The Lambeth Quadrilateral

[Polycarp1]

We've had volumes of debate about what divides us. How about looking at what unites us? I offer for discussion the Lambeth Quadrilateral:

Lambeth Conference of 1888
Resolution 11

That, in the opinion of this Conference, the following Articles supply a basis on which approach may be by God's blessing made towards Home Reunion:

(a) The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as “containing all things necessary to salvation,” and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.

(b) The Apostles’ Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith.


(c) The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself -- Baptism and the Supper of the Lord -- ministered with unfailing use of Christ’s words of Institution, and of the elements ordained by Him.

(d) The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.

To what extent do we all agree about these as the definitions of our common faith? Are they not only necessary but complete -- do we feel we need to add to them to define what an Anglican is?

[karen freeinchristman]

I love the Lambeth Quadrilateral! I think it is so well-worded. I guess I would have to think a bit longer as to whether I think they need to be added to. They just seem to be the perfect summary of what I consider to be Anglican Essentials.

Of course, there will be some people here that won't like the limitation to two Sacraments... but I am not one of them.

[masuwerte]

I don't think it LIMITS us to two sacraments, does it? I really like the Lambeth Quadrilateral, too.

[gtsecc]

Of course, there will be some people here that won't like the limitation to two Sacraments... but I am not one of them.
I don't see the word "limited to two" in there. ;)
Seriously, those are the 2 that are "requied" - not everyone is required to be married.
Marriage is still undeniably a sacrament.

[Polycarp1]

I don't see the word "limited to two" in there. ;)
Seriously, those are the 2 that are "requied" - not everyone is required to be married.
Marriage is still undeniably a sacrament.

When we underwent catechesis on conversion from Methodism and confirmation, our priest, also an ex-Methodist, made a very valid point: Anglicans recognize the distinction between the two sacraments clearly and explicitly ordained by Jesus Christ Himself in the Gospels, and the other five. Not to say the other five are not valid sacraments, but they are neither commanded directly by Christ nor necessarily the obligation of all, as the two Gospel Sacraments are.

I thought that stated it quite clearly and explicitly. I don't much care whether Naomi regards Holy Orders and Marriage as officially "sacraments," so long as she accepts them as a part of good church order. But Baptism and the Eucharist are special.

[gtsecc]

How then do we understand Apostolic Succession?
Anglicans certainly understand it as instituted by Christ, correct?
That is why I thought the distinction, limiting that statement to 2, was those required of all people. rather than merely those instituted by Christ, implying He didn’t institute Holy Orders.

[Polycarp1]

I read "the Historic Episcopate" as implying Apostolic Succession. I know there are those who do not. This gets back to the esse/bene esse/plene esse arguments of the 19th Century -- which I have no great desire to rehash.

[karen freeinchristman]

How then do we understand Apostolic Succession?
Anglicans certainly understand it as instituted by Christ, correct?

Would you (or anyone else who also believes this way) be able to explain how Apostolic Succession was instituted by Christ? I tend to think rather that it was instituted by his Church that followed sometime after his ascension.

[gtsecc]

Would you (or anyone else who also believes this way) be able to explain how Apostolic Succession was instituted by Christ? I tend to think rather that it was instituted by his Church that followed sometime after his ascension.
They couldn't, unless He started it.

[karen freeinchristman]

I mean, in baptism and the Eucharist, we have examples from Christ of the words and elements necessary. We don't have that for A.S., except for what the Church came up with, do we? (I realise I may be wrong).

[gtsecc]

I mean, in baptism and the Eucharist, we have examples from Christ of the words and elements necessary. We don't have that for A.S., except for what the Church came up with, do we? (I realise I may be wrong).

What is the difference?
I think we have to say the church came up with all the words, and they got them from Christ. You don't really think the red print in the Bible is red because someone in real time dictated what He said? The Gospels were written down much latter buy a Eucharistic people who were performing the Eucharist already. When telling people what Christ said, do you think they went from written record or memory, or do you think they used the words attributed to him in the liturgy? In other words, I believe the Church took the words attributed to Christ in the Liturgy “Take, Eat, this is my Body”, and used them when Writing down the Gospel, not the other way around.

[No Swansong]

In answer to the original post I am in complete agreement with each of these and certainly understand that there will be different definitions as to what each mean. I know that some include the necessity of being within the Anglican Communion. I obviously do not agree with this.

[karen freeinchristman]

What is the difference?
I think we have to say the church came up with all the words, and they got them from Christ. You don't really think the red print in the Bible is red because someone in real time dictated what He said? The Gospels were written down much latter buy a Eucharistic people who were performing the Eucharist already. When telling people what Christ said, do you think they went from written record or memory, or do you think they used the words attributed to him in the liturgy? In other words, I believe the Church took the words attributed to Christ in the Liturgy “Take, Eat, this is my Body”, and used them when Writing down the Gospel, not the other way around.

I'm sorry, this was supposed to be a thread to celebrate what we have in common and not our disagreements, but what is quoted above only seems to reinforce the idea that the Church did not think the form of the other 5 sacraments was critical enough to put into the Gospels, does it not? I am not saying that they didn't think they were important, but they didn't include them in the same way as the two Sacraments mentioned in the Quadralateral, did they?
I mean, I feel bad even writing this, because I worry that people think I'm getting on their case, but let's be honest about this. The case for the Church having decided what to include in Scripture has been made very well. The 'other' 5 sacraments were discussed in Scripture but not laid out nearly as clearly as they were for the Two Sacraments.

[CSMR]

(a) The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as “containing all things necessary to salvation,” and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.
Sounds good; not sure what theory is behind the idea of an "ultimate standard" though.
(b) The Apostles’ Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith.
No, if the Nicene Creed were a sufficient expression of the Christian faith we wouldn't need the bible or anything else; in fact all we would need to do is recite it all day. Perhaps is contains elements which properly understood are sufficient. That is one thing. (Even the statement "I believe in the truth" would be a sufficient in this sense.) To be a sufficient expression is another. No words are sufficient for stating the Christian faith.

And the Apostles' creed is not "the baptismal symbol". The symbol of baptism is to say "I baptise you in the name of &c." with a dousing of water. Everyone knows it predated the apostles creed. And everyone also knows that infants do not say the apostles creed.
(c) The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself -- Baptism and the Supper of the Lord -- ministered with unfailing use of Christ’s words of Institution, and of the elements ordained by Him.
No problems here.
(d) The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.
This has been interpreted as supporting the notion of Apostolic succession, a fanciful notion which is based on the idea of "validity" of orders and by extension sacraments. But faith comes by the holy spirit without regard to this validity, as even the supporters of this notion accept (unless they deny that outside a handful of churches there are no Christians). And validity does not automatically generate faith, as they also accept. Yet they still claim that certain actions and people have divine validity despite being neither necessary nor sufficient for faith.
We've had volumes of debate about what divides us. How about looking at what unites us? I offer for discussion the Lambeth Quadrilateral:

To what extent do we all agree about these as the definitions of our common faith? Are they not only necessary but complete -- do we feel we need to add to them to define what an Anglican is?
A seriously flawed document it appears.

[karen freeinchristman]

No, if the Nicene Creed were a sufficient expression of the Christian faith we wouldn't need the bible or anything else; in fact all we would need to do is recite it all day. Perhaps is contains elements which properly understood are sufficient. That is one thing. (Even the statement "I believe in the truth" would be a sufficient in this sense.) To be a sufficient expression is another. No words are sufficient for stating the Christian faith. This makes a lot of sense.

And the Apostles' creed is not "the baptismal symbol". The symbol of baptism is to say "I baptise you in the name of &c." with a dousing of water. Everyone knows it predated the apostles creed. And everyone also knows that infants do not say the apostles creed.I feel a little ashamed that I didn't notice the error in stating the Apostles' creed to be "the baptismal symbol". Strange that they worded it like that, now that I think about it.



This has been interpreted as supporting the notion of Apostolic succession, a fanciful notion which is based on the idea of "validity" of orders and by extension sacraments. But faith comes by the holy spirit without regard to this validity, as even the supporters of this notion accept (unless they deny that outside a handful of churches there are no Christians). And validity does not automatically generate faith, as they also accept. Yet they still claim that certain actions and people have divine validity despite being neither necessary nor sufficient for faith.this is all well and good if one believes there to be an equality between Historic Episcopacy and Apostolic succession. I do not. I do think they are both desirable, though.

A seriously flawed document it appears. hmmm....

[gtsecc]

The 'other' 5 sacraments were discussed in Scripture but not laid out nearly as clearly as they were for the Two Sacraments.

True, but how much do you expect them to be included?
The rubrics are not in there for ANY sacrament -especially the Eucharist.
I don't like the emphasis of "instituted by Christ," because it implies that at best, we aren't sure if he instituted the others or that there even are others.
For example, Confession is not listed in the 2, but it certainly was instituted by Christ and is explicitly mentioned as instituted by Him in the Gospels.

I believe that there was/is an intellectual movement to “purify” the faith, and they wanted/want to more or less reexamine the sacramental system with the idea that they could sort of reread the Bible and more clearly see what Jesus instituted and what he didn't. But, I reject that notion. It is my opinion that for us to find the purest rites instituted by Christ, we trust the Church. If the Church syas X is a sacrament – I believe them, after all, I don’t have a mechanism for believing them on one thing for example:
· This is the Bible,
· God exists in three persons of one substance
And, then not believing them on other issues:
· Holy Orders are a sacrament
· Etc…

[gtsecc]

an equality between Historic Episcopacy and Apostolic succession. I do not. I do think they are both desirable, though.

hmmm....

But, isn't that simply intellectually dishonest in the face of it meaning that for the last 2,000 years?

And, doesn't the Lambeth statement mean precisely that it is necessary, not merely desirable?

God can convey grace, and certainly does to Buddhist, but that doesn't mean we want a Buddhist monk celebrating our Eucharist.

[Polycarp1]

Actually, the purpose as +Huntington originally stated them was in essence ecumenical -- looking for a way to define common ground between denominations and such. I love the Prayer of Humble Access, but I'd be the first to say that it's not a necessity. I'm sure our Lutheran brethren can identify some element of traditional Lutheranism that is dear to their hearts but in no wise essential to the faith. This was trying to identify what Anglicans regard as essential to the faith -- a bare-minimums outline. Which is why I thought it might be interesting to examine it.

[CSMR]

But if our buddhist monk has been properly ordained by bishops in good standing he can celebrate the eucharist. But in any case the question is not who can do what in the anglican church - a legal question that is - but a theological one, isn't it?

[karen freeinchristman]

But, isn't that simply intellectually dishonest in the face of it meaning that for the last 2,000 years? I wouldn't call it intellectually dishonest, but I do think, bearing in mind what CSMR was speaking about, we cannot say that the validity (or efficacy) of the sacraments depends on whether or not the priest has been in an unquestioningly unbroken line of apostolic succession.

And, doesn't the Lambeth statement mean precisely that it is necessary, not merely desirable? I suppose it does. I feel that it is so desirable that it approaches a Necessity, though - is that good enough? ;)

God can convey grace, and certainly does to Buddhist, but that doesn't mean we want a Buddhist monk celebrating our Eucharist.
You are right. Unless he was a Ordained Priest Christian Buddhist monk (is that a possibility?) (sorry, it's late here!)

[gtsecc]

we cannot say that the validity (or efficacy) of the sacraments depends on whether or not the priest has been in an unquestioningly unbroken line of apostolic succession.
We can't say grace is not conveyed if no AS, but we can and DO absolutely say that AS is Nesscesary.
I suppose it does. I feel that it is so desirable that it approaches a Necessity, though - is that good enough?
I mean we all know the AC is loath to declare much at all as absolutely necessary, but THIS is one of them, so heck, go ahead and believe them.

I mean, really - Anglicans who don't think AS is nessecary are called Methodists. Not that there is anythign worng with that.

[CSMR]

Actually, the purpose as +Huntington originally stated them was in essence ecumenical -- looking for a way to define common ground between denominations and such. This was trying to identify what Anglicans regard as essential to the faith -- a bare-minimums outline. Which is why I thought it might be interesting to examine it.
Well it does seem to want to make theological statements and many people who like authorities look to it for backing here. But if you want to look at it purely as a policy statement about relations with other churches then that would also be interesting and quite something else.

[CSMR]

We can't say grace is not conveyed if no AS, but we can and DO absolutely say that AS is Nesscesary.
Necessary for what then?
I mean, really - Anglicans who don't think AS is nessecary are called Methodists. Not that there is anythign worng with that.
No one else has ever called me a methodist.

[TomUK]

We've had volumes of debate about what divides us. How about looking at what unites us? I offer for discussion the Lambeth Quadrilateral:



To what extent do we all agree about these as the definitions of our common faith? Are they not only necessary but complete -- do we feel we need to add to them to define what an Anglican is?

Great question!

I can certainly accept them all as a sufficient starting point.

[artrx]

You are right. Unless he was a Ordained Priest Christian Buddhist monk (is that a possibility?) (sorry, it's late here!)

When we first joined our church there was an inspiring man who was a professor at a local college, who was an ordained Episcopal priest and a Buddist monk. His life story was fascinating and he was a gifted teacher, especially in the areas of meditation and contemplation, but also in world religions/church history. He left a year or so after we arrived. Our loss:(.

[gtsecc]

Necessary for what then?

No one else has ever called me a methodist.
For being the Church.

[AngCath]

We've had volumes of debate about what divides us. How about looking at what unites us? I offer for discussion the Lambeth Quadrilateral:



To what extent do we all agree about these as the definitions of our common faith? Are they not only necessary but complete -- do we feel we need to add to them to define what an Anglican is?

I am a big fan of the Lambeth Quadrilateral, but it is not a definition of Anglicanism by any means, but is a means of unity for Anglicans and other communions.

[SirTimothy]

I wonder if I should become a methodist then... I do like the teachings of John Wesley! My main problem is they're lousy liturgists.

[CSMR]

For being the Church.
Apostolic succession is necessary for being in the church? Necessary for whom to be in the church?

[gtsecc]

In this thread I am not defending that position, but articulating it as what lambeth is saying.

[Aymn27]

I wonder if I should become a methodist then... I do like the teachings of John Wesley! My main problem is they're lousy liturgists.
What...?? I thought you were my lead guitarist/asst. pastor at my vineyard church ....geesh, what ever happened to long-term commitment? ;)

[SirTimothy]

Hey, if it's a vineyard/anglican crossover, surely we can use the teachings of John Wesley, who was after all an Anglican at heart??

[Polycarp1]

Hey, if it's a vineyard/anglican crossover, surely we can use the teachings of John Wesley, who was after all an Anglican at heart??

Well, on March 3, the Feast of Sts. John and Charles Wesley, at least, one can! :)

[No Swansong]

What...?? I thought you were my lead guitarist/asst. pastor at my vineyard church ....geesh, what ever happened to long-term commitment? ;)


Have no fear if Timothy has other commitments. Cola is an incredible guitarist (he's too modest to say how good he is) and would love for Vineyard to be liturgical and have properly "ordered" pastors.