Weekly communion

[tampasteve]

I completely agree with you here; and I am sorry if I sounded preachy or parochial. I meant what I wrote only as a little footnote.

Not at all, I did not take it that way.

 

[Tigger45]

I think Evangelical Catholic is a good label for high Church
Lutherans. Originally they went by Evangelical and some still do and being that ‘Evangelical’ has taken on a new identity ‘Catholic’ makes it clear they are distinctly traditional.

 

[Arcangl86]

Take it from a former high church lutheran, Evangelical Catholic is the equivalant of our Anglo-Catholic.

 

[LizaMarie]

Take it from a former high church lutheran, Evangelical Catholic is the equivalant of our Anglo-Catholic.

May I ask why you became Anglican, and are a former Lutheran?

 

[mark46]

I live in SC.

My church (ACNA) has six weekend services and no daily communion service. We have communion on both SAT evening and Sunday. We do not have daily communion. I would note that at one of our locations, there is no communion at all.

The ACNA cathedral in Charleston doesn't have daily communion.

The TEC cathedral in Charleston does have communion at Tues noon, Wed 5:30 and TH noon. The MWF daily prayer services do not have communion. I would think that this is common in cathedral churches.

 

[Arcangl86]

I work in the Boston cathedral and there is communion Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. But all at different times and with different communities.

 

[Paidiske]

Our cathedral has a daily Eucharist (midday every day except Sunday). And I think that must be related more to how it sees its role in the city than its churchmanship, because the chapter have deliberately chosen to steer it away from being very anglo-catholic.

 

[Arcangl86]

May I ask why you became Anglican, and are a former Lutheran?

I was actually Anglican before becoming Lutheran and it's more of a case of going back. And the reason I went back to Anglicanism is that I found myself missing the Book of Common Prayer.

 

[LizaMarie]

Yes as of right now I believe in the "Branch Theory." I know my Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox friends would disagree with me. But I like the fact that you have bishops, and an ecclesiastical structure that the Lutherans don't have. But I'm sure that is maybe because Lutheranism started out as a protest movement against some of the abuses and doctrines of the RCC, whereas for the Church of England it is different?
The Anglicans seem to have retained some things we haven't. I believe Luther was right on some basic issues(justification) but threw the baby out with the bathwater in others.

 

[mark46]

Yes as of right now I believe in the "Branch Theory." I know my Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox friends would disagree with me. But I like the fact that you have bishops, and an ecclesiastical structure that the Lutherans don't have. But I'm sure that is maybe because Lutheranism started out as a protest movement against some of the abuses and doctrines of the RCC, whereas for the Church of England it is different?
The Anglicans seem to have retained some things we haven't. I believe Luther was right on some basic issues(justification) but threw the baby out with the bathwater in others.

And which are the "branches"? Catholics recognize the 2 lungs of the Church (ignoring the Oriential Church). Anglicans recognized 3 branches: Roman, Eastern and Anglican. Some would have Protestantism as a branch.

I tend to allow believe that there are branches of the Church. I think of 5, although I could be convinced of 3. Lutherans are the 4th, and the Oriental Church the 5th. Others deny the concept of Church and deny the Real Presence. In the end, there is a difference between one "Church" and one "church". Most who post here believe in both.

 

[LizaMarie]

Interesting. What are your 5?
I was thinking of Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant.
Are you thinking of Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran?

 

[mark46]

Interesting. What are your 5?
I was thinking of Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant.
Are you thinking of Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran?

Those are my five. The 5th might even be labelled Lutheran/Reformed.

I the great trouble thinking of Baptists as part of a Church in which they don't believe. Also, for me, the real presence is a unifying doctrine of the Church. Baptists don't even believe in doctrine, never mind real presence. I am not picking on Baptists. My first mentor was a Southern Baptist pastor; that was my first church. I am merely using the label for those who don't believe in Church, in the real presence or accept the creeds of the Church.
=========
I waffle a bit, I know. For example, I have met United Methodist Church members and congregations that are clearly part of the Church (they are indeed Anglicans). Many other Methodist are clearly not. I have also met Presbyterians who's views are clearly traditional; others who are not.

Much of the issue is how much many in this century have strayed from the teachings of Luther, Calvin and Wesley. Of course, many are true to those teachings.

 

[Arcangl86]

Yes as of right now I believe in the "Branch Theory." I know my Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox friends would disagree with me. But I like the fact that you have bishops, and an ecclesiastical structure that the Lutherans don't have. But I'm sure that is maybe because Lutheranism started out as a protest movement against some of the abuses and doctrines of the RCC, whereas for the Church of England it is different?
The Anglicans seem to have retained some things we haven't. I believe Luther was right on some basic issues(justification) but threw the baby out with the bathwater in others.

There are Lutheran churches that have bishops. The Scandinavian churches never lost the episcopate and there is nothing in the confessions against bishops. And the current theology around bishops in Anglicanism is fairly new.

 

[mark46]

There are Lutheran churches that have bishops. The Scandinavian churches never lost the episcopate and there is nothing in the confessions against bishops. And the current theology around bishops in Anglicanism is fairly new.

In the US, I believe that Lutherans have accepted Episcopal bishops as part of the agreement with The Episcopal Church (USA).

Episcopalian-Lutheran Merge Approved

Of course, this is not all Lutheran groups, just the ELCA, the largest Lutheran groups and the one that is part of the World Lutheran Federation.

 

[Arcangl86]

In the US, I believe that Lutherans have accepted Episcopal bishops as part of the agreement with The Episcopal Church (USA).

Episcopalian-Lutheran Merge Approved

Of course, this is not all Lutheran groups, just the ELCA, the largest Lutheran groups and the one that is part of the World Lutheran Federation.

The ELCA has bishops already, I think from the American Lutheran Church, but they were not in the apostolic succession. That's what Called to Common Mission did. All ELCA bishops from that point are now ordained into the apostolic succession, though the ELCA still has a very different understanding of the role of bishop then the Episcopal Church does.

 

[Albion]

There are Lutheran churches that have bishops.

Yes, but the Lutheran churches are not normally included in the "branch theory" because too much else of their theology is not in the mode of the historic (i.e. catholic) faith.

 

[Paidiske]

That seems a bit harsh and/or hypocritical, coming from Anglicans...

 

[everbecoming2007]

I the great trouble thinking of Baptists as part of a Church in which they don't believe.

Well, I can only say this is my own opinion, and I do not know of a stance on this issue that would officially bind Anglicans, but I would argue the boundaries of the Church are ambiguous. Many who said "Lord, Lord," will be told to depart, "I never knew you," and yet others will be recognized as faithful.

Furthermore, if we accept the validity of baptisms occurring in Baptist contexts, then in some way the baptized are joined to the Church. Certainly Baptist ministers intend to baptize even if we argued that their theology of baptism is incomplete or flawed.

I would be interested in understanding better the Baptist views of the visible Church. But there is a point to be had that their denial of sacraments distinguishes them. In fact, I do not see how some forms of reducing the sacraments to ordinances is not effectively to abolish at least the holy eucharist.

The (non-liturgical, non-sacramental) communion services I've seen in some contexts have been reduced to a private devotion, not even necessarily requiring an ordained minister or congregation. My great grandfather told me that we can remember the Lord anywhere, anytime. Therefore a pious Christian man or woman can observe the communion all alone in his bedroom with a cracker and grape juice, no formal liturgy or service required, no one else need be present. He didn't even see a need for the communion of the saints to be present spiritually for the ordinance. It was all based on "remembering."

I do not wish to presume what the Lord will do in such a circumstance. He is not, after all, bound to the sacraments, and he will honor a sincere faith and devotion, I believe. But if that is what communion has been reduced to in some communities or by some individuals, it seems to me that they have abolished one of the sacraments.

Some Oneness Pentecostal churches, I've heard, have gone as long as five years with no communion service. One I attended in my teenage years never had one as long as I was attending, and I suspect they had never had one.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

We have four services every Sunday and one of them will celebrate the Lord’s Supper in any given week. (Or we did up until now).

We also have a midweek communion service.