Anglican/Unitarian relationships

[EvAnglican]

Similar to the buddhism issue on the "Episcopalians" thread, I came across this article on the Times website today:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2063152,00.html

CHESTER CATHEDRAL has denounced the Unitarian Church for heretical views and banned its ministers and members from holding their annual service there. <snip>

 

[karen freeinchristman]

This is a very sensitive issue, but I think that Bishop Peter (my Bishop), has done the right thing.

Unitarians my call themselves Christians, but don't JW's also call themselves Christians? IMV, they are not Christians, because they do not believe in Christ's divinity. They do not stand by the Nicene Creed.


As far as the 'welcome' goes, they are welcome to attend the Cathedral services, that's for certain. But allowing them to have their own brand of worship service in the Cathedral is not on, methinks.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

This is a very sensitive issue, but I think that Bishop Peter (my Bishop), has done the right thing.

Unitarians my call themselves Christians, but don't JW's also call themselves Christians? IMV, they are not Christians, because they do not believe in Christ's divinity. They do not stand by the Nicene Creed.


As far as the 'welcome' goes, they are welcome to attend the Cathedral services, that's for certain. But allowing them to have their own brand of worship service in the Cathedral is not on, methinks.

Are the chattering classes chattering about this up there, Karen?

 

[Simon_Templar]

This is a very sensitive issue, but I think that Bishop Peter (my Bishop), has done the right thing.

Unitarians my call themselves Christians, but don't JW's also call themselves Christians? IMV, they are not Christians, because they do not believe in Christ's divinity. They do not stand by the Nicene Creed.


As far as the 'welcome' goes, they are welcome to attend the Cathedral services, that's for certain. But allowing them to have their own brand of worship service in the Cathedral is not on, methinks.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

BTW, I agree with you too, Karen

 

[karen freeinchristman]

Are the chattering classes chattering about this up there, Karen?

Actually, CF is the first place I've heard of it!

I'll let you know if it is brought up at all around these parts in the near future.

 

[Colabomb]

“In these ecumenical times it is amazing that the tolerance of the Anglican Church is so low."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[cathromang]

This is a very sensitive issue, but I think that Bishop Peter (my Bishop), has done the right thing.

Unitarians my call themselves Christians, but don't JW's also call themselves Christians? IMV, they are not Christians, because they do not believe in Christ's divinity. They do not stand by the Nicene Creed.


As far as the 'welcome' goes, they are welcome to attend the Cathedral services, that's for certain. But allowing them to have their own brand of worship service in the Cathedral is not on, methinks.

I'll back you on that one!
Stand fast!

 

[Yahweh Nissi]

This is a very sensitive issue, but I think that Bishop Peter (my Bishop), has done the right thing.

Unitarians my call themselves Christians, but don't JW's also call themselves Christians? IMV, they are not Christians, because they do not believe in Christ's divinity. They do not stand by the Nicene Creed.


As far as the 'welcome' goes, they are welcome to attend the Cathedral services, that's for certain. But allowing them to have their own brand of worship service in the Cathedral is not on, methinks.

I am in Chester as well and this is the first that I have heard of it, but I totally agree with the actions of Bishop Peter (who, btw, would not call himself an Evangelical - he is just very orthodox). This action is just so obviously reasonable and in accordance with the views of the Church of England, and Chester Catherderal in particular, that I cannot see how any person, whether they actually agree with these views or not, could sensibly disagree with it. It just shows the complete lack of care about truth or integrity in much of society.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

Bishop Peter (who, btw, would not call himself an Evangelical..).

I agree, he would not refer to himself as an Evangelical.

 

[cathromang]

I agree, he would not refer to himself as an Evangelical.

I'm really liking this "Bishop Peter".
Prefers "Orthodox" to "Evangelical"...

yep, I like him.

 

[gtsecc]

Agreed.

An exorcism and re-consecration of the altar are also probably in order.

 

[Timothy]

An exorcism and re-consecration of the altar are also probably in order.

Isn't that just a wee bit extreme?

Timothy

 

[gtsecc]

Isn't that just a wee bit extreme?

Timothy

No.
We would do that to any altar before we use it, even new ones we know have never been defiled.
In this case, an altar use by people who deny the Christian faith, we know it has been defiled.

 

[Colabomb]

To clean up a removed post.....

Unitarianism is not consistent with the Christian religion, and should not be preached from Christian altars.

 

[pmcleanj]

No.
We would do that to any altar before we use it, even new ones we know have never been defiled.
In this case, an altar use by people who deny the Christian faith, we know it has been defiled.

I do not think that either our altars, nor the Lord that we serve at them, is as vulnerable as all that. In this case, we don't know that the altar was even used -- the news article is about a review that declined the Unitarians the use of the building. I'm pretty sure the altar's consecration can withstand that level of contact with the outside world.

 

[gtsecc]

I do not think that either our altars, nor the Lord that we serve at them, is as vulnerable as all that. In this case, we don't know that the altar was even used -- the news article is about a review that declined the Unitarians the use of the building. I'm pretty sure the altar's consecration can withstand that level of contact with the outside world.

I completly agree about God being able to sustain that sort of contact. God can also save us without Baptism, or whatever He chooses to do.

If it had been Ritually used by a group that denies the Christian faith, I think the Church woudl be correct in ritually cleansing it.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

Here's a link to the Chester Diocese bishops, if you
would like to pray for them concerning this issue:

http://www.chester.anglican.org/diocese/whoswhobp.htm#Bishop%20Chester

 

[gtsecc]

Who needs much of an excuse to set an altar on fire and reconsecrating it?

 

[pmcleanj]

I completly agree about God being able to sustain that sort of contact. God can also save us without Baptism, or whatever He chooses to do.

If it had been Ritually used by a group that denies the Christian faith, I think the Church woudl be correct in ritually cleansing it.

But Baptism is a Great Sacrament, recognized in our historical Book of Common Prayer and in the BCP's subsequent provincial revisions and alternates, as being "generally necessary to salvation"; and the Baptismal Liturgy is part of the Prayer Book and so part of our tradition.

Exorcizing and reconsecrating altars is not "generally necessary to salvation" and there is no liturgy for it in the Book of Common Prayer.

There's certainly nothing to prevent anyone from creating and performing such a rite, I suppose, but it lacks sufficient support from Anglican tradition to consider such an act necessary, or even normative.

And there's still no indication that the altar was ritually used by any non-Christian group.