Posted on 04/19/2005 10:39:05 AM PDT by churchillbuff
Its what I tried to explain about the legs of the stool...but he didnt want to hear it.
Waht I'd REALLY love to know from him is 1) does he believe in a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis and if so 2) is he willing to accept a literal interpretation of Christ's words at the Last Supper "take, eat, for this is My Body...". If he cannot agree to the latter, then all his assertions on the first fall flat of LOGIC.
I an familiar with the Affirmation of St. Louis; most of the so-called "continuing" Anglican churches got their start here, including the one I currently belong to, the Anglican Province of America. There are a number of others.
The 39 Articles which I refer to can be found at or near the back of every BCP since the beginning. Some of them may or may not have been written the way they are for no other reason than to be anti-Rome. I couldn't say. There is also one Article on the error of conducting a service in a language not understood by the people, i.e. Latin.
Perhaps what you are actually using is the Anglican Rite Liturgy which draws much from the BCP but with certain elements of the Roman Catholic mass blended in - that may be a poor way of phrasing it. Forgive me, I don't wish to offend anyone. From what I can tell from reading it, the Anglican Rite Eucharist is a beautiful service.
Where in the Bible does it say there will be a fake Bible until the 16th century?
The ACC has one of those distinctions that has been difficult to explain to people without going into a great deal of history. The Romans lump the ACC in with the ECUSA and say we are still mad about King Henry VIII...and the Protestants don't like us because we are too Catholic in our upholding of the Transubstatiation. I have heard one of our elders in our church talk about consubstatiation, but mainly as a point of reference. From the three years that I have attended this church, and from talking to the priest, Transubstantiation is unquestioned by the ACC.
No offense taken however!! i was glad to converse with you!
"I am not arguing history here, but faith. My faith dictates that I follow the words of the Bible, not the Council of Chalcedon 500 years into the modern era. Give me a break."
Hhmm, don't care about the history. Interesting. Like the bible just exists there in front of you idrectly from God--plopped right down from the big office above. As I wrote before:
"The RCC established the bible. The bible is impotent in creating a Church."
I have not run into that -- until a couple of Sundays back. (I'm in the APCK.) But as our bishop said recently, "in communion with the world-wide Anglican Communion?! Look at who you are 'in communion' with!" (I won't repeat what followed as it was, um, less than "Anglican"?)
Have you heard of our Archbishop John-Charles Vockler? I believe he was instrumental in bringing the ACC and the APCK together. I could be wrong, but I remembered something liek that being announced last year.
Linky please! :D :D
"No offense taken."
I didn't think that would be the case but some people get real touchy on this subject. Exihibit 'A', our friend econ_grad, who seems, illogically, to believe that the Bible itself decided what it was going to be. I've had people accuse me of using a false Bible because we sometimes read lessons from the Apocrypha. We know thy aren't considered Holy Scripture but that doesn't mean they don't have historic value or that we can't learn from them.
I'm always a little leary of anyone who says, "Well, MY Bible says...". Too many of the modern translations are a bit like Cheez-Whiz. It sort of looks like cheese and has a flavor somewhat reminiscent of cheese, but all the really good stuff has been processed out. Know what I mean?
It's only recently I've begin to pay attention to the (Anglican) world outside my own parish. I do know there have been conversations between the ACC and APCK, last fall as I recall it being reported by FIFNA. I have also been told that the APCK and the ACA(/TAC) have recently established grounds for cooperation, hopefully an initial step towards unification. I would like to see these progress.
I agree with you there!!
Actually, 1 Timothy 2 states "A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve."
"Where in the Bible does it say there will be a fake Bible until the 16th century?"
Well, right next to the footnote that says that James is an epistle of straw, of course!
Male only ordination has a DIRECT lineage from Christ. There were no female apostles, there were NO women in the Upper Room with Jesus Christ at the Last Supper when he commissioned his Apostles to do as He had taught them. He gave the twelve MALE apostles the DIRECT responsibility of leading His flock. He did NOT add to that "oh by the way, tell your female friends they can lead off a community as well." All authority He passed to them. DIRECT BIBLICAL TRUTH.
Now which is it? Biblical faith, or tradition? You tell me. If you are truly interested in the LOGIC of the New Testament, you would never have made such a foolish statement.
Just watch. The good Cardinal now Pope will moderate a bit as his job begins to set in. No, he won't flip to the dark side, but you will notice more tolerance from him. Just like any well oiled machine, there are the pit bulls and there are the pacifiers. And then there's the top of the heap that blends the two together. The new Pope will be that moderating and buffering force, allowing certain leeway to his pitbulls and pacifiers.
"Too many of the modern translations are a bit like Cheez-Whiz. It sort of looks like cheese and has a flavor somewhat reminiscent of cheese, but all the really good stuff has been processed out. Know what I mean?"
Which takes me back to one of the 39 Articles you mentioned, the part having to do with not conducting liturgies in strange languages. Historically, this was a swipe at Latin, of course.
Latin had a few things to recommend it:
(1) It was the language of the Roman Empire. When Peter came to Rome and established his see there, Latin was the language of the people. Now, perhaps he needed an interpreter to deal with those people (Paul probably did not), but the earliest prayers of the West, and liturgies, were composed in Latin and Greek.
You pointed out the danger of translations. Do it in the liturgical Latin, and you don't run into that.
The NT was composed (at least as far as we know) in Greek.
Everything we can read is but a translation. At least the Latin Vulgate Bible of the West had the virtue of being translated by a native speaker of ancient Greek and Latin. WE are never sure of the full meaning of ancient idiom, because we didn't live there. But Jerome DID, so when HE made translation choices into Latin, he actually gives us a guide as to the ancient meaning of the Greek which we would not otherwise have without the ability to juxtapose the ancient Latin translation to the ancient Greek.
(2) Perform services in Latin, and Catholics all over the world instantly recognize it and can fully participate. In the Catholic Church, to the extent a homily was given, it was always in the vernacular, because it was meant to be understood.
(3) The People were not at all ignorant of what was being said and done. They were catechized. They had little books that gave the translations. Catholics were never stumbling around in ignorance of the Mass.
Truthfully, the historical emphasis on the vernacular was an assertion of rising nationalistic pride, in language and culture. Such pride could not be asserted directly, as it is not very Christian. A "hook" was needed. That people "couldn't understand it" (which wasn't really true - ask any Catholic from the 1950s) was that hook.
The problem with the vernacular is that you end up with dueling translations ("Cheeze Whiz") as you put it, and the sense of mystery and universality is lost. Go sit in a Chinese mass today, and you are lost but for the gestures. Sit in one in 1959, and you were as active a participant as if you were in your home parish.
The original Protestant Churches, such as the English Church with its 39 Articles. Were national churches. They asserted their national languages. But a universal church needs a universal language.
Expect Pope Benedict to give a general indult for the Latin Mass. Expect a return to the Latin in many features of the Church. The experience of Catholicism is that the lapse into English was probably a mistake.
Hadn't seen that pic. Thanks Captain.
It is not.
The agreement is the result of The Official Oriental Orthodox-Roman Catholic Consultation in the United States. The Orthodox Church and the Episcopalian/Presbyterian/Anglican/Lutheran are very different.
The agreement is interesting but not applicable to my comment: Transubstantiation as opposed to Consubstantiation. That an agreement like this one exists is not a big surprise - the Eastern Schism was not about the nature of the Eucharist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.