priests obviously don't have such families to support.

[gtsecc]

But Episcopal priests are often married and have children, while RCC priests obviously don't have such families to support.
True - but, even taking that into account, it is clear they make substantial more than their counterparts.

[karen freeinchristman]

an Episcopal Priest makes $60,000.

Wow, that's a lot more than a C of E priest.

[gtsecc]

Wow, that's a lot more than a C of E priest.

That's 32,444.30 GBP

Check out your records and see if that isn't close.

[HandmaidenOfGod]

There is a broad range, but let's say a RCC Priest makes $20,000 and an Episcopal Priest makes $60,000.

Holy cow! :eek: Our priest is only paid $40,000/year, and that's after 25 years of service!!

Granted, our parish is small to mid-size (~100 families), but I don't know of many Orthodox priests that are making 60K/yr.

(Just for reference purposes Orthodox priests can also marry, have kids, etc. My parish priest is married and has 4 grown sons.)

[Inside Edge]

Holy cow! :eek: Our priest is only paid $40,000/year, and that's after 25 years of service!!

Granted, our parish is small to mid-size (~100 families), but I don't know of many Orthodox priests that are making 60K/yr. (Just for reference purposes Orthodox priests can also marry, have kids, etc. My parish priest is married and has 4 grown sons.)
Yeah, I've always though Anglican priests were paid a lot, relatively speaking - although I didn't really have a clue what other priests were paid...

Priests around here are paid $60k (Canadian $), and our parish is 50-60 families (actually, it's more like 50-70 people). It's a newer church, sort of, so my guess is there won't be a full time rector (for much longer) unless it grows past 100.

RCC average is really $20k?

[higgs2]

They are not paid enough, that is for sure.

[Naomi4Christ]

I think in the CofE, incumbants are paid around £20k with the house thrown in. With the huge housing costs in the UK, this is significant. I think most can do OK, even with a large family and non-working wife.

The problem many face is that they don't really have enough to live on and to save for a decent pension, or to provide themselves with housing for their retirement. It helps if they have family money, or if they had a career (and property) before ordination.

Our last few vicars and curates have done OK, with their particular mix of circumstances. They go out, buy clothes, go on holiday abroad etc.

[Finella]

I agree that salaries in the ECUSA aren't stingy, but there's a lot in a package that must be considered, too. Many parishes never had, or no longer have, rectories. So some packages have a housing allowance or the salary takes housing costs into account.

Also, at least in the Dio of PA, salaries are standardized, with recommendations from the diocese of what to pay priests -- I'm not sure what the criteria for any variation are, but I do recall this from my vestry days.

[No Swansong]

Holy cow! :eek: Our priest is only paid $40,000/year, and that's after 25 years of service!!

Granted, our parish is small to mid-size (~100 families), but I don't know of many Orthodox priests that are making 60K/yr.

(Just for reference purposes Orthodox priests can also marry, have kids, etc. My parish priest is married and has 4 grown sons.)


Out of curiosity do you also provide housing, utilities, clothing allowance etc?

I don't know about ECUSA priests but I do know that the Greek Orthodox here in my city pay about the same you quoted but also provide housing, utilities, and a clothing allowance which stretches that number quite a bit farther.

[HandmaidenOfGod]

We (the parish) pay for housing and health insurance, and there is a Diocesan (sp?) Retirement fund that the parish contributes to on behalf of the Priest. Even with all this, with the cost of living being as high as it is in NJ, he's still not getting much.

After all, he has to save to buy a house after he retires. Although his wife works, she works for an inter-denominational prison ministry part-time, so she doesn't make much money either.

God bless them all is what I say.

[gtsecc]

No they did not.
Sure they did - can you cite an example?

[No Swansong]

Just out of curiosity why is it important to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary anyway? I don't know that she was I don't know that she wasn't it doesn't affect my doctrine one iota. Nor do I see how it would affect RC doctrine either.

I do not question that she was a virgin when Christ was conceived and I only see that as the important issue here. Why is it important that she remained a virgin.

[Naomi4Christ]

Just out of curiosity why is it important to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary anyway? I don't know that she was I don't know that she wasn't it doesn't affect my doctrine one iota. Nor do I see how it would affect RC doctrine either.

I do not question that she was a virgin when Christ was conceived and I only see that as the important issue here. Why is it important that she remained a virgin.

I've asked the same question many times myself. :thumbsup:

[RadixLecti]

Just out of curiosity why is it important to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary anyway? I don't know that she was I don't know that she wasn't it doesn't affect my doctrine one iota. Nor do I see how it would affect RC doctrine either.

I do not question that she was a virgin when Christ was conceived and I only see that as the important issue here. Why is it important that she remained a virgin.

If Mary remained a virgin, does that mean that she never married Joeseph? :confused:

[No Swansong]

If Mary remained a virgin, does that mean that she never married Joeseph? :confused:

Not necessarily, I suppose it is possible that they married and chose to retain her virginity. I do not believe that consummation must occur in order for a valid marriage to exist, but I would argue that that is the norm.

[higgs2]

I think in the CofE, incumbants are paid around £20k with the house thrown in. With the huge housing costs in the UK, this is significant. I think most can do OK, even with a large family and non-working wife.

The problem many face is that they don't really have enough to live on and to save for a decent pension, or to provide themselves with housing for their retirement. It helps if they have family money, or if they had a career (and property) before ordination.

Our last few vicars and curates have done OK, with their particular mix of circumstances. They go out, buy clothes, go on holiday abroad etc.
My experience is that many of the parishioners not only want to pay only a pittance, they also want to get a "twofer" by having a married man with a spouse who will run the sunday school and give ladies' teas for free. What they are finding is that a pittance won't support even one person, not to mention a family. ANd even those who are paid a bit more than a pittance still have to have both spouses working in order to make ends meet.

[Naomi4Christ]

My experience is that many of the parishioners not only want to pay only a pittance, they also want to get a "twofer" by having a married man with a spouse who will run the sunday school and give ladies' teas for free. What they are finding is that a pittance won't support even one person, not to mention a family. ANd even those who are paid a bit more than a pittance still have to have both spouses working in order to make ends meet.

Are your parishioners (via the Vestry) responsible for the rector's salary?

Here, our vicars are paid a standard rate across the Church of England. The salaries are paid by the dioceses, and the diocesan money comes from parish shares. Individual parishes do not have a say in clergy salaries, but do set the salaries of other church workers (eg administrators, youth workers, etc.).

Our clergy have civilised but not extravagent lifestyles. The big problem for them is how they prepare for their retirement, when the house disappears.

We have a TV show here called, "A Seaside Parish", and it's a fly-on-the-wall series about the Diocese of Cornwall. They featured the Bishop in one episode, who was on the point of retiring, and didn't seem to have anywhere to move to on vacating his palace. He had given 40 years of service to the church, and never bought property early in his career. There was no way he could buy anything in Cornwall, where house prices are fairly high (like $300k for a small cottage).

I think people don't expect anything specific from a clergy wife. Some are very active in the parish; others less so. Our clergy wives have tended to have good leadership roles in church, but in line with active parishioners. We've had curate wives who have not wanted to get involved in ministry, even as SAHMs. In my US church, the rector's wife was a full-time nurse, yet she still run a children's group and the parish health ministry - and provided health insurance, relieving the parish of that cost.

[gtsecc]

Just out of curiosity why is it important to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary anyway? n.
It was believe it and taught it to the Chruch. It is a teaching handed down to us. We aren't at liberty to pick and choose are we?

[SirTimothy]

In the CofE, the church pays for half the cost of the housing after retirement according to my uncle, who's a vicar. Of course, he owned property prior to ordination and his wife is quite well-paid part time in the medical profession, I forget doing exactly what.

Timothy

[Naomi4Christ]

In the CofE, the church pays for half the cost of the housing after retirement according to my uncle, who's a vicar. Of course, he owned property prior to ordination and his wife is quite well-paid part time in the medical profession, I forget doing exactly what.

Timothy

I wonder if those are the new arrangements. It has certainly been a worry, and even then, half the costs given can still mean a huge shortfall. It's not possible to pay for housing on a pension alone. Nowadays, young vicars know what they need to do. It's common to buy-to-let, and then either live in that house, or sell it and buy something else in retirement.

It may not have been too much of a problem traditionally, but in the last 10 years or so, the housing market in the UK has been outrageous (not that I am complaining personally :) )

[No Swansong]

It was believe it and taught it to the Chruch. It is a teaching handed down to us. We aren't at liberty to pick and choose are we?


That may be true but what difference does it make? What doctrinal significance does it have?

[gtsecc]

That may be true but what difference does it make? What doctrinal significance does it have?
The belief in the resurection is dependant upon the Church being a reliable witness.
Do you believe them or not?
It is more reasonable to believe Mary was a perpetual virgin than that Jesus rose form the dead.
You end up having to believe all or nothing.

[pmcleanj]

The belief in the resurection is dependant upon the Church being a reliable witness.
Do you believe them or not?
It is more reasonable to believe Mary was a perpetual virgin than that Jesus rose form the dead.
You end up having to believe all or nothing.
A witness is only reliable if it is personal, and not hearsay. There were a great many witnesses to the resurrection. I certainly hope there were very few, if any, personal witnesses to the physical state of the Blessed Virgin's ... um ... virginity.

Frankly, such intense focus on the reproductive organs of any woman who is not one's own wife is rather inappropriate.

[Aymn27]

If Mary remained a virgin, does that mean that she never married Joeseph? :confused:
Actually, that is a good question b/c in RC theology (I'm not 100% certain but have heard this several times from trustworthy sources) a marriage is not completed until the couple consummate it. hmm...interesting thought there...

[gtsecc]

Actually, that is a good question b/c in RC theology (I'm not 100% certain but have heard this several times from trustworthy sources) a marriage is not completed until the couple consummate it. hmm...interesting thought there...
Mary and Joseph are a unique case. If you extrapolate family norms from them, you will come up with some wacky theology.