Question about visiting a Rite I Liturgy

[pmcleanj]

... at some point, our choice simply reveals that Anglicans are not the church. We are Christian because it is the truth, not because we like it. Is it hopeless to get anyone to understand?

Or, alternately, our unshaken confidence that Anglicans are indeed the church, among with all the other Members of the Church which is the Whole Company of all Faithful People, which subsists wherever the true Word is preached and the Sacraments duly celebrated; reveals that your choice of limiting your understanding of "Church" to a rigid Byzantine manifestation of the fourth through twelfth centuries, is in error.

Because we are Christian because it is the Truth -- and the Truth we experience is not so narrow and limited as what you keep trying to get us to understand.

You realise, I hope, that I do recognise your peculiar form of "doing church" as being one manifestation of how the Church acts -- but only one: and the other forms that other members of this board celebrate are no less legitimate. Sorry.

 

[gtsecc]

Or, alternately, our unshaken confidence that Anglicans are indeed the church, among with all the other Members of the Church which is the Whole Company of all Faithful People, which subsists wherever the true Word is preached and the Sacraments duly celebrated; reveals that your choice of limiting your understanding of "Church" to a rigid Byzantine manifestation of the fourth through twelfth centuries, is in error.

Because we are Christian because it is the Truth -- and the Truth we experience is not so narrow and limited as what you keep trying to get us to understand.

You realise, I hope, that I do recognise your peculiar form of "doing church" as being one manifestation of how the Church acts -- but only one: and the other forms that other members of this board celebrate are no less legitimate. Sorry.

Which way of doing church came up with the Trinity, Jesus as fully man and fully God, the Bible, and the Nicean Creed?

 

[pmcleanj]

Which way of doing church came up with the Trinity, Jesus as fully man and fully God, the Bible, and the Nicean Creed?

The one that predates yours. The formal bureaucracy established by Constantine, just turned those beautiful ideas into rigid regulations.

 

[gtsecc]

The one that predates yours. The formal bureaucracy established by Constantine, just turned those beautiful ideas into rigid regulations.

Ok, developed this idea, or show me where to read more and I will take an open mind. Otherwise, I think we are stuck with the model. My source for this position is John Behr's Way to Nicea series, also covered, but with less detail in his book, the Mystery of Christ: Life in Death.

 

[Colabomb]

It is not funny or to be taken lightly.
I think there is much we can learn by listening to things the Church has proclaimed with one voice. I cannot for the life of me understand why people think this is such an laughable stance. It is gravely serious - at some point, our choice simply reveals that Anglicans are not the church. We are Christian because it is the truth, not because we like it. Is it hopeless to get anyone to understand?

But you AREN'T listening to the "Unified voice of the Church". You are Listening to whoever you want to and calling it "The Unified voice of the Church".

You are Choosing your spirituality as much as anyone else.

 

[Secundulus]

But you AREN'T listening to the "Unified voice of the Church". You are Listening to whoever you want to and calling it "The Unified voice of the Church".

You are Choosing your spirituality as much as anyone else.

What unified voice of the Church is there to hear?

All I hear is:
The liberals are wrong!
The conservatives are intolerant!
The Pope is the anti-Christ!
The only true Church is in the East!
The only True Church is in Rome!
The only true Church is in your heart!
The truth is what has been handed down to us!
The truth is what the Holy Spirit revealed to me today!
Jesus is God Incarnate!
Jesus is a man who reveals God to us!
Loving God is in following what he said!
Loving God is in smiling and being nice!
Jesus is the only path to the father!
Jesus is our path to the father but not the only path!
Sin is defined by what God has told us!
Sin is self defined!
Sin is defined by society!
There is no sin when one is in Christ!

This is not pointing fingers at any specific denomination because it holds true across the breadth of Christianity.

The last time the Church spoke with a unified voice was 1000 years ago.

So what is right?

Is everything right?
Is anything right?
Was the Church right the last time it spoke in unity?

Is truth constant?
Is truth an ever changing variable?

I'm not claiming to have the answers but these are the questions I wrestle with.

My personal opinion right now is in agreement with gtsecc. Since none of us are God's Prophets, I think it is right to stay with the findings of the Church when it did speak in unity.

 

[No Swansong]

But it never really did speak in unity or with one voice. That is the point. Basically to disagree with the majority who claimed to be led by the spirit meant to be given the left foot of fellowship. There was only one voice because dissenting voices weren't considered, or allowed.

 

[Secundulus]

But it never really did speak in unity or with one voice. That is the point. Basically to disagree with the majority who claimed to be led by the spirit meant to be given the left foot of fellowship. There was only one voice because dissenting voices weren't considered, or allowed.

Then the only conclusion is that Jesus was not God because all he left was mass confusion.

Or

When the Church spoke with one voice it was speaking with the voice of God and the ones that disagreed were simply . . . wrong.

I just don't see how the body of Christ can be an apt analogy when the left hand fights the right and when the the right foot trips the left. If this is in fact the body of Christ then the Holy Spirit is impotent. Either he is transcendent or he is imaginary.

 

[No Swansong]

Then the only conclusion is that Jesus was not God because all he left was mass confusion.

Or

When the Church spoke with one voice it was speaking with the voice of God and the ones that disagreed were simply . . . wrong.

I just don't see how the body of Christ can be an apt analogy when the left hand fights the right and when the the right foot trips the left. If this is in fact the body of Christ then the Holy Spirit is impotent. Either he is transcendent or he is imaginary.

How does the idea that the Church has never spoken with one voice lead to the idea that Jesus is not God? Our obedience or rather lack of obedience does not affect the Divinity of Christ at all.

From the earliest moments of the Church as recorded in Acts there are examples of Apostles disagreeing. They had to come together to settle the matter and by that time "untruth" had already been orally passed on.

"That they will be one" does not imply that "they" will agree, nor does it imply that if they meet and talk it out that they will eventually come to the right conclusion. In many cases they have; but as the 39 articles states neither men nor Councils are infallible.

 

[Colabomb]

Then the only conclusion is that Jesus was not God because all he left was mass confusion.

I think many anglocatholics subconsciously begin to think that the Church invented the doctrine of the divinity of Christ. In all honesty the fact that Christ is divine, is unrelated to whether or not we believe he is divine.

He is the Holy Son of God, because he is the Holy Son of God, not because the Church said so at Nicea.

 

[Secundulus]

I think many anglocatholics subconsciously begin to think that the Church invented the doctrine of the divinity of Christ. In all honesty the fact that Christ is divine, is unrelated to whether or not we believe he is divine.

He is the Holy Son of God, because he is the Holy Son of God, not because the Church said so at Nicea.

Personally, I believe he is God because he spoke to me once leading the only conclusion - he is alive and therefore who he said he was.

That Nicea came to the same conclusion leads me only to have confidence in that process based upon what I know is true beyond any doubt.

What I see in the scripture is that the body is not to be divided.

"For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot says, "Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. And if the ear says, "Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired. If they were all one member, where would the body be? But now there are many members, but one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; or again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another." (1 Corinthians 12:14-25, NASB95)

What I see in reality is the ear and the hand and the arm and the eye, all contending with each other as to which one is really the head. Surely, this is not how it is meant to be?

 

[No Swansong]

Personally, I believe he is God because he spoke to me once leading the only conclusion - he is alive and therefore who he said he was.

That Nicea came to the same conclusion leads me only to have confidence in that process based upon what I know is true beyond any doubt.

What I see in the scripture is that the body is not to be divided.

"For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot says, "Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. And if the ear says, "Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired. If they were all one member, where would the body be? But now there are many members, but one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; or again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another." (1 Corinthians 12:14-25, NASB95)

What I see in reality is the ear and the hand and the arm and the eye, all contending with each other as to which one is really the head. Surely, this is not how it is meant to be?

It seems to me that you confuse disagreement with division.

 

[Adammi]

The OP and topic questions of this thread:

A friend and I were talking about how we have both attended church all of our lives, 35 years between the two of us. That's over 5,000 church services. We talk about the state of Christianity, but we may really have no idea of what Christianity really is because neither of us have been to more than 4 or 5 churches. We are visiting other churches just to see what other people are doing on Sunday morning. We prefer to go to the early morning services, like 8ish. The only Episcopal service at this time locally is Rite I. I'm not sure which rite is the more dominantly attended or emphasized. Will we receive a good sampling of ECUSA by attending a Rite I or should we change our schedule to make the Rite II?
What should we get out of an Episcopal Church in general?
What should we get out of a Rite I liturgy particularly?

Well, personally, I'm a deep respecter of the liturgy and history of Anglicanism. I have a BOCP and and have used it in my own private prayers for well over a year. I'm a young student of theology and if I had to pick a church with which I most agree, it would definitely be Anglicanism. However, I'm really not interested in changing local churches at this time in my life.

I believe that you can only get so much out of a book. While no expert, I don't think that I could learn much more without actually attending a local parish. So, I'm really looking for the practicalities of what I should know.

I hope such arguing is not what awaits me on Ash Wednesday.

 

[Secundulus]

The OP and topic questions of this thread:





I hope such arguing is not what awaits me on Ash Wednesday.

Without knowing which Church you are attending, it is difficult to answer. You might find a Rite 1 service, a Rite 2 service or perhaps a missil service.

What they will all have in common on Ash Wednesday is a penetintial service signified by the marking of the foreheads with ashes which signifies -

in the books both in the Old Law and in the New that the men who repented of their sins bestrewed themselves with ashes and clothed their bodies with sackcloth. Now let us do this little at the beginning of our Lent that we strew ashes upon our heads to signify that we ought to repent of our sins during the Lenten fast.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01775b.htm

None of this is peculiar to Anglicanism but is part of the ancient Catholic faith.

As for the rest of this discussion, you will not find this at the Ash Wednesday Service as we reserve our disagreements to be discussed outside of the sanctuary.

 

[No Swansong]

You think this is an argument?


This is a simple discussion. It is not necessary that I agree with my brother Secundulus and I doubt he thinks it necessary that I agree with him.

You should really enjoy Ash Wednesday.

 

[Secundulus]

This is a simple discussion. It is not necessary that I agree with my brother Secundulus and I doubt he thinks it necessary that I agree with him.

Sometimes, more often than not, when I am studying scripture or theology I feel like am again five years old, struggling to understand the world without really knowing the "big picture".

I and everybody else, in our grown up bodies, make grand theological pronouncements. But what I see sometimes is me and everyone, just a bunch of little boys and girls, trying to figure things out so they can make their father happy. (I hope this didn't sound too maudlin) Sometimes it's just too confusing, but we try to do the right thing.

For me, this song says it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sSaLkRjWyU

 

[No Swansong]

I didn't listen to the video but I am all too familiar with the sentiment you have voiced. What always amazes me is how many sides a coin can have or how many hands one can have. (you know...."on the other hand")

 

[higgs2]

I thought it was a discussion, not an argument. I found it interesting. I always learn something new form these conversations.

 

[Colabomb]

The OP and topic questions of this thread:





I hope such arguing is not what awaits me on Ash Wednesday.

Brother, i've never seen these types of discussions at a service, or even after a service. Anglicans like no other group can come together and worship, setting aside sometimes intense disagreements, and worship our One Lord and commune with Him and one another.

 

[cenimo]

pmcleanj

Most typically, the 8a.m. service is offered as a "service of obligation" -- meaning that people who have to get to work (or to the ski slopes, or to brunch) can get in, get it done, and get on with their Sunday.

That's a little harsh. We don' go to Rite one for anything even close to that.