"Catholic" practices and beliefs in Anglican Churches?

[pmcleanj]

No to everything

Ah, but YES to "Naomi's back!!!

 

[TishinSoCal]

Albion, why do you consider the monstract and Adoration to be dreadful?

 

[Albion]

Albion, why do you consider the monstract and Adoration to be dreadful?

I didn't say "dreadful," but I agree with our church's Thirty-nine Articles of Religion which condemn as wrong the keeping of a consecrated host, long after the worship service is over, for purposes of placing it in a display case (monstrance) so that people can come and worship or adore this item--entirely apart from the purposes for which the Lord's Supper was instituted by Christ. There is no provision for it in the Book of Common Prayer; the practice is unscriptural; and it's clearly a perversion of the sacrament of Holy Communion.

 

[0-2Continuum]

Do you go to Confession?
Do you believe that one needs a priest for forgivness of sins?
How do you view the infalliability of the church?
Do you use Eucharistic Adorations and the Monstrance?
Do you use Holy Water?

Yes, but not all that often.

No - but may be extremely pastoral and invaluable to the penitent.

Infallibility belongs to God, not we mortals.

Yes (and looking forward to the Feast of Corpus Christi)

At church, not home.
---

Those, as I'm sure you know are the answers of but one Episcopalian.

 

[TishinSoCal]

You're right, you didn't; you said terrible. Sorry, I was 3 pages into the posts and forgot the word you used.

Do you feel it's wrong because, due to transubstantiation, it reallly is the body of Christ, and therefore shouldn't be trapped inside a display case? Or more as a worship of an icon? Or too much sentimentality?

I'll have to re-read the 39 articles, it's been many years.

I think it's mostly Catholics, as a form of adoration.

I've never really thought about it one way or the other, so I'm curious about your viewpoint.

 

[Timothy]

When it comes to Adoration, I suppose my response is: The Lord's Supper as a sacrament is an 'outward sign of an inward grace'... why worship the sign? Much better to worship the one from whom the sign comes...

 

[Albion]

Do you feel it's wrong because, due to transubstantiation, it reallly is the body of Christ, and therefore shouldn't be trapped inside a display case? Or more as a worship of an icon? Or too much sentimentality?

I'll have to re-read the 39 articles, it's been many years.

I think it's mostly Catholics, as a form of adoration.

I've never really thought about it one way or the other, so I'm curious about your viewpoint.

Transubstantiation is false, we'd say, but that doesn't determine our response to this practice called "Solemn Benediction" in which a consecrated host is placed in a monstrance (which looks like an ornate reliquary) so that people can come to a service in order to gaze upon the host under glass and adore it.

Whether Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, or the Anglican view of a spiritual and heavenly presence, this remains a perversion for the reason Sir Timothy was explaining in the previous post. Christ comes to us in the Lord's Supper which he instituted for that purpose. Why would it not be wrong, then, and almost a mockery, to steal away a consecrated host that was not used during Holy Communion so that it could be taken somewhere else, at another time, for a different purpose, and one that is divorced from the purpose for which we have the Liturgy? Catholics like to say of their belief in Transubstantiation that it means so much to them that Christ is actually taken into their bodies at Mass and lives within them physically. None of that happens in Solemn Benediction.

In fact, it would still be wrong if we thought of the bread and wine in Communion as merely symbolic. It's a misuse of a sacrament, like "marrying" two persons of the same sex, "baptizing" your dog, "ordaining" a person not qualified to be a priest, or hypothetically, taking a consecrated host and making a table hors d'ouvre out of it. That's what I'd answer, anyway. In the case of one who does actually believe in Transubstantiation, I'd think that the horror over such a misuse would be keener, but naturally those people also think that if their church authorizes it and it seems to be devout, it must be proper.

Without quoting a lot of lines from the Prayerbook, I'd add that it unequivocally states our belief that the bread and wine become the true body and blood of Christ, in a heavenly (not carnal) sense, but that (from Article 28) "the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped."

 

[Timothy]

To be honest with you, I don't like using special 'hosts' either. We use common, ordinary, local bread. Sometimes it'll be one loaf broken for the whole congregation, sometimes it'll be smaller loaves... but it's always broken bread. I know at least one priest who when visiting other churches to take communion always breaks every individual host into the hand of the person recieving, so it is at least 'broken bread'. Common Worship in fact seems to emphasize one bread broken: "We break this bread to share in the body of Christ/Though we are many, we are one body because we all share in one bread."

 

[PaladinValer]

To be honest with you, I don't like using special 'hosts' either. We use common, ordinary, local bread. Sometimes it'll be one loaf broken for the whole congregation, sometimes it'll be smaller loaves... but it's always broken bread. I know at least one priest who when visiting other churches to take communion always breaks every individual host into the hand of the person recieving, so it is at least 'broken bread'. Common Worship in fact seems to emphasize one bread broken: "We break this bread to share in the body of Christ/Though we are many, we are one body because we all share in one bread."

There's always the way the Eastern Orthodox have Communion, which I find particularly reverent: A "host" that is a large loaf of bread with a holy image "stamped" on it that all the faithful partake of.

I prefer wafers, but if my parish were to suddenly change to something like that, I'd have absolutely no objections.

I like that quote from Common Worship too.

 

[calluna]

I just wanted to know what practices certain Anglicans may share with Roman Catholics like:
...

Do you use Eucharistic Adorations and the Monstrance?

As previously stated, eucharistic adorations and monstrances are regarded by evangelicals as inventions, symptomatic of basic errors in soteriology. Now why is this believed? The reason is not straightforward, and one must give some attention to the sequence of logic involved. The root of the matter is found in Anglican Article XI, which states:

'We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings.'

The Roman Catholic Tridentine Canon XII, Session 6, however, states this:

'If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.'

Moreover, Canon IV, Session 7, states: 'If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.'

Now why is the Mass considered essential?

Session 13, Canon I: 'If anyone denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.'

Now transubstantiation is essential if the following is to be true:

Session 13, Canon V: 'If any one saith, either that the principal fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or, that other effects do not result therefrom; let him be anathema.'

This is because:

Session 22, Canon I: 'If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.'

So the Roman Catholic goes to Communion in order to be justified by a real, effective sacrifice there made: the evangelical goes because he is already justified, and would not go if he did not believe himself justified before God, and a Mass sacrifice to be a contradiction of that belief.

The reasons for those attending Communion who are neither Roman Catholics nor evangelicals are varied.

 

[English Augustine]

Wow...glad this isn't binding on anyone...what a tragedy.

It is binding. The XXXIX Articles ARE Anglicanism...

 

[0-2Continuum]

It is binding. The XXXIX Articles ARE Anglicanism...

Sorry but that is not uniformly true. They hold varying levels of authority throughout the Anglican Communion.

 

[Albion]

Sorry but that is not uniformly true. They hold varying levels of authority throughout the Anglican Communion.

That's true.

But what he said is that the Articles ARE Anglicanism.

That's also true.

When we come to saying that they are binding or they are not binding, what is meant is that no one is going to be expelled or excommunicated for disagreeing with them. However, they remain the statement of faith of our church.

IOW, I could say that I don't feel in any way in agreement with the part in the national anthem in which it is said that ours is "the land of the free," but that attitude of mine wouldn't make the Star Spangled Banner NOT the nation's anthem.

 

[calluna]

That's true.

But what he said is that the Articles ARE Anglicanism.

That's also true.

When we come to saying that they are binding or they are not binding, what is meant is that no one is going to be expelled or excommunicated for disagreeing with them. However, they remain the statement of faith of our church.

IOW, I could say that I don't feel in any way in agreement with the part in the national anthem in which it is said that ours is "the land of the free," but that attitude of mine wouldn't make the Star Spangled Banner NOT the nation's anthem.

A national anthem does not make a nation, which invariably encompasses people of beliefs in complete opposition, sometimes with a majority in complete opposition to a small minority who decide on the choice of national anthem. A modern belief organisation is elective by nature, normally defined by its beliefs, enshrined in its formularies that normally require formal assent. A far better analogy would be that of organisations of single issue movements, such as one opposed to say, tobacco use. Now a member of such an organisation that suddenly proposed that tobacco is harmless, or who even defended the use of tobacco, would not be acceptable by that organisation. Such a person in a position of remunerated responsibility would promptly lose that position without redress, and would fully expect to do so.

Not so in Anglicanism and Episcopalianism today. At one time, the Anglican ministry was required by law to not only assent to Anglican formularies, but to regulate its behaviour according to those formularies. Society changed, and Anglicanism changed with it. Anglicanism took on a pluralist nature because it was a national church, and a perceived need to be inclusive, now that legislation could not be applied, made for an assumed identity of Englishness with Anglicanism until WW2 and beyond. All manner of beliefs became unremarked part and parcel of an institution. These are not only tolerated in Anglicans, they have been encouraged by senior Anglicans. (Even more so by senior Episcopalians, whose motive cannot be the same, and which deserves some scrutiny). There are Anglicans who object to this waywardness, describing it as anomalous, because CoE clergy are still required to swear an oath of subscription to the Articles. (It is probable that the majority of active members of the Communion worldwide are served by clergy who have signed assent to the Articles, and indeed probable that a majority of signatories adhere pretty well to the Articles, too, so the view common in the USA is perhaps parochial and not as representative as may be supposed. So there is actually some sort of practical truth to the claim that the Articles define Anglicanism, but it is certainly not for Americans to make it.)

For the reason given, English Anglicanism has long enjoyed/suffered the reputation of being a tolerant society, a kaleidoscopic pool of every sort of belief (bar fundamentalism), though Episcopalianism is now somewhat infamous for eclipsing even Anglican variety, or perhaps it is the sheer determination to be different that marks it out. It is therefore remarkable if Episcopalians lay claim to any common core belief that distinguishes their organisation from many others. It certainly ill becomes Episcopalians to even mention the 39 Articles of Religion, because in 1979 they officially declared them of historic interest only, and in 2003 even refused to recognise the authority of Scripture. It may even be muttered, and it has been, that ECUSA is no longer really part of the Anglican Communion, or of any other possible desirable alliance, for these very reasons.

However, it may be argued, even if ECUSA has abandoned the Articles, it still feels their force, because, when push comes to shove on matters of discipline, the combined global episcopate recognises them, and applies them to ECUSA, whether it recognises them, whether it likes it, or not. And that can hardly be denied.

Despite this, one may yet be Anglican or Episcopalian and refuse to believe in virgin birth, in incarnation, in miracles, in Old Testament histories, in Paul's letters, in many or all of the Articles according to one's lights- and quite a few do. Anglicans and Episcopalians may believe that Allah is as valid a deity as Vishnu, who is as valid a deity as Mahavira, who is as valid a deity as Christ- and some do. One may even, as an up-and-coming curate long ago confided to me, be unsure that a deity exists at all. So one cannot say that to be an Anglican, even a 'successful' one, one has to be very particular about what one believes.

Having said that, one can find today almost as much variety of belief among Methodists, Presbyterians and even Roman Catholics as one can in Anglicanism. It's just a symptom of the Western condition, and if Eastern Orthodoxy can gloat, it's only because it is Eastern, and has yet to experience the full temptation of modernity, including democracy.

 

[Polycarp1]

I find it rather annoying to have people tell me "what Episcopalians do". The only real generalization possible is that Episcopalians consider themselves as members of parishes in ECUSA. It is this sort of misrepresentative manure that makes this place less than congenial.

 

[Albion]

A national anthem does not make a nation,

And the Articles do not "make" the Church. My analogy was apt.

Not so in Anglicanism and Episcopalianism today. At one time, the Anglican ministry was required by law to not only assent to Anglican formularies, but to regulate its behaviour according to those formularies. Society changed, and Anglicanism changed with it. Anglicanism took on a pluralist nature because it was a national church,

I don't think the rest of us were under the impression that we are speaking of the Church of England to the exclusion of the rest of Anglicanism, and certainly that was not the intent of the OP.

Having said that, one can find today almost as much variety of belief among Methodists, Presbyterians and even Roman Catholics as one can in Anglicanism.

Yes, but that is another topic for another day.

 

[calluna]

And the Articles do not "make" the Church.

But with others, they do.

 

[Albion]

But with others, they do.

I don't believe that this is correct to say, either.

 

[calluna]

I don't believe that this is correct to say, either.

Do go on.

 

[Albion]

Do go on.

I know of no Anglicans who think that the Articles "make" the church. The church is more than that. I know many, however, who believe that the Articles represent the church's official stance with regard to the issues covered by them.