Feb 2nd Feast Day of the Presentation of Christ in the Temple

[pmcleanj]

What were the days of obligation before 1928?

The Anglican term would be "Red Letter Days": if you have a monochrome Book of Common Prayer they are the days included in the Calendar in italics, and the rubric refers to them as "days appointed to be observed" on page 29-30:

All the Sundays of the year
The Circumcision of our Lord Jesus CHRIST (January 1)
The Epiphany (January 6)
The Conversion of St. Paul (January 25)
The Purification of the Blessed Virgin (February 2, "Candlemas")
St. Matthias the Apostle (February 24)
The Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin (March 25)
St. Mark the Evangelist (April 25)
St. Philip and St. James. Apostles (St Philip and St James)
The Ascension of our Lord JESUS CHRIST
St. Barnabas the Apostle (June 11)
The Nativity of St. John Baptist (June 24, "Saintjeanmas")
St. Peter the Apostle (June 29)
St. James the Apostle (Juy 25)
St Bartholomew (August 21)
St. Matthew, Apostle and Evangelist (September 21)
St. Michael and all Angels (September 29, "Michaelmas")
St. Luke the Evangelist (October 18)
St. Simon and St. Jude, Apostles (October 28)
All Saints (November 1)
St. Andrew the Apostle (November 30)
St. Thomas the Apostle (December 21)
The Nativity of our Lord JESUS CHRIST (December 25)
St. Stephen, Deacon and Martyr (December 26)
St. John. Apostle and Evangelist (December 27)
The Holy Innocents (December 28)

Monday and Tuesday in Easter-Week
Monday and Tuesday in Whitsun Week

The Eves or vigils before...
The Purification of the Blessed Virgin (February 1, "Candlemas")
The Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin (March 24)
Easter Day
Ascension Day
St Matthias
St. John Baptist (June 23, "Saintjeanmas")
St. Peter (June 28)
St. James (Juy 24)
St Bartholomew (August 20)
St. Matthew (September 20)
St. Simon and St. Jude, Apostles (October 27)
All Sants (October 31)
St. Andrew the Apostle (November 30)
St. Thomas the Apostle (December 20)

The Forty Days of Lent
The Ember Days
The Rogation Days
All the Fridays of the Year

The monarch's birthday

The term "day of obligation" comes from the Roman Catholic understanding that parishioners are "obliged" to attend Mass on certain days and that it is a "venial" sin not to do so. Anglicans have somewhat more freedom regarding how we "observe" the days that are so appointed -- but unfortunately far to many of us "observe" them by staying home and watching the TV as we do every other day.

 

[calluna]

The Anglican term would be "Red Letter Days": if you have a monochrome Book of Common Prayer they are the days included in the Calendar in italics, and the rubric refers to them as "days appointed to be observed" on page 29-30

'Days appointed to be observed' is not remotely the same as 'a day that you are supposed to go to Church'. 'Days of obligation' are observed by those who openly admit themselves unjustified before God. Those who are in Christ say they are in Christ because they know themselves to be justified. There is no obligation on them to do anything that they do not want to do. The Adversary through his agents tries to remove their assurance of justification, but he will be resisted.

'Article XI. Of the justification of Adam
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: Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.'

 

[No Swansong]

'Days appointed to be observed' is not remotely the same as 'a day that you are supposed to go to Church'. 'Days of obligation' are observed by those who openly admit themselves unjustified before God. Those who are in Christ say they are in Christ because they know themselves to be justified. There is no obligation on them to do anything that they do not want to do. The Adversary through his agents tries to remove their assurance of justification, but he will be resisted.

'Article XI. Of the justification of Adam
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: Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.'

No one here has stated that the days should be obligatory as for your whole diatribe concerning justification, no one has intimated that not celebrating the feasts in anyway challenges justification.

By the way Calluna Anglican or Old Catholic? Why won't you answer the question? Are you concerned that you will no longer be permitted to debate here?
ANSWER THE QUESTION

 

[Secundulus]

'Days appointed to be observed' is not remotely the same as 'a day that you are supposed to go to Church'. 'Days of obligation' are observed by those who openly admit themselves unjustified before God. Those who are in Christ say they are in Christ because they know themselves to be justified. There is no obligation on them to do anything that they do not want to do. The Adversary through his agents tries to remove their assurance of justification, but he will be resisted.

'Article XI. Of the justification of Adam
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: Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.'

How are you going to observe them?

As for the rest of your post, it has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I am beginning to see the fruits of Calvinism here and elsewhere in this forum. You are so afraid of being seen doing "Works" that you end up doing nothing at all. The Body of Christ ends up with a useless appendage that serves absolutely no good purpose and if not for God's mercy would be amputated and discarded..

 

[calluna]

No one here has stated that the days should be obligatory

'That is a day that you are supposed to go to Church.'

Was that an error?

 

[No Swansong]

'That is a day that you are supposed to go to Church.'

Was that an error?

I'll let Secundulus answer for his own post. I took his meaning to be should not must. But I'll leave it to him to explain his post.

Since it is clear you can read my posts are you Anglican or Old Catholic?

 

[Secundulus]

The words in the Prayerbook are clear

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1928/Calendar&Tables_1928.pdf
A TABLE OF FEASTS,
TO BE OBSERVED IN THIS CHURCH THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.

For a Church to observe a feast means that it conducts a Mass. The Church is the body of believers. Therefore it follows that the Prayerbook expects people to go to Church on those days.

 

[No Swansong]

I guess I was wrong. It seems then that Secundulus and I are more in agreement on this issue than I thought. Kudo's Secundulus.

 

[calluna]

The words in the Prayerbook are clear

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1928/Calendar&Tables_1928.pdf
A TABLE OF FEASTS,
TO BE OBSERVED IN THIS CHURCH THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.

For a Church to observe a feast means that it conducts a Mass.
The Church is the body of believers. Therefore it follows that the Prayerbook expects people to go to Church on those days.

Why does that follow?

 

[pmcleanj]

Why does that follow?

The Prayerbook is the norm of Anglican praxis. Its expectation is that services of services will be held "Daily Throughout the Year", and that the people will participate in those services. If we are expected to worship with the rest of the Church daily, it follows inevitably that we would worship with the church on red-letter days.

Need that worship be Mass? Daily worship is supposed to be Morning and Evening Prayer. But the prayerbook specifies that the Celebration of the Lord's Supper be in addition to Morning and Evening prayer, and is combined with it. A table of "propers" -- a collect, Epistle and Gospel -- is provided for every Sunday of the year and for the Red-letter days. The Epistle and Gospel are specifically referenced in the Holy Communion liturgy, implying that Holy Communion is indeed an appropriate liturgy for such days.

Is it an obligation to worship together, or to celebrate the Lord's Supper? I myself dislike the term "day of obligation", precisely because as Anglicans we are free of the arbitrary dictates of foreign prelates and clerical hierarchies about what forms we must and must not adopt. But even more, I dislike the term because worshipping together as Christians should be a norm, not an obligation; and sharing in the Body and Blood of Our Lord is a heady privilege, not an obligation. We are "supposed" to celebrate on the Red-letter days, because it is our joyful privilege -- indeed, our right -- to do so!

 

[calluna]

Is it an obligation to worship together, or to celebrate the Lord's Supper? I myself dislike the term "day of obligation", precisely because as Anglicans we are free of the arbitrary dictates of foreign prelates and clerical hierarchies about what forms we must and must not adopt. But even more, I dislike the term because worshipping together as Christians should be a norm, not an obligation; and sharing in the Body and Blood of Our Lord is a heady privilege, not an obligation. We are "supposed" to celebrate on the Red-letter days, because it is our joyful privilege -- indeed, our right -- to do so!

Indeed. The word 'obligation' is inadvisable to use in Anglican circles (especially in proximity to the word 'Mass'). Not only does it have theological significance that opposes the heart of Protestantism; it is un-American, and profoundly un-English, to talk of obligation in religion, and is guaranteed to raise the hackles of conservatives of every sort. The English fought the Spanish Armada and a bloody civil war to preserve the right to live without obligation of that sort. What many Americans do not realise is that the resonances of both are still felt in England to this day.

The CoE offers services based on the lectionary and an annual cycle of observations of Bible events and themes, and there is much to be learned from them. If Anglicans/Episcopalians fail to take advantage of those services, that is a pity, at least for those who are not regular private Bible readers, who anyway tend to meet less often than those who are. But attempts to coerce are no part of Anglicanism, and have not been for a very long time. One should encourage, not use words like 'obligation', which will not only be counter-productive, but smack of malign foreign influence.

 

[Secundulus]

Indeed. The word 'obligation' is inadvisable to use in Anglican circles (especially in proximity to the word 'Mass'). Not only does it have theological significance that opposes the heart of Protestantism; it is un-American, and profoundly un-English, to talk of obligation in religion, and is guaranteed to raise the hackles of conservatives of every sort. The English fought the Spanish Armada and a bloody civil war to preserve the right to live without obligation of that sort. What many Americans do not realise is that the resonances of both are still felt in England to this day.

The CoE offers services based on the lectionary and an annual cycle of observations of Bible events and themes, and there is much to be learned from them. If Anglicans/Episcopalians fail to take advantage of those services, that is a pity, at least for those who are not regular private Bible readers, who anyway tend to meet less often than those who are. But attempts to coerce are no part of Anglicanism, and have not been for a very long time. One should encourage, not use words like 'obligation', which will not only be counter-productive, but smack of malign foreign influence.

The perfect illustration of why Protestantism is flying apart. Nobody wants to submit to any authority and everyone does what they see as right in their own eyes.

 

[calluna]

The perfect illustration of why Protestantism is flying apart.

Sour grapes?

One should not confuse unity with uniformity.

Nobody wants to submit to any authority

Like that of the Holy Spirit?

 

[Secundulus]

Sour grapes?

One should not confuse unity with uniformity.


Like that of the Holy Spirit?

The concepts of Unity and and of Protestantism do not belong together. Protestantism has been marked by disunity from its inception. So no, its not sour grapes. I just have realized that I don't want to go down with your sinking ship.

 

[higgs2]

How did a thread about Candlemas become an argument about Protestantism, blahblah. Come on you guys!

We might not celebrate the Presentation on the right day, but at least we come to the table together and worship and are there for each other as part of the body of Christ! Better than bickering about obligations etc.

 

[No Swansong]

How did a thread about Candlemas become an argument about Protestantism, blahblah. Come on you guys!

We might not celebrate the Presentation on the right day, but at least we come to the table together and worship and are there for each other as part of the body of Christ! Better than bickering about obligations etc.

Hey I'm glad you celebrated it!

 

[Secundulus]

How did a thread about Candlemas become an argument about Protestantism, blahblah. Come on you guys!

Around the time that the practice of my Anglican Church was accused of malign foreign influence.

 

[calluna]

The concepts of Unity and and of Protestantism do not belong together.

Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, Brethren and others can pray and work together in perfect unity without even knowing each others' denominations. The reason for this is the authority of the Holy Spirit, who operates quite independently of denominations. The Catholic jibe on this issue is a straw man, and a highly misleading one, in the view of Protestants. There is a unity provided by Protestant belief that Protestants believe cannot be supported any other way.

Protestantism has been marked by disunity from its inception.

That is partly the consequence of the politicisation of religion- realisation of the unbiblical concept of volkskirche- by the RCC. Protestantism gets blamed by Catholics for the faults of Catholicism. There is nothing fundamentally unstable about Protestantism or its tenets. It has various manifestations because secular parties have sought to influence it. Note the highly political bodies that Luther and Calvin were responsible for, and even the CoE began as. Denominations are not really 'where it is at' for Protestants, and never have been. But 'the organisation' is everything for Catholics.

So no, its not sour grapes.

I meant that the grapes of freedom might be thought to be sour.

I just have realized that I don't want to go down with your sinking ship.

Come on! It does not seem that even the hierarchical Roman boat experiences plain sailing in these decadent, democratic days. One can today find as many views within the RCC as in any denomination, with internal squabbles as great as in any. By contrast, there are 17 million Anglicans in Nigeria whose leaders are all committed to the Articles. That does not seem to be an incipient wreck to me.

An Anglican prelate and eminent scholar said that there is not a single man alive who can prove succession from the apostles, so where human authority is is to be found, an Anglican can hardly convincingly say. This appeal to authority is itself without authority or even sense. There is simply no realistic alternative to sola Scriptura- short of political totalitarianism as per the Middle Ages, of course.

 

[No Swansong]

Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, Brethren and others can pray and work together in perfect unity without even knowing each others' denominations. The reason for this is the authority of the Holy Spirit, who operates quite independently of denominations. The Catholic jibe on this issue is a straw man, and a highly misleading one, in the view of Protestants. There is a unity provided by Protestant belief that Protestants believe cannot be supported any other way.

That is partly the consequence of the politicisation of religion- realisation of the unbiblical concept of volkskirche- by the RCC. Protestantism gets blamed by Catholics for the faults of Catholicism. There is nothing fundamentally unstable about Protestantism or its tenets. It has various manifestations because secular parties have sought to influence it. Note the highly political bodies that Luther and Calvin were responsible for, and even the CoE began as. Denominations are not really 'where it is at' for Protestants, and never have been. But 'the organisation' is everything for Catholics.

I meant that the grapes of freedom might be thought to be sour.

Come on! It does not seem that even the hierachical Roman boat experiences plain sailing in these decadent, democratic days. One can today find as many views within the RCC as in any denomination, with internal squabbles as great as in any. By contrast, there are 17 million Anglicans in Nigeria whose leaders are all committed to the Articles. That does not seem to be an incipient wreck to me.

An Anglican prelate and eminent scholar said that there is not a single man alive who can prove succession from the apostles, so where human authority is is to be found, an Anglican can hardly convincingly say. This appeal to authority is itself without authority. There is simply no realistic alternative to sola Scriptura- short of political totalitarianism as per the Middle Ages, of course.

That one prelate makes a claim that differs with Holy Tradition, is so minority a view within Anglicanism that it is miniscule, and defies logic is hardly a convincing argument.

Anglican or Old Catholic Calluna?

 

[calluna]

That one prelate makes a claim that differs with Holy Tradition

That isn't even Anglicanism. Tradition 'has erred' is Anglicanism.

is so minority a view within Anglicanism that it is miniscule

Bob Hope lives!