The Eucharist (blood, churches, dogma, protestants, catholic)

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Terrywoodenpic

What I have always found interesting is that if you read the 39 articles of faith as given by the Anglican communion , You can easily see that these are mainline protestant statements, even anti catholic in nature.
If you read the catechism of the Anglican communion You get no such understanding.

Very few Anglicans or even our priest give much emphasis to the articles... That is if a lay person ever reads them at all.

I personally find that I do not believe many of them, nor feel obliged to do so.. If I did I would more likely be a Calvinist or Lutheran.

In my life time I have not noticed a moving away from belief in the articles; more an almost total ignorance of them.
The reaction of many Church of England goers,on being presented with them, would be almost a Disbelief that they applied to their church.

Very good points Terry. The Articles are viewed as of historical importance to the formation of the Church of England, but not as "Articles of Faith" the way that term is often applied. They are not a Confession, and Anglican Priests are not asked to swear to uphold them, nor are the rest of us. It is part of the discussion about the new Anglican Covenant that the Articles are an historically important document, but if there is a move to make them more like a confession that would cause some problems I think.

[FerventGodSeeker]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Anglicans are united by our form of worship moreso than by dogma, and the BCP outlines our worship. It's an interesting topic which I'm happy to discuss, but not to debate.

Interesting, Luna, thanks for the perspective. However, to me worship bears a direct correlation onto dogma...how does the ECUSA separate the two? Are there any central beliefs that one must hold to be an Episcopalian anymore?

[Terrywoodenpic]

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

Interesting, Luna, thanks for the perspective. However, to me worship bears a direct correlation onto dogma...how does the ECUSA separate the two? Are there any central beliefs that one must hold to be an Episcopalian anymore?

The Anglican church teaches its young the Catechism, as their introduction to the church and leading up to their confirmation. I do not know any church that teaches the 39 articles.
The Catechism bares a powerful relationship to the BCP which is used as the basis for our services.


Another interesting point is, that many individual Anglican parishes rarely use the BCP as it stands, for their servicesthey use variations that have been approved By their Dioceses, and or By their Arch Bishop....These are sometimes shortened versions of services, or ones using more modern language, but following the same outline.

For instance some churches the choir sing the psalms
Others the Choir and congregation sing them.
In the parish church I go to now,They are read following the first lesson and the congregation say a Responsorial verse between each verse.( this is traditional here.)

The whole running of the church is democratic.
from the local parish council to the various general synods that make the major decisions.

Any changes to the understanding of dogma or its application to church life takes place in the two houses of the Synod (both lay and clergy ,and of the Bishops must agree) It is these that had to agree the ordination of women.

[Terrywoodenpic]

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

Interesting, Luna, thanks for the perspective. However, to me worship bears a direct correlation onto dogma...how does the ECUSA separate the two? Are there any central beliefs that one must hold to be an Episcopalian anymore?

Answering your question in another way..
Any person Baptised as a trinitarian...This would include Catholic, Orthodox ,and most protestant churches.
Can take full part in all our services including Communion. ( their own churches may not agree with this , but that is another matter.)

How ever some one who is not Baptised as a trinitarian would need to be Baptised again. before taking communion.
Baptism is the entry point of the church which as an adult would include instruction in the Catechism.

Very many Anglicans are never Confirmed as full members of the church, Though this is desirable.
Confirmation entails further instruction in all aspects of Anglican belief and the spiritual meaning of being confirmed. Confirmation is always a public service, with the laying on of hands by a Bishop, followed by Holy Communion

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

Interesting, Luna, thanks for the perspective. However, to me worship bears a direct correlation onto dogma...how does the ECUSA separate the two? Are there any central beliefs that one must hold to be an Episcopalian anymore?

Our central beliefs are summed in the Nicene Creed and the Catechism.

I'm going again quote from Webber, not because he is an 'authority' but because he well explains the Anglican approach to worship and theology.

Episcopalians find their unity primarily in worship, an experience that lifts them beyond language and logic, but theology has to do with language and logic. It is not surprising, then, that Episcopalians do theology differently than do the members of many other churches. Episcopalians do care very much about language but they draw the language of theology primarily from the experience of worship and the language they use in speaking to God rather than about God.

...

Doing theology, then, is not an isolated activity for Episcopalians. Those who still know Latin will quote the ancient saying, "lex orandi, lex credendi," which means, freely translated, "prayer shapes beleif." Christians' prayer and worship are, of course, shaped by what they believe, but for Episcopalians, what we believe is often learned through worhsip. Roman Catholics have traditionally turned to Thomas Aquinas as a primary theological authority while Lutherans have turned to Martin Luther and Presbyterians and members of the reformed churches to Johm Calvin. TRhe only comparable figure in Anglicanism is Thomas Cranmer, who was not a theologian but who produced the first Book of Common Prayer. Episcopalians may come to a discussion of theology later thn other Christians, but might argue that they do it better as a result of coming to it through worship.
The way Episcopalians do theology grows out of the primary Anglican conern for worship. Worship for example, is inclusive, not exclusive, while theology, by its nature, excludes. Theology is concerned with defining issues and boundaries, with saying we believe this and not that. Worship, on the other hand, like great music and art, can be appreciated on many levels and in many ways. Art, music, and worship are difficult to define in words and it would be difficult to say that someone wholese appreciation is different from ours is wrong. Worship then, has the ability to unite, to draw us in and draw us together.
Episcopalians, as a result of this approach, have an inclusive understanding of the church. We baptize infants rather than limiting membership, as the Puritans did and as some other shurches still do, to those who have had a conversion experience. We are not likely to quiz our fellow members about the depth or sincerity of their beliefs. Queen Elizabeth I once said, "I will not make windows into men's souls." Her concern was that the nation be united in worship but that no questions be asked as to why exactly people were there or what precisely they bleived. If they were in the same building, using the same prayer book, that would provide a solid foundation on which Christians could build a mature faith.
Theology relies on language in is attempt to understand religious experience, and those who worship God know how dificult it is to put that experience into words. God is always beyond our definitions. That will be frustrating to those who want precise answers to all their questions but liberating to those who feel restricted and unsatisfied by some of the answers they have been given in the past. Definitive answers block off further inquiry, but limited answers stimulate the serach for better answers and should lead to a lifelong process of growth and a thirst for a fuller knowledge of God that can only be fully satisfied hereafter in God's presence."

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Terrywoodenpic

Answering your question in another way..
Any person Baptised as a trinitarian...This would include Catholic, Orthodox ,and most protestant churches.
Can take full part in all our services including Communion. ( their own churches may not agree with this , but that is another matter.)

How ever some one who is not Baptised as a trinitarian would need to be Baptised again. before taking communion.
Baptism is the entry point of the church which as an adult would include instruction in the Catechism.

Very many Anglicans are never Confirmed as full members of the church, Though this is desirable.
Confirmation entails further instruction in all aspects of Anglican belief and the spiritual meaning of being confirmed. Confirmation is always a public service, with the laying on of hands by a Bishop, followed by Holy Communion

I thought Anglican confirmation was required for someone to take the Eucharist in an Anglican church, just as it is in a Roman Catholic church and Chrismation is for us (though that's usually a moot point for us people are Chrismated immediately after baptism normally)? I know that that was certainly the case at my school (a military school in Dover) where the main chapel was Anglican. It was reasonably high church, though not excessively so - didn't seem overly much like an RC church to my Lutheran eyes. Maybe that was the reason, though I recall you saying that you were high church, so maybe not. Certainly there was no form of open communion, not even for other Trinitarians.

I'd also have to say that I've seen no evidence of such at the Community of the Resurrection in Mirfield, which is where we have our parish (their generosity is greatly appreciated). Of course, in the latter instance that may be due to their realisation that our ecclesiology would not allow us to partake even if it were offered, but I'm still surprised at your suggestion that open communion is normal in Anglicanism. I always thought it was an innovation confined to the low church/evangelical end.

James

[Terrywoodenpic]

Originally Posted by James the Persian

I thought Anglican confirmation was required for someone to take the Eucharist in an Anglican church, just as it is in a Roman Catholic church and Chrismation is for us (though that's usually a moot point for us people are Chrismated immediately after baptism normally)? I know that that was certainly the case at my school (a military school in Dover) where the main chapel was Anglican. It was reasonably high church, though not excessively so - didn't seem overly much like an RC church to my Lutheran eyes. Maybe that was the reason, though I recall you saying that you were high church, so maybe not. Certainly there was no form of open communion, not even for other Trinitarians.

I'd also have to say that I've seen no evidence of such at the Community of the Resurrection in Mirfield, which is where we have our parish (their generosity is greatly appreciated). Of course, in the latter instance that may be due to their realisation that our ecclesiology would not allow us to partake even if it were offered, but I'm still surprised at your suggestion that open communion is normal in Anglicanism. I always thought it was an innovation confined to the low church/evangelical end.

James

Twenty years ago I would have agreed with you.

How ever views change in Anglican Understanding. If you read Lunamoth's post above you will understand rather more how Anglicans think.

When I was a Boy you had to be confirmed to take communion.
It was taken as read that Communion was a necessary "sacrament" before you were able to take communion.

Today after further consideration it is thought there is no proven link between Confirmation and Communion. But there has to be a full understanding of the significance of taking communion, and a desire to Follow Jesus's command to do so in memory of him. (he did not say just the confirmed)

There are still some older Anglican Priests that will not offer communion on these new understandings. They are dwindling in numbers and are in the minority.
Equally there are Congregations that will not allow it. ( democracy in action perhaps)

The present understanding, that Baptism is the one and only sacrament necessary to be a member of Gods church has lead to further changes...

The latest step in allowing unconfirmed children to take communion has made the process speed up further. The process in the Church of England works like this....

The General Synod agreed that there was no impediment to unconfirmed children taking communion.
Local parish councils are required to talk to their congregations about it and then vote on whether to embrace this in their own parish.
The result of the vote is passed to their Bishop who assesses their training programme and gives the authority for them to do it.

Our parish opted to go for this process last year and it is now in operation.



As far as normal Communion services go. The Priest usually says at the start of the service. " Those who are accustomed to take Communion in their own churches are welcome to come forward and take it here" Those who would prefer a blessing may come forward holding a service book"

This makes it quite clear to visitors what the position is.

This general position in relation to communion is now common in all extremes of the church .. From High Anglo Catholic to the ultra low.

Fifty years ago the main services in an Anglican church and to which most people went, were morning prayer and Evensong. To Day these are fairly unusual and have been replaced by The communion Service. This more than anything else has changed our attitude to who may partake. This is now a service of inclusion not exclusion.

As Lunamoth pointed out Anglicans base their understands more on the practice of worship rather than Dogma. this has resulted in a very broad church.

[Terrywoodenpic]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Our central beliefs are summed in the Nicene Creed and the Catechism.

I'm going again quote from Webber, not because he is an 'authority' but because he well explains the Anglican approach to worship and theology.

Episcopalians find their unity primarily in worship, an experience that lifts them beyond language and logic, but theology has to do with language and logic. It is not surprising, then, that Episcopalians do theology differently than do the members of many other churches. Episcopalians do care very much about language but they draw the language of theology primarily from the experience of worship and the language they use in speaking to God rather than about God.

...

Doing theology, then, is not an isolated activity for Episcopalians. Those who still know Latin will quote the ancient saying, "lex orandi, lex credendi," which means, freely translated, "prayer shapes beleif." Christians' prayer and worship are, of course, shaped by what they believe, but for Episcopalians, what we believe is often learned through worhsip. Roman Catholics have traditionally turned to Thomas Aquinas as a primary theological authority while Lutherans have turned to Martin Luther and Presbyterians and members of the reformed churches to Johm Calvin. TRhe only comparable figure in Anglicanism is Thomas Cranmer, who was not a theologian but who produced the first Book of Common Prayer. Episcopalians may come to a discussion of theology later thn other Christians, but might argue that they do it better as a result of coming to it through worship.
The way Episcopalians do theology grows out of the primary Anglican conern for worship. Worship for example, is inclusive, not exclusive, while theology, by its nature, excludes. Theology is concerned with defining issues and boundaries, with saying we believe this and not that. Worship, on the other hand, like great music and art, can be appreciated on many levels and in many ways. Art, music, and worship are difficult to define in words and it would be difficult to say that someone wholese appreciation is different from ours is wrong. Worship then, has the ability to unite, to draw us in and draw us together.
Episcopalians, as a result of this approach, have an inclusive understanding of the church. We baptize infants rather than limiting membership, as the Puritans did and as some other shurches still do, to those who have had a conversion experience. We are not likely to quiz our fellow members about the depth or sincerity of their beliefs. Queen Elizabeth I once said, "I will not make windows into men's souls." Her concern was that the nation be united in worship but that no questions be asked as to why exactly people were there or what precisely they bleived. If they were in the same building, using the same prayer book, that would provide a solid foundation on which Christians could build a mature faith.
Theology relies on language in is attempt to understand religious experience, and those who worship God know how dificult it is to put that experience into words. God is always beyond our definitions. That will be frustrating to those who want precise answers to all their questions but liberating to those who feel restricted and unsatisfied by some of the answers they have been given in the past. Definitive answers block off further inquiry, but limited answers stimulate the serach for better answers and should lead to a lifelong process of growth and a thirst for a fuller knowledge of God that can only be fully satisfied hereafter in God's presence."

That is a quite excellent post ... Clear as a bell to me... but probably totally confusing to a dogmatic or Bible only Christian.

The more you understand the Anglican Church the more you see the genius of Thomas Cranmer. I had forgotten that quote Queen Elizabeth, But warring religions should note her words and apply the principle to their own circumstances.