E
- Status
E
emeraldcoast
Guest
Hi Mercygate,
I am not familiar with the history at all. Yes, the priest drank from the cup but the people in the pews were not given the option to drank from the cup.
God Bless!
R
Reformed
Guest
Praise God. I think a valid baptism is good practice in fencing the table too.
M
mercygate
Guest
For us that is not unheard of, and in an elementary school prudence might dictate caution. My own parish communicates in both Kinds at all Masses except Good Friday, when we receive only the Body because there are no Masses that day. This was also the practice in my Episcopal parish.
P
PerryJ
Guest
Does your Church believe that Christ is present in the Body and Blood?
If true how do you deal with sin and the concept that one has to be clean in the presence of the Lord?
P
Peter_J
Guest
I realize you’re only asking about Anglican practice, but for the sake of completeness let me add that the Roman Catholic policy is to admit Catholics, Orthodox, PNCC and Assyrian Christians (all of whom we recognize as having a valid Eucharist) to communion. (Other Christians may be admitted in special cases, but would not be automatically admitted if they requested communion.) The Eastern Orthodox policy is to only admit Orthodox Christians to communion.
E
emeraldcoast
Guest
This was NEVER the practice in my children’s Episcopal school. I honestly can not recall when I ever had the cup withheld from me and the priest only had it. Before we go further, I want to make it clear that I do not go up for Communion at the Catholic Church. My children do go up to the alter and they receive a blessing from the Priest or Eucharistic Minister.
I am not going to get into the whole open-Communion thing. It would just get my blood pressure up…
God Bless!
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Hey Mercy,
That’s just hilarious! I also, as a former Anglican, still receive the Anglican Digest in the mail and just got through reading that little diddy yesterday evening. So funny you should bring it up!
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I hear Catholics so frequently delegitimizing the Anglican churches because Henry VIII caused a rift between Rome and England creating the modern day Church of England. I hear things like “your church was started by an adulterer, a cheater, a hedonistic pig who used the Church to obtain a divorce! Our Church was started by Jesus Christ!”
I find it a waste of time using that tired argument. While I have serious beefs with many members of the Anglican Communion, namely the wacky episcopal church here in the states, the Henry argument is pretty weak.
God has a history of using “bad” guys to further His agenda. King David had Uriah the Hittite murdered in battle after already having impregnated Bathsheba. David treated Michal, his first wife, like a dog and took her away from her new husband, locked her up, and refused to give her a child. David had plenty of wicked moments! But look at how God blessed him and used him in salvation history.
Cyrus of Persia, a foreign ruler and pagan, was used to restore Israel from the captivity in Babylon.
Look at Pope Alexander VI during the middle ages. What a scumbag! How many mistresses and kids did this ‘celibate’ pope father? Yet you’d NEVER hear Catholics say anything about this guy but, “even though he was sinful personally, he was guided by the Holy Spirit doctrinally and he taught nothing but holiness and virtue!”
Henry, from an Anglican perspective, was not the founder of the Church of England or the only cause of it. He was a huge player in its history. But Elizabeth I was more of an active player along with Cranmer, etc. The Anglican Church under Henry was far different than during Elizabeth or the Oxford Movement days. Henry’s divorce was the catalyst but, if it weren’t the divorce, given all the brewing desire to embrace Calvinist and Lutheran reforms in England, it would’ve happened sooner or later. Henry actually kept it leaning heavily Catholic if anything
People need to look at history like this with intellectual honesty. Henry was a horrific beast of a man with no class and pure selfish despotism. I deplore the guy. But Anglicanism was much bigger than Henry and the later developments of it were a far cry from his vision of it.
I find it a waste of time using that tired argument. While I have serious beefs with many members of the Anglican Communion, namely the wacky episcopal church here in the states, the Henry argument is pretty weak.
God has a history of using “bad” guys to further His agenda. King David had Uriah the Hittite murdered in battle after already having impregnated Bathsheba. David treated Michal, his first wife, like a dog and took her away from her new husband, locked her up, and refused to give her a child. David had plenty of wicked moments! But look at how God blessed him and used him in salvation history.
Cyrus of Persia, a foreign ruler and pagan, was used to restore Israel from the captivity in Babylon.
Look at Pope Alexander VI during the middle ages. What a scumbag! How many mistresses and kids did this ‘celibate’ pope father? Yet you’d NEVER hear Catholics say anything about this guy but, “even though he was sinful personally, he was guided by the Holy Spirit doctrinally and he taught nothing but holiness and virtue!”
Henry, from an Anglican perspective, was not the founder of the Church of England or the only cause of it. He was a huge player in its history. But Elizabeth I was more of an active player along with Cranmer, etc. The Anglican Church under Henry was far different than during Elizabeth or the Oxford Movement days. Henry’s divorce was the catalyst but, if it weren’t the divorce, given all the brewing desire to embrace Calvinist and Lutheran reforms in England, it would’ve happened sooner or later. Henry actually kept it leaning heavily Catholic if anything
People need to look at history like this with intellectual honesty. Henry was a horrific beast of a man with no class and pure selfish despotism. I deplore the guy. But Anglicanism was much bigger than Henry and the later developments of it were a far cry from his vision of it.
J
jesusluv
Guest
I completely agree with you. Some people refuse to look past Henry VIII though.
A
anon52328184
Guest
i don’t believe that anglicanism was that well organized during the reign of king henry viii.
when mary tudor became queen, she tried to reunite england with Rome and make England Catholic again. however, it did not work. my former episcopal priest told me that anglicanism really was not well established until the reign of elizabeth I.
henry might have started the ball rolling, and although he did declare himself the head of the church of england, he leaned towards catholicism rather than the reform.
anglicanism did become bigger than henry. it became the religion of england where to this day a catholic cannot be in line to the throne of england.
they keep saying this is a law they need to change, but, as of yet, it still stands.
GKC might read something here and need to correct me, but this is how i understand it.
when mary tudor became queen, she tried to reunite england with Rome and make England Catholic again. however, it did not work. my former episcopal priest told me that anglicanism really was not well established until the reign of elizabeth I.
henry might have started the ball rolling, and although he did declare himself the head of the church of england, he leaned towards catholicism rather than the reform.
anglicanism did become bigger than henry. it became the religion of england where to this day a catholic cannot be in line to the throne of england.
they keep saying this is a law they need to change, but, as of yet, it still stands.
GKC might read something here and need to correct me, but this is how i understand it.
M
mercygate
Guest
Red represents the blood of Christ through which we enter HIs Kingdom.
C
chris_molter
Guest
I agree, it’s a weak argument at best, and good work with the examples. I always say our first Pope denied Jesus to his face three times in his greatest hour of need. If anything could disqualify someone from spiritual leadership, I couldn’t think of anything worse than that!
Sure Hank was a brutal sleaze (the damage he did to historical sites alone would be enough for me to hate him), but so were most leaders at the time (and some today!). This doesn’t excuse his actions, but we really need to keep them in perspective. Same thing goes for the “Bloody Mary” idiocy, when ol’ Golden Liz wasn’t really hesitatant to kill when she felt it was necessary either.
G
GKC
Guest
Symbolizes Christ’s passion. A similar convention can be found in artwork, where a bird with a mark of red does the same thing.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
Hank had his Church organised to a fare-thee-well. It was the RCC, without a Pope over the water, and a couple of small doctrinal differences. Henry’s SIx Articles (the bloody whip with six strings) kept things nicely in line. Edward’s reign, under the Protector, yanked the foundations out of that, and Mary shook things up by slamming everyone hard over in the opposite direction. It was Liz who put everything back into the box, her main point being not theological, but political; a nation not torn by sectarian strife. Even if she had to kill to get it. The result, the Elizabethean Compromse, set up the CoE as we knew it. Once, that is.
IOW, you’re about right. Except for Henry.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
It won’t surprise you that this is my main point when I post re: Henry; history is complicated . The waving of cardboard cutouts is the exact opposite of that state of being deep in history that we all know is so good for you. I concur, and thank you all for taking such an approach.
But “decree of nullity”, not “divorce”. Henry knew not of a divorce.
And he started out with such promise, too; the Golden Prince.
GKC
P
PerryJ
Guest
Interesting post. I would like to express my struggle with this area. I am one that reads history all of the time and I am hopeful I have a decent perspective on great people throughout the ages. The first point is that we do not hold the Pope as being inspired. We hold that the guidance of God will see to it that the Pope and Magisterium shall never commit the Church to error. This is a major difference as we do not accept man as being adequate to guide God’s teachings. With people such as Henry the VIII, Luther or Calvin we see corrupt people that changed theology. Both Luther and Calvin actively burned witches at the stake. Luther obviously was part of putting down the peasants in the Peasant War and the killing and then execution of 100,000 people. Not only did they do these acts they were enthusiastic participants. (Of course I have secular sources to support my thoughts) Henry the VIII story is well known. (It appears few people actually read the life stories of Luther and Calvin and as such do not know their true personality and actions.) The point is that theology was based upon a corrupt person thoughts and actions. Again we do not hold the Pope as the guiding force of our teaching. We do not hold them as inspired. Yet the three listed above changed theology and too many they are held to be inspired.
I have heard many rebuttals to this line of thinking. For example some will state that it was the time they lived in. True; however, this does not exempt one from his actions. I believe a truly inspired man from God would not be taking such actions.
Also note that many people rose above the actions of their age. For example Genghis Kahn, a well known conqueror, started a public school system and eliminated torture. Did he take brutal actions against his enemies? Most definitely; however, these actions were the retaliation of actions against his people. My point is even conquerors can rise above their surroundings. (He was still a conqueror and killed many people needlessly.) He rose above the time and put a stop to torture within his empire. An uneducated orphan started the Lost City of China and began the development of the Chinese that we now know. (This point is simplified because of it being a side point to the post) Shouldn’t men that impact theology to the degree that the aforementioned people also rise above their surroundings?
To close with the note that again we do not hold that the Pope is inspired. We actually hold the reverse thought. Man is so corrupt only God can protect his teachings. How do we accept the change in theology of God’s word based upon corrupt men?
The point concerning God and his use of corrupt men, is the intersting point and I would agree with it if it did not include the change of theology. I do not understand how people believe God’s word would be changed by corrupt people. To me it shows corrupt people not understanding the word of God. God’s truth is simple. Their are not many versions of his truth.
I do agree that God would assist seperated brothers with people that could guide them to the truth. This does not eliminate the point that the original change in theology was based upon corruption of theology.
I digressed from the point of the thread; but, wanted to respond to your thoughts.
E
emeraldcoast
Guest
Hi Perry,
I am not sure how familiar you are with the Episcopal Church but we do have Reconcilation of a Penitent(Confession) with a priest available to us. Father Matthew does a great job explaining this-- youtube.com/watch?v=pbWH1yILLII
Also before the Eucharist(which I believe is the Real Presence), we all kneel with the following from the BCP page 360 is said:
The Deacon or Celebrant then says
“Let us confess our sins against God and our neighbor.”
(Silence may be kept.)
Minister and People
Most merciful God,
we confess that we have sinned against you
in thought, word, and deed,
by what we have done,
and by what we have left undone.
We have not loved you with our whole heart;
we have not loved our neighbors as ourselves.
We are truly sorry and we humbly repent.
For the sake of your Son Jesus Christ,
have mercy on us and forgive us;
that we may delight in your will,
and walk in your ways,
to the glory of your Name. Amen.
The Bishop when present, or the Priest, stands and says
Almighty God have mercy on you, forgive you all your sins
through our Lord Jesus Christ, strengthen you in all
goodness, and by the power of the Holy Spirit keep you
in eternal life. Amen.
God Bless!
M
mercygate
Guest
Many people are not aware that a decent handful of Episcopalians come regularly to confession with a priest. When I was an Episcopalian, I had the same confessor for 18 years. What a saint!
Another thing they don’t realize is that we have several communities of monks, nuns, brothers and sisters. My DD went to a fine little Episcopal school founded and run by Episcopal Sisters.
Funny thing, though, the Religious communities that have not wandered off into stuff like “creation spirituality” (aka pantheism and/or goddess worship) tend to wander across the Tiber. I know one community right now that is discerning its exit either to Rome, to the Anglican Continuum or to one of the Western forms of Orthodoxy.
- Status