Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
All of that was illegal in the Church of England until sometime in the 19th Century.
If you want to be authentically Anglican in it purest 39 article sense then burn your vestiments, melt your gold, break your stained glass windows, whitewash your walls, and turn the table to face north.
What we today call Anglo-Catholic is entirely inconsistent with the notion of Anglicanism as it existed from the time of Cranmer. In earlier times you would have been executed for this.
All of that was illegal in the Church of England until sometime in the 19th Century.
If you want to be authentically Anglican in it purest 39 article sense then burn your vestiments, melt your gold, break your stained glass windows, whitewash your walls, and turn the table to face north.
It is from JRH Moorman's book, A History of the English Church. Here is an excerpt from pg 185.
The year 1550 opened with an Act against Books and Images, which led to further iconoclasm in the parish churches. Again the church wardens’ accounts reveal the extent of the damage, for at Great St. Mary’s in Cambridge there is a record in this year of a big sale of plate and vestments which denuded the church of many of its rich treasures. Ridley now succeeded Bonner as Bishop of London and immediately issued injunctions to his clergy to remove all stone altars from their churches, while the priest is not to counterfeit popish mass in kissing the Lord’s board, washing his fingers after the Gospel shifting the book from one place to another, licking the chalice . . . showing the Sacrament openly before the distribution, ringing sacring bell or setting any light upon the altar’; and Ridley himself commanded the lights on the altar at S. Paul’s to be put out before he would enter the choir. Meanwhile John Hooper, ‘the father of nonconformity’, was causing considerable difficulties for, having been appointed Bishop of Gloucester, he had refused to wear a surplus and cope at his consecration, declaring that he would countenance no ceremonies but such as could be justified by the New Testament.
pg 182.
. . . the progressives, filled with iconoclastic zeal, steadily and systematically began the spoilation of the parish Churches. . . . In every parish Church the country treasures of the past were taken out and men gave a few pounds for works of art which the Victoria and Albert Museum would now give many thousands of pounds to recover.
Whitewash:
Here is an example from an English Church's website. Black Bourton Church, England
Black Bourton's parish church was built in a Transitional style at the end of the 12th century, with wall paintings and some minor remodeling done the late 13th century.
The murals were whitewashed after the Reformation and remained hidden until a Victorian vicar, Canon James Lupton, uncovered and preserved them in 1866. But while he was away in London, his curate and a churchwarden covered them with whitewash again.
The vicar was furious, but the paintings remained covered until E.W. Tristram uncovered them again in 1932. Their long existence beneath whitewash accounts for their preservation, although they are still quite faded and patchy in some areas.
From the same book, pg 186.
Copes and Eucharistic Vestaments were made illegal by the gov't in 1553.
and from the same page.
Why so? And was it the law? You cited the law in making the charge about vestments, so what was the law, exactly requiring denuded churches? Don't you see that the church passed through a violent period in which many bad things occurred temporarily and in a spotty fashion but that this does not represent what you said--that to be an "authentic Anglican" you'd have to adopt all the worst of these mistakes?The Churches were denuded to an extent not seen since the Viking raids.
I agree. The point I was trying to make, albiet clumsily, is that what is today seen as Anglo-Catholicism, or Affirming Catholicism, or maybe by a few other names, (The majority today) is by the standards of Reformation Anglicanism a recent development whose practice in earlier years would have gotten one jailed, or worse. This is important insofar as the Church is liturgical and the way the Church worships reflects its beliefs.Surplices, Cassocks, and stoles are just as much "vestments" as those typically Roman Catholic vestments.
"North enders" are 'neither here nor there' with me. The original Anglo-Catholics were North enders, and the church you are desirous of joining places its altars so that the congregation can see "the action"-- the same thinking that produced Anglican services with the officiant standing at the North side of the table.
All of that was illegal in the Church of England until sometime in the 19th Century.
If you want to be authentically Anglican in it purest 39 article sense then burn your vestiments, melt your gold, break your stained glass windows, whitewash your walls, and turn the table to face north.
What we today call Anglo-Catholic is entirely inconsistent with the notion of Anglicanism as it existed from the time of Cranmer. In earlier times you would have been executed for this.
and the church you are desirous of joining places its altars so that the congregation can see "the action"--
It's different theology, though. Liturgically correct north-enders, as I understand it, were at the north end of a standard east-facing altar... thus facing half-towards Christ and half-towards the congregation, thus emphasising Christ as the Chief Celebrant at His Table, rather than the Catholic pro-populus position which emphasises the celebrant as representing Christ.
There is not one thing wrong with those who wish to worship in a high church setting with smells and bells. Those who insist that their "low" church setting is the only genuine setting are guilty of participating in holier than thou thinking.
I agree. The point I was trying to make, albiet clumsily, is that what is today seen as Anglo-Catholicism, or Affirming Catholicism, or maybe by a few other names, (The majority today) is by the standards of Reformation Anglicanism a recent development whose practice in earlier years would have gotten one jailed, or worse.
This is important insofar as the Church is liturgical and the way the Church worships reflects its beliefs.
I wasn't really trying to oppose or confirm here as I didn't think it the proper place to start a debate over theology. I am only saying that High Church liturgy and accouterments reflect certain beliefs that cannot be reconciled to the 39 articles.I'm not sure I follow that completely. The church is liturgical whether we worship in a typically high church way or a low church way. The way the liturgy is tinkered with does, yes, reflect its beliefs, but the particulars here make all the difference. I think you oppose some because they squelch certain doctrinal implications while I'd applaud the same ones for the same reason.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?