Church of England to split

[12th Doctor]

I don't mean to sound like a bigot, but I have always had serious questions about the Church of England's true legitimacy as a group... more so than sects that are far less close to Catholicism in their worship practices.

I'm not surprised this is happening.  The Church of England wants all the trappings of the highly organized sect without actually organizing it, or making enforceable decisions.  This was bound to happen.

[12th Doctor]

P.S.  Most of this article sounds like a joke.  Attract people from all major Christian groups?   newsletter with Mormons?

[12th Doctor]

P.S.  Most of this article sounds like a joke.

Um, Chris...

Yeah, alright... now I just feel like a jackass.

[12th Doctor]

The Provisional BBC wouldn't lie to us!

Quite right. I get all of my news from the Provisional BBC.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     ^After reading that, I figured that it was probably fake.

No, there is actually a Bishop called Nazir-Ali (full name: Michael Nazi-Ali). Bishop of Rochester. And a prick if thee ask me.

So, wait, this is for real then?

[12th Doctor]

So, wait, this is for real then?

"The Provisional BBC is a paramilitary organisation which split from the BBC in October 2006 in protest at its toleration of poor writing and Liberal Democrats. The Provisional BBC regrets any civilian casualties resulting from posts contained within, but lays the blame squarely at the foot of the Tories. It is our duty to resist them, by any and all means necessary."

Always helps to click the link

As I just got done telling Bono on IM, so many things happen in the world that seem like they should by satire, that I have lost the ability to tell the difference.

[12th Doctor]

All the cool people split from the Anglican Church in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, anyway.

Well, to be serious, the Anglican Communion is on life support right now, and its not looking good for it.  I don't think anyone should be surprised that this is the fate of a "church" that is literally founded on the notion that it is okay to sell out your principles whenever it becomes convenient.  The funny thing is, I can say this with reasonable assurance that I won't offend any of our British friends, since fewer than 1% of all people in Britain currently identify with the Anglican Communion.

[12th Doctor]

Well, to be serious, the Anglican Communion is on life support right now, and its not looking good for it.  I don't think anyone should be surprised that this is the fate of a "church" that is literally founded on the notion that it is okay to sell out your principles whenever it becomes convenient.  The funny thing is, I can say this with reasonable assurance that I won't offend any of our British friends, since fewer than 1% of all people in Britain currently identify with the Anglican Communion.

What I would give for the Catholic Church to allow such public debate and difference in opinion to be aired without the threat of discipline

Actually, I think the RCC would be elated if the AC started up such talks, or even hinted at talks about talks.

[12th Doctor]

All the cool people split from the Anglican Church in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, anyway.

Well, to be serious, the Anglican Communion is on life support right now, and its not looking good for it.  I don't think anyone should be surprised that this is the fate of a "church" that is literally founded on the notion that it is okay to sell out your principles whenever it becomes convenient.  The funny thing is, I can say this with reasonable assurance that I won't offend any of our British friends, since fewer than 1% of all people in Britain currently identify with the Anglican Communion.

As an Anglican (an Episcopalian), I have to agree with you strongly -- in part.  And disagree just as strongly.  Let me explain.

First, there are very few absolutes -- even in Christianity.  We may think there are, but so many of them are man-made and based entirely on human interpretation of the Bible.  Human interpretation is always subject to flaw, error and mishandling.  This is why we have some Roman Catholics who view the Blessed Virgin as co-redemptrix with Christ.  And why we have some non-Catholics who regard her as "just another Bible character".  Neither seems to me to be sound ground.  Your view of the Blessed Mother, Soulty, seems most logical and sane.

But my point is, Christians major on minors and minor on majors.  In the Episcopal Church, we are coming apart at the seams over matters that the Bible says relatively little about -- and even what is written can be adequately and honestly interpreted by both liberal and conservative scholars to defend their respective positions.  It's no different than Protestants splitting over whether the gift of tongues is for the present or just for the early church...or whether or not there is a "rapture".  Churches split over these things that matter -- but don't matter that much.

What the Episcopal Church SHOULD split over is the Nicene Creed.  Though not Scripture, it summarizes exactly what one must believe in order to be a Christian.  That's not to say one cannot have periods of doubt.  But to say the creed weekly, or even daily, and flatly reject the idea that Jesus Christ is "true God from true God"...that he died for our sins...and that he is literally, bodily risen from the dead is absolute heresy. 

I welcome the presence of any Christian in the Episcopal church -- gay or straight, conservative or liberal, left or right.  What they believe about the sacrament matters, but not nearly as much as what they believe about Jesus.  What they believe about the creation of the world matters, but nowhere near as much as what they believe about redemption and resurrection.

That my church is splitting over sexuality is about the dumbest thing I can imagine to split over.  The conservatives say  the gays are a threat to families, to children and to Scripture.  The liberals say the conservatives are hate-filled bigots.  Both sides are being stupid.

When I help give the sacrament to communicants (in our diocese, licensed lay people can assist the priest), there are no liberals or conservatives, gays or straights, mature or immature Christians at the altar.  Only sinners in need of a Savior.  What does the old chorus say?  "Where saints and sinners are friends?"

The Anglican Communion could survive forever without ever settling or agreeing on issues of sexuality.  So what if some parish in South Carolina leaves the Episcopal Church to come under the authority of some uber conservative African Bishop?  If they really need to do that -- if their faith in Jesus is so threatened at the thought of a gay priest or a female priest -- then God bless them in their journey. 

What worries me is that the Anglican Communion cannot survive the presence of a few theologians, bishops and priests who flatly deny and are openly hostile to what is taught in the Nicene Creed.  There are not many absolutes in Christianity.  But there are a few -- Jesus is God in the flesh.  He died for our sins, a perfect sacrifice.  He has risen from the dead, literally and bodily.  Those few absolutes should be utterly non-negotiable.  Not necessarily for the seeker in the pews.  But certainly for any Deacon, Priest or Bishop.

And to the extent that we fail to stand on that ground, yes -- I agree.  The Anglican Communion is in grave danger.  But I am sure that if the church does collapse 'round itself, the spin from its critics within and without will be --  "look what those damn queers did".

That's very well said, and couldn't be truer.  Perhaps I should clarify.  The problem with the AC from the beginning has been one of finding an identity.  If you had told someone two years into the reign of Henry VIII that England would go Protestant and split from Rome, it would have seemed unthinkable.  And since that split occurred, the AC has warred (on occasion literally) over what the split means.  The fact is, the AC has had considerable difficulty defining itself, theologically, since its initial split from Rome had little to do with theology to begin with, other than the assertion of the rights of a monarch.  They have obviously steered away from that notion, since, but that has resulted in a robbing of authority, along with the absence of a fundamental theology. 

With most other sects, you at least get one or the other.

The people of the AC don't feel restrained by true guild lines, or common cause, and thus most are allowed to simply innovate, or opine at will.  This then leads to a slew of other problems in the church, in the congregations, and in the individual church goer.  The marvel, therefore, is not the utter collapse of the AC, but the rather than it lasted as long as it has.

[12th Doctor]

Yet another reason why Methodism>all.  We let everyone take communion if they want, even heathens and nonbelievers!

Great waffers and Merlot... make sure there is enough for everyone.

[12th Doctor]

Yet another reason why Methodism>all.  We let everyone take communion if they want, even heathens and nonbelievers!

Great waffers and Merlot... make sure there is enough for everyone.

We don't use wafers, because we're not Catholic, nor do we have alcohol, because officially speaking the Methodist Church is temperate

My point was that Methodists allow communion to everyone because their beliefs about what happens at communion aren't the same as those of Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans or Anglicans.

[12th Doctor]

Soulty, a question. What kind of bread do you use for communion?

We use Syrian flat-bread at my church.

I honestly haven't the slightest clue.  It's defiantly a kinda unleavened wafer, but beyond that, I don't know.  I like Byzantine Communion.  They have a real "square" of bread, if you will, which they cover in the wine and give you both the body and blood on this spoon like instrument, and only in the mouth.  I have seen a few Catholic Churches where they use a kinda pita, like yours.  I honestly don't think it matters that much.

[12th Doctor]

Soulty, a question. What kind of bread do you use for communion?

We use Syrian flat-bread at my church.

I honestly haven't the slightest clue.  It's defiantly a kinda unleavened wafer, but beyond that, I don't know.  I like Byzantine Communion.  They have a real "square" of bread, if you will, which they cover in the wine and give you both the body and blood on this spoon like instrument, and only in the mouth.  I have seen a few Catholic Churches where they use a kinda pita, like yours.  I honestly don't think it matters that much.

I love the taste of the wafers. I have to say, I've always wanted to pop open a bucket of them (I used to see them in the sacristy closet all the time) and eat them like chips but that seems so wrong. 

I remember back in high school when we had a class specifically on more advanced matters of the faith and we discussed the deeper theology of the Eucharist.  One of the kids in the class said something close to what you just did, after finding out that the wafers prior to consecration had literally no value, other than as bread.  He then said, "cool, so I can just buy a tub of them and get some cheeze whiz?"   The teacher, Fr. Swoger, responded, "yes, but that might be just a little sacrilegious."

[12th Doctor]

I can see it now.

Phil, what are you having for dinner?

Oh, I think I'm just going to snack on some unleveled wafers.

Eh, it's definitely more of an after dinner light snack.

Never mind.  I just blew you all out of the water in terms of sacrilegious thinking.  I just came back from mass and went to Starbucks, while I was leaving, I thought "Now it's time to wash Christ down with some good coffee."

[12th Doctor]

I can see it now.

Phil, what are you having for dinner?

Oh, I think I'm just going to snack on some unleveled wafers.

Eh, it's definitely more of an after dinner light snack.

Never mind.  I just blew you all out of the water in terms of sacrilegious thinking.  I just came back from mass and went to Starbucks, while I was leaving, I thought "Now it's time to wash Christ down with some good coffee."

Haha....I lol'd.

In a related note, I'm always continually surprised by how little emphasis other denominations place on Communion. Maybe that's just because the Catholic mass is built around receiving Communion.

For the longest time, I didn't even know if Protestants received communion, that's how little emphasis is placed on it.

Anyway, I hate to say this but Christ leaves a bad after taste in my mouth. Yeah, I just said that. By the time I get out of mass, I have this stale after taste. I usually wash it down as soon as I get home.

Yeah, it really depends on the denomination.  The Lutherans and Anglicans receive it every service, and have similar beliefs as us, in regards to it, but even then, they place very little real emphasis on it.  The other denoms are varied, but they usually have communion less regularly, believe it is only symbolic, and serve the wine in little Dixie cups on a tray.

[12th Doctor]

Hey I took communion by invitation in an Episcopal Church (at a funeral), and the priest said nothing about the Baptized Christian condition precedent thing, so this un-Baptized Pagan went right up. The folks sitting near me asked why, and I replied, because I can! And there you have it.   Yet another reason why I am headed to the pit.

The canons say "All baptised Christians are welcome to receive the bread and wine, or just the bread as is their need or custom.  Those who do not wish to receive the sacrament or who cannot, may cross their arms and receive a blessing from the celebrant".

However, not all parishes police or observe that.  And, I suspect even in the Roman Catholic Church (Soulty could confirm or correct this), there is no way of knowing the spiritual status of every person who goes forward.  I am sure a lot of communion is given to those technically ineligible.  I do know that in most Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod congregations, they will ask for proof that you are a member if they don't know you.  And they will deny the sacrament, even to baptised Christians.

That said Torie, I believe ultimately, the matter is between you and God.  And if I were in charge of sending people to the pit, you would not be among them.  I think I would probably send you to Cleveland instead....  <grin>

The priest generally has no way of knowing for certain who is eligible and who isn't.  Keep in mind there are many things that can make you ineligible, including being in an ongoing state of mortal sin.  That's up to the person to decide whether they want to take it on their soul, usually.  Sometimes, at an event such as a wedding, where the priest knows there are bound to be large numbers of non-Catholics, they will announce that only Catholics can take communion, and give a brief explanation of why this is, but even that is rare.

[12th Doctor]

Yet another reason why Methodism>all.  We let everyone take communion if they want, even heathens and nonbelievers!

Great waffers and Merlot... make sure there is enough for everyone.

We don't use wafers, because we're not Catholic, nor do we have alcohol, because officially speaking the Methodist Church is temperate

My point was that Methodists allow communion to everyone because their beliefs about what happens at communion aren't the same as those of Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans or Anglicans.

Uh, Lutherans also allow everyone communion (and DO NOT have the same view on it as Catholics.)

Most Lutherans believe in a literal presence.  Anyway, thanks for joining in on the conversation after it was already over.  I wasn't even the one who charged that Lutherans didn't allow everyone.  How would I know?  I don't go to Lutheran churches.

I see you are already busy at work making me regret that I stood up for your reinstatement.

[12th Doctor]

Either BRTD has never heard of consubstantiation, or he wants there to be a difference.  So basically, he either proves himself to incapable of speaking with any authority on matters of faith... once again.  Or the intolerant Catholic has, once again, stood up for unity in the face of the understanding Protestant's need to see Catholicism as something "other".  Eitherway, again, my point was about real presence, which obviously both Catholic and Lutheran hold to.

[12th Doctor]

*shrug*, I was barely paying attention during the last couple weeks for obvious reasons and other ones and just found this. Felt a correction was needed.

Actually though I realized I misinterpreted what was said, Lutherans simply say communion is open to all baptized Christians, not EVERYONE. But I still stand by saying the Lutheran view on communion is not exactly the same as the Catholic one. Consubstantiation is not the same as transubstantiation. After all if it was, Lutherans would be permitted to take communion at Catholic churches. Not something I care about frankly, and besides, I don't even really believe in the Lutheran view on communion anyway. Just like about 2/3 of Minnesota Lutherans probably.

No, they aren't the same, but again, not what my point was about, which would have been obvious if you had even read the statements I was responding to, which were located, for your convenience in the little quote pyramid above what I said.

And what don't you care about?  The theology of the Eucharist, or the fact that Lutherans can't take communion at Catholic masses?

[12th Doctor]

And what don't you care about?  The theology of the Eucharist, or the fact that Lutherans can't take communion at Catholic masses?

The latter. It's moot to me since I'd never be going to Catholic masses anyway.

Well, good to know that you are trying to be understanding.  I guess its more comfortable to just stay set in your ignorance.

[12th Doctor]

And what don't you care about?  The theology of the Eucharist, or the fact that Lutherans can't take communion at Catholic masses?

The latter. It's moot to me since I'd never be going to Catholic masses anyway.

Well, good to know that you are trying to be understanding.  I guess its more comfortable to just stay set in your ignorance.

A few posts above:

Most Lutherans believe in a literal presence.  Anyway, thanks for joining in on the conversation after it was already over.  I wasn't even the one who charged that Lutherans didn't allow everyone.  How would I know? I don't go to Lutheran churches.

I see you are already busy at work making me regret that I stood up for your reinstatement.

That's basically the exact same thing as I said. I'm not going to Catholic churches ever and you're not going to Lutheran ones. So what's the difference?

Good job taking what I said out of context.  I didn't say I would never go to one, and someday I likely will.  I have been to services of almost ever other major Protestant denomination.  I simply have never been to a Lutheran one.  I've even been to a (predominantly) Jewish service.