- Status
J
johnnyt3000
Guest
what do you mean?
G
GKC
Guest
N
Novocastrian
Guest
Some of us would say that there’s a clear institutional (and to some extent, theological) continuity between the present-day Church of England and the missionary work of Augustine and his companions, sent to England by Gregory the Great at the end of the sixth century.
G
GKC
Guest
N
Novocastrian
Guest
G
GKC
Guest
G
GKC
Guest
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
No don’t do it, unless its one of the continuing Anglican denominations.
G
GKC
Guest
I could be wrong, but I got the impression the OP was Anglican, wondering if he should change.
GKC
P
Peter_J
Guest
I guess the Fourth Crusade and the Union of Brest had the right idea.
D
Della
Guest
I’m sure this statement is very clever, but since I have no idea what you are referring to I’ll leave it to others to “get it.”I guess the Fourth Crusade and the Union of Brest had the right idea.
If you are saying that popes made mistakes in governing and that less that beneficial decisions have been made along those lines, and in private holiness, of course that’s the case. No one ever made the claim that our popes and bishops, priests and deacons were perfect.
What I was referring to is the fact that Christ promised that the Church would be perfect in matters of faith and morals since it cannot teach anything other than what he gave her to teach. And she will never fail in her mission to bring Christ to the world because he promised he’d be with her always until he came again. Surely, that trumps any missteps or sins made by individuals over the centuries. Indeed, if we wanted to list all the wrongdoing and stupidities of Catholics it’d fill hundreds of volumes rather than just a couple of things cited on a discussion forum such as this.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Just as well. In retrospect, it was neither funny nor appropriate.
If any Eastern Orthodox were offended by my flippant remark, I apologize.
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
Jon, the Thirty-Nine Articles teach a Calvinistic doctrine, which I’m sure you will recognize as a Lutheran.
XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper.
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.
XXIX. Of the Wicked, which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord’s Supper.
The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.
There are several elements that should immediately jump out to a Lutheran because they are in explicit contradiction with the Lutheran confessions. Chief among these is focusing only on “receiving” Christ rather than the sacrament “being” Christ, the proposition that we partake of Christ only in a “spiritual manner… by faith,” and the denial that the wicked receive Christ.
The question for Anglicans is is, if you believe that the doctrine of the real presence is important, why would you have any part in an ecclesiastical body that has historically denied any meaningful understanding of the real presence? This confession was published in 1563. Regardless of whether or not you believe it is binding on the faithful, how can you have any part in a “Church” who teaches from the Sixteenth Century to this day, even if it were not absolutely “binding” on the faithful, a blasphemous denial of one of the most important doctrines of the Christian faith? How can that be even tolerated as an opinion by anyone in a Church that wishes to pretend to be “Catholic?”
G
GKC
Guest
Because it is not binding, as you are aware. Necessarily, on any person in Anglicanism, save only, in a technical and ignored sense, for clergy in the Church if England.
I am not in the Church of England. Theoretically, I can cut the Articles from the BCP, and use them to kindle the new fire, at Easter. Or place them in the historical section of the 79 book, if one uses that one.
And it is not a confession. Anglicanism has none. It is how Elizabeth chose to govern her fractious Church, on points of doctrine that were contentious, at a certain time in history.
In my time in Anglicanism, I have never heard a single reference to the Articles, in any form of teaching or catechism, save only in an historical sense. The laity have never been bound by them.
Anglicans are all over the place on the Real Presence, as on many subjects. Motley. Some will certainly cite the language of that Article. But what Elizabeth mandated, for the clergy of the CoE, is of no interest to those who affirm the RP. There is no “Anglican Church”, which teaches a single doctrine on the Eucharist. You assume too much coherence in the breed.
GKC
B
benjohnson
Guest
I’m reminded that England has produces some of the cleverest barristers and judges in the world.
The mental image that I have of tying to pin the 39 Articles against our Anglican friends is like trying to nail jell-o to a tree.
…
If I had to give general advice to the OP - it’s very possible to have a very worthwhile, vigorous, and responsive faith in the Anglican sphere. You just have to be very careful and deliberate about your decision making process. If you’re up to that task at the forefront, then you can do quite well.
EDIT: You have to be careful regardless of the form of Christianity - there’s some Catholic churches that are tribal, there’s Lutheran churches that are essentially pagan, and they’re Orthodox churches that have ossified. There’s opportunity for disaster wherever you look.
G
GKC
Guest
And the reason the clergy of the CoE are (technically) supposed to affirm (that is, not to deny) the Articles is a direct product of the world of politics: Parliamentary Act of Subscription, 1571. Erastian.I’m reminded that England has produces some of the cleverest barristers and judges in the world.
The mental image that I have of tying to pin the 39 Articles against our Anglican friends is like trying to nail jell-o to a tree.
…
If I had to give general advice to the OP - it’s very possible to have a very worthwhile, vigorous, and responsive faith in the Anglican sphere. You just have to be very careful and deliberate about your decision making process. If you’re up to that task at the forefront, then you can do quite well.
EDIT: You have to be careful regardless of the form of Christianity - there’s some Catholic churches that are tribal, there’s Lutheran churches that are essentially pagan, and they’re Orthodox churches that have ossified. There’s opportunity for disaster wherever you look.
And jello, at least, is colorful.
GKC
A
adawgj
Guest
We all take interesting paths and roads home, to good ol’ sweet Rome.
- Status