It is indeed our, all of us, great sin against Christ and His call for unity. But we have no power to “divide the ‘One Jesus’”, as our divisions are not His.
Jon
- Status
Jon
G
GKC
Guest
The terms low or high church are sometimes used interchangeably with Anglo-Catholic and reformed, Anglo-Catholic being high church, reformed being low. I tend to use them more as I have found some scholars to do. Low/high church refers to ritualism/churchmanship: how many candles, incense, bells, types of vestments. Low church tending to fewer and simpler, high church to more elaborate (smells/bells/yells).
Anglo-Catholic or reformed is more related to doctrine: of the Eucharist, Mariology, sacraments, etc. The high/low distinction is related to the Ritualist movement in the Church of England, dating from around the 1850s. The Anglo-Catholic movement dates to the Tractarians/Oxford movement of around 30 years before.
There is a great deal of overlap, and the distinction between considering Anglo-Catholic/reformed and high/low church is an academic one. A low church service is simpler, usually Morning Prayer, with communion.
GKC
If you are speaking of the doctrine of the real presence, it truly is mandated among Lutherans, the various synods notwithstanding. The confessions are clear:
*Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed 2] to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise. *
Further, our pastors are required to not teach otherwise. Now, there may be “Lutherans” who do not believe it (a dangerous belief if they continue to receive), just as there may be Catholics who do not believe it, but the fact is to be truly Lutheran, one must hold to the confessions, which state without equivocation, that it is the true and substantial body and blood of Christ.
The fact that we cannot currently receive together is, indeed, a sad and sinful situation.
Jon
G
GKC
Guest
Clarifying stuff about Anglicans was what got me on line 12 years ago.
It’s almost impossible.
GKC
C
crazzeto
Guest
Thanks, I didn’t realize that was the case.
Not a problem. In some ways, Lutherans are a strange and different breed among protestants, not simply because of our sacramental beliefs, but also because of our adherence to doctrine.
Jon
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
How many sacraments do the LCMS claim? 2 or 7?
A
andrewstx
Guest
And that my friend JR is the meaning of the word ANAMNESIS which has been translated as only memory. It means plugging into a past event in such a way as to make it present once more. Re-call.Jr…we present the same sacrifice, which is eternal. Christ died once but we present the sacrifice to God. He told us to do that in memory of Him so we do. We are not killing Christ everytime Mass is held.
Christ, in Heaven, is offering Himself each time at Mass as his eternal sacrifice.
catholic.com/video/do-catholics-re-sacrifice-christ
I learned this from a book by Dom Gregory Dix a Benedictine monk in the Anglican church.
From the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:
bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php
In the link, the others are spoken of. The issue for us is not in the numbering, since we ordain, confirm, marry, and anoint. The issue is the command of God, to which the promise of grace is added. Lutherans will also speak of the use of a physical element - bread and wine in the Eucharist, water in Baptism. As a result, some will categorize Absolution as directly connected to Baptism.
In short, using the definition provided, some say 2, others 3, but in either case the numbering is not important.
Jon
G
GKC
Guest
M
MaryT777
Guest
J
joe370
Guest
M
MaryT777
Guest
Perhaps this link might help.
gnesiolutheran.com/elca-lcms-2/
The first section talks about scripture, but the same approaches can be applied to the confessions.
Not a matter of privacy at all. I came to the belief that the ELCA was drifting away from what scripture and the confessions teach, particularly in some of the areas expressed in the link. And understand that my dad was an LCA/ELCA pastor.
Jon
M
MaryT777
Guest
Thank for the link and the info on leaving the ELCA for the LCMS.
Peace in Christ,
Mary.
(Waiting patiently for Jon to join the Catholic church…LOL couldn’t resist Jon
)
J
jrtrent
Guest
Quite possibly, but the critical difference I’m seeing is that Roman Catholics, as well as Orthodox Christians, see the Eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice, while for Anglicans, at least some kinds of Anglicans, it is not.
*“The early English Reformers universally accepted the Eucharist was a sacrifice of thankful remembrance, but universally rejected the description “propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and the dead”, and thus deleted, as A.C. notes, all references to such sacrifice by the priest. . .
However, they affirmed that the Eucharist is a sacrifice of prayer, praise, and thanksgiving, and that it also sacramentally represents and commemorates the Sacrifice of the Cross. In this context we apply the benefits of that One Sacrifice by intercessory prayer to the whole Church, and by Communion to receivers of the Sacrament.” * anglicancatholic.org/critique-of-apostolicae-curae?class=greenlink
The Joint Affirmation of the Reformed Episcopal Church and the Anglican Province of America (2001) says:
*“It is also affirmed that the Eucharist, or Lord’s Supper, was instituted by Christ to be a true partaking of his Body and Blood, a sacrament of our spiritual nourishment and growth in him, and a pledge of our communion with him and with each other as members of his mystical body. There is but one sacrifice for sin–the “one oblation of [Christ] once offered” upon the Cross. This one offering is the perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. Thus, the Eucharist cannot be said to be a propitiatory sacrifice to the God the Father.” *stbarnabasrec.org/beliefs.htm
On the other hand, the Council of Trent said:
“CANON III.–If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.” thecounciloftrent.com/ch22.htm
The topic makes interesting study, though, and I know I’ve just scratched the surface. One article I read points to problems with the 1928 Book of Common Prayer that my church uses
“The changes that the 1928 revision introduced into the American Prayer Book were far-reaching and even radical. A number of these alterations and additions in the Communion office brought the doctrine of the 1928 revision into conflict with the doctrine of the Articles. These changes had strong historical associations with the Medieval Catholic doctrines of transubstantiation, eucharistic sacrifice, and the sacerdotal character of the priesthood. The liturgical elements that they introduced into the Communion office are open to interpretation as teaching these doctrines.” anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2011/07/lords-supper-sacrament-or-sacrifice.html
An interesting book mentioned in the article just quoted is The Thirty-Nine Articles: Their Place and Use Today by Packer and Beckwith. One user review on Amazon said, “Packer was most helpful in helping me get a better grasp of the three major traditions inside Anglicanism.”
G
GKC
Guest
No doubt, and it is useful to educate the folks here as to the variety of Anglicans in the wild, as you are doing here. As you know, it’s not universally known. Even some Anglicans find it a surprise.Quite possibly, but the critical difference I’m seeing is that Roman Catholics, as well as Orthodox Christians, see the Eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice, while for Anglicans, at least some kinds of Anglicans, it is not.
*“The early English Reformers universally accepted the Eucharist was a sacrifice of thankful remembrance, but universally rejected the description “propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and the dead”, and thus deleted, as A.C. notes, all references to such sacrifice by the priest. . .
However, they affirmed that the Eucharist is a sacrifice of prayer, praise, and thanksgiving, and that it also sacramentally represents and commemorates the Sacrifice of the Cross. In this context we apply the benefits of that One Sacrifice by intercessory prayer to the whole Church, and by Communion to receivers of the Sacrament.” * anglicancatholic.org/critique-of-apostolicae-curae?class=greenlink
The Joint Affirmation of the Reformed Episcopal Church and the Anglican Province of America (2001) says:
*“It is also affirmed that the Eucharist, or Lord’s Supper, was instituted by Christ to be a true partaking of his Body and Blood, a sacrament of our spiritual nourishment and growth in him, and a pledge of our communion with him and with each other as members of his mystical body. There is but one sacrifice for sin–the “one oblation of [Christ] once offered” upon the Cross. This one offering is the perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. Thus, the Eucharist cannot be said to be a propitiatory sacrifice to the God the Father.” *stbarnabasrec.org/beliefs.htm
On the other hand, the Council of Trent said:
“CANON III.–If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.” thecounciloftrent.com/ch22.htm
The topic makes interesting study, though, and I know I’ve just scratched the surface. One article I read points to problems with the 1928 Book of Common Prayer that my church uses
“The changes that the 1928 revision introduced into the American Prayer Book were far-reaching and even radical. A number of these alterations and additions in the Communion office brought the doctrine of the 1928 revision into conflict with the doctrine of the Articles. These changes had strong historical associations with the Medieval Catholic doctrines of transubstantiation, eucharistic sacrifice, and the sacerdotal character of the priesthood. The liturgical elements that they introduced into the Communion office are open to interpretation as teaching these doctrines.” anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2011/07/lords-supper-sacrament-or-sacrifice.html
An interesting book mentioned in the article just quoted is The Thirty-Nine Articles: Their Place and Use Today by Packer and Beckwith. One user review on Amazon said, “Packer was most helpful in helping me get a better grasp of the three major traditions inside Anglicanism.”
But recall, it’s not a propitiatory sacrifice. It’s the proptiatory sacrifice. The same one. Not another, repeated, added, etc, etc. The one: “one oblation of [Christ] once offered”. Offered on Calvary. Offered perpetually before the Father. Made present to us at the altar, as we are brought to stand where the witnesses stood that day, time and eternity intersecting. If necessary, I’ll use all caps on the ONE SACRIFICE next time. Maybe colors, too.
My, my. In conflict with the Articles. Imagine that. You might want to try the 1552 book as more congenial. My parish, OTOH, tends to supplement the 28 BCP from the Anglican Missal.
GKC
J
jrtrent
Guest
The Council of Trent also used the indefinite article “a” in its phrasing; e.g., “a true and proper sacrifice”; "a propitiatory sacrifice; “the Eucharist is also a sacrifice.” The words “offered perpetually” is an interesting idea that I don’t understand at all. I’ll have to read up on that later this evening, but my immediate thought is that I seem to recall that masses, at least some of them, can be held for a specific purpose or person, and that the purpose of the mass held on Tuesday might be different from the one held on Thursday. Therefore, these would seem to be separate sacrifices, held at different times and for different reasons. Each mass itself, then, is a true and proper sacrifice rather than a remembrance of Christ’s one sacrifice.
The article suggested that the 1662 was a good choice for adhering to the 39 Articles. Not that I have much choice in the matter; unless I choose to leave my church, the 1928 is what I’ll be using.
- Status