Anglicans, do you see yourselves as more Protestant, or more Catholic?

Albion said:

I think you'd get an argument if anyone suggested that Coca-cola and potato chips are acceptable substitutes, but I don't know the story of those missionaries, anyway.

As for the shape of the bread, because either leavened bread or unleavened bread can be said to best reflect the Last Supper--depending on which way you want to look at it--I'm about equally happy with either of them. What I don't like are those oyster cracker things that are common in some reformed churches.

Click to expand...

Agreed! Those oyster crackers bring back terrible memories from my childhood. LOL.

Unshaven said:

I suppose I did walk right into that one!

Nevertheless, Anglicanism has always stressed its apostolic continuity and its position as being that of an expression of Catholicism- one with accrued superstitions swept away,

Click to expand...

Really, I think we all (or almost all of us) agree to that.

and closer co-operation with the RC and EO churches does seem to have been the ecumenical drift of the past few decades, with +Rowan even explicitly saying the reunification with Rome is the ultimate aim...

Click to expand...

Personally, I would be one of those who would not want to be united as a Roman Catholic, and I don't think ++Rowan would either. Cooperation is another matter, though. And of course, the RCC could always reform itself until corporate union were possible, but that's a long way off, I think.

One of course can undertake 'reform' from within existing ecclesial structures, without separating

Click to expand...

That's always the ideal. And it was tried by the Continuers in the years leading up to the split.

Then again, I would have thought 'continuing' Anglicanism would insist that it is precisely because it hasn't reformed (in a liberal direction) that it continues to be legitimately called Anglican. Certainly I don't see how you intend to reform the communion from outside of it?

Click to expand...

The primary intention was to retain valid orders and sacraments. There have been some attempts to work with the Anglican Communion and the ABC, and he's recognized the Continuers as Anglicans all right, but this too is a long way off. Even the GAFCON folks really weren't interested, mainly because, but I'm guessing now, most of their churches have women priests.

I'm also wondering what you're reforming the Church into?

Click to expand...

The intention is to keep it as it was before all the innovations started rolling. That's another reason why it's called CONTINUING Anglicanism. If anyone here were to worship in a Continuing Anglican parish he'd feel like it was the church he remembers from his youth. I guess you'd have to be over 50 to say that, though.

Albion said:

I think you'd get an argument if anyone suggested that Coca-cola and potato chips are acceptable substitutes, but I don't know the story of those missionaries, anyway.

As for the shape of the bread, because either leavened bread or unleavened bread can be said to best reflect the Last Supper--depending on which way you want to look at it--I'm about equally happy with either of them. What I don't like are those oyster cracker things that are common in some reformed churches.

Click to expand...

It was my understanding that unleavened bread is traditionally used in Passover meals which the Last Supper was. But I don't think leavened or unleavened is crucial, I just think it should be good, tasty bread, not some unappealing manufactured product. My previous denomination used leavened artisan loaves from a local bakery, hand-broken, and I thought that was good too. But I disagreed with their use of grape juice rather than wine. That was a minor factor in my denominational change, one small consideration among many.

The story of the missionaries is simple. I forget exactly where they were, but they were far from civilization, and Coca-Cola and potato chips were all they had to use. I'm sure it's not what they would have preferred, but they choose to use them, rather than skip it altogether. I don't think they were wrong to do so under the circumstances.

Episcoboi said:

Okay, I'm going to see if I have this straight. Continuing Anglican movement is more about maintenance of the historic theology of the historic BCP (i.e. 1928 vs. the 1979), the 39 Articles, and the maintenance of the historic priesthood. While groups like the ACNA are about some of those things (i.e. the male priesthood, homosexuality, etc.) but haven't maintained traditional, orthodox Anglican praxis, or even really Anglican orthodoxy, opting more for an evangelical (understood in terms of American Evangelicalism) orientation. Is that what you are trying to say?

Click to expand...

Wow. You're good. While I guess we could quibble about a word or two here or there, that's it.

I might add, because it's ambiguous in your wording IMO, homosexual clergy wasn't an issue in the 1970s, and so did not figure in the disagreements that produced the Continuing Church movement. Of course, we agree with the ACNA folks on that, but we were gone before the Bishop Gene Robinson affair came along.

Albion said:

Wow. You're good. While I guess we could quibble about a word or two here or there, that's it.

I might add, because it's ambiguous in your wording IMO, homosexual clergy wasn't an issue in the 1970s, and so did not figure in the disagreements that produced the Continuing Church movement. Of course, we agree with the ACNA folks on that, but we were gone before the Bishop Gene Robinson affair came along.

Click to expand...

Okay! I think I, more or less, understand the difference. Thank you so much for the help!

Albion said:

The intention is to keep it as it was before all the innovations started rolling. That's another reason why it's called CONTINUING Anglicanism. If anyone here were to worship in a Continuing Anglican parish he'd feel like it was the church he remembers from his youth. I guess you'd have to be over 50 to say that, though.

Click to expand...

Well, I am over 50. But I was a Baptist when I was a kid, so it might not seem familiar to me.

Izdaari said:

It was my understanding that unleavened bread is traditionally used in Passover meals which the Last Supper was. But I don't think leavened or unleavened is crucial, I just think it should be good, tasty bread, not some unappealing manufactured product. My previous denomination used leavened artisan loaves from a local bakery, hand-broken, and I thought that was good too. But I disagreed with their use of grape juice rather than wine. That was a minor factor in my denominational change, one small consideration among many.

Click to expand...

Right. I think it's harder to justify grape juice, but leavened bread symbolizes the risen Christ, the Orthodox Eastern churches use it, and there is a question as to whether the Last Supper was really a Passover meal although it was clearly intended to be one at first. So there's a reason for using leavened bread there, just as there is the argument for unleavened, being that it is--as you said--the bread used (or similar to it) in Passover meals.

MoreCoffee said:

Do Anglicans really do what Albion says? Use wheat paste and a single chalice?

Click to expand...

By what past he means the little round flat hosts. They are kind of a thin dough speared out and then cut into shape when cooked. It's the same thing you find in most Catholic churches.

Yes, many Anglican churches use a single chalice, as opposed to little cups (I think that is what he meant?) In a large parish, maybe two or more chalices, but everyone uses the same ones.

Albion said:

Read the article in question as well as the one that forbids "solemn Benediction."

It isn't receptionism. You must be misunderstanding the meaning of that article, or at least that's what it seems to me from that comment.

Click to expand...

I wasn't refering to adoration or benediction at all, but to what you said here:

"We do not believe that the presence of Christ exists in the elements APART from communing"

I don't think one could easily conclude that from the articles/liturgy, and I don't know how to call that anything other than receptionism. I don't think that is a very common Anglican position, now or historically.

Izdaari said:

Well, I am over 50. But I was a Baptist when I was a kid, so it might not seem familiar to me.

Click to expand...

Ha! I thought you were about 25. You look much younger in your avatar.

MKJ said:

Ha! I thought you were about 25. You look much younger in your avatar.

Click to expand...

LOL! Those dollies don't give you a lot of options. I haven't even tried to update it, afraid something bad might happen.

My Meez is more accurate, but also looks real young:



(However, I don't actually play bass -- would like to learn -- and I don't have a mini-dragon pet.)

Izdaari said:

LOL! Those dollies don't give you a lot of options. I haven't even tried to update it, afraid something bad might happen.

My Meez is more accurate, but also looks real young:

(However, I don't actually play bass -- would like to learn -- and I don't have a mini-dragon pet.)

Click to expand...

LOL...that is too cute!

MKJ said:

I wasn't refering to adoration or benediction at all, but to what you said here:

"We do not believe that the presence of Christ exists in the elements APART from communing"

I don't think one could easily conclude that from the articles/liturgy, and I don't know how to call that anything other than receptionism. I don't think that is a very common Anglican position, now or historically.

Click to expand...

Well, we did have a couple of different items going in those earlier posts, so there could easily have been some confusion, and I used that matter of benediction for an example. However, limiting our concern to communing right now, receptionism is almost unknown in Anglican circles, I agree. What I wrote (above) did not refer to receptionism, nor does the wording in the article.

Albion said:

Well, we did have a couple of different items going in those earlier posts, so there could easily have been some confusion, and I used that matter of benediction for an example. However, limiting our concern to communing right now, receptionism is almost unknown in Anglican circles, I agree. What I wrote (above) did not refer to receptionism, nor does the wording in the article.

Click to expand...

I agree the article doesn't. And yes, Anglicans tend to say that the Eucharist is intended for the communion, not for other purposes and that is how I read the article. But in the context of treating the elements of communion in a way that is questionable - like having people trample on the crumbs of the consecrated Eucharist that have fallen on the floor - you seemed to be suggesting that was not a worry because it is only the body of Christ as far as it is actually consumed, which would be receptionism.

That is, it is no longer (was never?) the Body once it falls as crumbs.

If we believe it exists as the Body apart from actually being received, then that seems to suggest tramping on it would be totally inappropriate.

MKJ said:

I agree the article doesn't. And yes, Anglicans tend to say that the Eucharist is intended for the communion, not for other purposes and that is how I read the article. But in the context of treating the elements of communion in a way that is questionable - like having people trample on the crumbs of the consecrated Eucharist that have fallen on the floor - you seemed to be suggesting that was not a worry because it is only the body of Christ as far as it is actually consumed, which would be receptionism.

Click to expand...

Well, "seems" can sometimes be misunderstood, can't they?

If we believe it exists as the Body apart from actually being received, then that seems to suggest tramping on it would be totally inappropriate.

Click to expand...

Tramping on it would be inappropriate under any circumstances, wouldn't you agree, even in a church that saw the communion as merely a memorial? Besides, that doesn't happen. While a tiny fragment might be dropped on occasion-- or a droplet from the cup fall onto a communicant's chin--the picture painted for us here ("...watch bits of the body of Christ go flying everywhere and get trampled into the floor) is hyperbole, not what really happened.

Albion said:

Well, "seems" can sometimes be misunderstood, can't they?



Tramping on it would be inappropriate under any circumstances, wouldn't you agree, even in a church that saw the communion as merely a memorial? Besides, that doesn't happen. While a tiny fragment might be dropped on occasion-- or a droplet from the cup fall onto a communicant's chin--the picture painted for us here ("...watch bits of the body of Christ go flying everywhere and get trampled into the floor) is hyperbole, not what really happened.

Click to expand...

If you think you were misunderstood please feel free to correct my impression. What did you mean?

If it is inappropriate even for a memorialist, why would a different view of the Eucharist make a difference at all? That seems to contradict the original statement.

Unfortunately, I don't imagine it is hyperbole - when people use those crumbly loaves, the crumbs really do go all over, especially if they pass them around the pews and people tear off chunks themselves which seems to be something of a fad now. Plus they tend to leave a lot of pieces, chunks even, on the plate, and I have my doubts that they are treated appropriately.

I would think it would be inappropriate under a memorialists view, but my observation is that it often doesn't work that way - people do often become sloppy in a way you would rarely see in a place where they take the Real Presence seriously. When there was that unfortunate incident with the dog in Toronto, the overwhelming view I heard from people was that it was not great but nothing to worry about (the more conservative position) or a nice friendly thing to do.

I think we like the idea that by making holy things common we can make them both holy and common, but we don't really seem to be built to accomplish that.

MoreCoffee said:

What's an emerging catholic?

Click to expand...

I meant "Affirming Catholic". Affirming Catholicism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lux et lex said:

I meant "Affirming Catholic". Affirming Catholicism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

My parish back home in San Antonio was affiliated with Affirming Catholicism.

My church is "emerging" Anglo-Catholic. What does that mean? Basically that we're Anglo-Catholics who are big fans of Brian McLaren, Donald Miller, Rob Bell, et al.

I need to read Blue Like Jazz again. What a great reminder.