High vs. Low
Kenneth Colclough
church" and "low church"? I am a new Episcopalian and attend, I think,
a "low" church. Any enlightenment would be helpful. Thanks.
Ken
Arnold Van Wie
Dear Ken,
I am a new Episcopalian also, but I have learned that high church is
very Catholic, very elaborate. The Eucharist is sung. Instead of saying
the Lord's prayer everyone sings it. The priest chants some of the
material instead of just saying it. Episcopal people jokingly refer to
it as "all the smells and bells". If I'm not mistaken, it can be
compared to High Mass (Tridentine Mass) in a Catholic Church.
Low church is austere by comparison and more Protestant in style. Middle
Church is somewhere in between.
Most churches around where I live are low church. I prefer high church
and drive out of my way to go to one.
I hope this helps ...
peace of the LORD,
Arnold
SON O GOD
>
>I was wondering if anyone can tell me the difference between "high
>church" and "low church"? I am a new Episcopalian and attend, I think,
>a "low" church. Any enlightenment would be helpful. Thanks.
>Ken
High and low church mostly designated styles of worship late in the last
century. The term is now an anachronism. In the 1890s at a high church like The
Church of the Advent on Boston's Beacon Hill, you got rich robes, music, smells
and bells and the liturgy in a tight, dingy but rich and beautiful church
interior, nothing else. At a low church like Trinity Church in nearby Copley
Square, which established by progressive social reformer Philip Brooks, you got
social purpose, no crucifer, no incense but a truly majestic open church
designed by H.H. Richardson to allow the most people to worship together in
splendor.
Today, there are only pale shades of these old differences from church to
church. The Church of the Advent still uses incense but makes appeals for the
poor. Today at Trinity Church you will not hear nearly as much concern about
progressive social reform as you might have under its founder, and you will see
a crucifer leading the procession. While there are differences in worship
styles among individual churches, they are not divided exactly along the same
lines that they were 100 years ago.
Today the division in the Episcopal Church in the US is mostly between the
inclusive mainstream church and a small minority of churches, mostly in the
South. Two decades ago many of these same rednecks tried unsuccesfully to
exclude women. These right-wing bishops now focus their energy on hating
homosexuals. They have shown themselves willing to do anything, including lying
about gay people and mainstream stewardship, organizing a failed witchhunt and
attempting corporate takeovers, to keep gay men and women from gaining equal
access to all the rites of the church.
john cummins
Kenneth Colclough wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone can tell me the difference between "high
> church" and "low church"? I am a new Episcopalian and attend, I think,
> a "low" church.
My understanding is that high church has to do with the view of the
Eucharist. The Catholic and most Episcopal churches are high church. The
viewpoint is that the priest somehow blesses the eucharist in such a way
that it turns into Christ himself.
The Reformed Episcopal Church OTOH, is low church. Our view is that the
communion/eucharist *is* the body of Christ. It doesn't magically become
his body as in the High Church view, and the priest doesn't cause some sort
of change, in fact the Reformed Episcopal church does not have priests per
se, but rather has bishops/rectors/ etc.
My understanding is that most Episcopal churches are, in fact, high church.
I could be wrong and will enquire more on this.
> Any enlightenment would be helpful. Thanks.
> Ken
--
Being Politically Correct means Always Having to Say You're Sorry.
( \
\ \
/ / |\\
/ / .-`````-. / ^`-.
\ \ / \_/ {|} `o
\ \ / .---. \\ _ ,--'
\ \/ / \, \( `^^^
\ \/\ (\ )
\ ) \ ) \ \
jgs ) /__ \__ ) (\ \___
(___)))__))(__))(__)))
. .
|_ ._. _ * _ |_ ._
[_)[ (_) * |(_)[ )[ )
._|
Stephen R. Denney
>
> Kenneth Colclough wrote:
>
> > I was wondering if anyone can tell me the difference between "high
> > church" and "low church"? I am a new Episcopalian and attend, I think,
> > a "low" church.
>
> My understanding is that high church has to do with the view of the
> Eucharist. The Catholic and most Episcopal churches are high church. The
> viewpoint is that the priest somehow blesses the eucharist in such a way
> that it turns into Christ himself.
>
> The Reformed Episcopal Church OTOH, is low church. Our view is that the
> communion/eucharist *is* the body of Christ. It doesn't magically become
> his body as in the High Church view, and the priest doesn't cause some sort
> of change, in fact the Reformed Episcopal church does not have priests per
> se, but rather has bishops/rectors/ etc.
>
> My understanding is that most Episcopal churches are, in fact, high church.
>
> I could be wrong and will enquire more on this.
>
> > Any enlightenment would be helpful. Thanks.
> > Ken
>
doctrine of transubstantiation, I believe, which is one of the major
dividing issues between the Anglican communion and the Roman Catholic
church. High church and low church has more to do with style of worship
and perhaps orientation toward the Roman Catholic end of the spectrum
vs. the Protestant end of the spectrum within the Anglican context.
- Steve Denney
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~sdenney
"It is easier to admire a revolution when one does not know its
victims." - Jean Lacouture
John Edwards
> You are referring to the
>doctrine of transubstantiation, I believe, which is one of the major
>dividing issues between the Anglican communion and the Roman Catholic
>church. High church and low church has more to do with style of worship
>and perhaps orientation toward the Roman Catholic end of the spectrum
>vs. the Protestant end of the spectrum within the Anglican context.
>
> - Steve Denney
>http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~sdenney
>
>"It is easier to admire a revolution when one does not know its
>victims." - Jean Lacouture
"High" and "Low" churchmanship (though the terms are in many ways both out
of date and out of favor today) refer to much more than styles of worship.
Ecclesiology, soteriology, and--yes--Eucharistic theology are areas just as
important, though less visible than worship styles, in the divergence
between High and Low Church orientations in historic Anglicanism.
It should be noted that almost no Anglican thought on the Eucharist, either
in the present or historically, could be considered strictly Zwinglian
("just a memorial"). That is to say, the overwhelming majority of Anglicans
probably believe in some version of "real presence." Transubstantiation as
such was condemned in the 39 Articles, but was revisited by Newman and
others in the Oxford Movement.
However, there has been tremendous doctrinal convergence in this area over
the last fifty years, the clearest testament to which is the (not
uncontroversial) ARCIC statement on the Eucharist, in which Anglican and
Roman Catholic theologians declared the teaching of our two communions on
the Eucharist to be essentially the same.
---
John Edwards
jedw...@iag.net
Charley & Melissa Wingate
"anglo-catholicism", a problem which has not been helped by the general
collapse of ritual in the american Catholic Church.
Low is easy: the more your parish's worship resembles that of the
Methodist or Presbyterian church down the road, the lower you are. At
the low end there is more emphasis on preaching and a decided
de-emphasis on ritual; you are more likely to see the Eucharist on 1st
and 3rd Sundays, or even only once a month. At the high end preaching
tends to take a bit of a back seat, and the Eucharist and its
surrounding ritual become the center.
There is no particular theological correlation in all this, not these
days. Some of the most liberal places in the church are the highest, as
well as some of the more conservative. Anglo-catholics do tend to be
extremely conservative theologically, but unless your parish owns and
uses a monstrance, it's unlikely to be anglo- catholic. (Statues with
votive lights are another anglo-catholic sign.)
The general trend, at least in my experience, has been a general
convergence toward more Eucharist and more ritual. In this area
(Maryland) it's rare to find a parish that doesn't have Eucharist at
every Sunday service, although I can remember not so long ago when, in
Wilmington DE, I had to go to the cathedral to find a eucharist on
Thanksgiving weekend. The kind of high and dry formality that one tends
to think of of as the height of high church is pretty rare around here--
try the National Cathedral. On the other hand, Baltimore has a whole
cluster of anglo-catholic churches which smell of insense all the time
and where one might well find a statue of Charles I-- with votive
candles.
Pay little attention to the screed about the supposed
arch-conservatives. In reality most people either don't know or don't
care about these issues, or have a slight inclination toward the
conservatives when pushed. Mostly what they wish is that everyone would
quit shouting. The actual numbers of liberal pushers and conservative
resisters is pretty small.
C. Wingate
Kenneth Colclough
parish must fall somewhere in between high and low. I usually attend the
early service where rite I is used and the central focus is the eucharist
along with a short sermon. My rector here is also a female which at times
doesn't seem to jive with a lot of people here in E TN, but I rather enjoy
the contoversy! My brother in law is the head Deacon of his Baptist church
and it's pretty funny to see him hold his tongue around me! Thanks again!
Peace to you,
Ken
D. Stephen Heersink
>I was wondering if anyone can tell me the difference between "high
>church" and "low church"? I am a new Episcopalian and attend, I think,
>a "low" church. Any enlightenment would be helpful. Thanks.
>Ken
These terms, with the additional term of "broad," used to define the
differences within the Anglican Communion along protestant-leaning
(low), catholic-leaning (high), and theistic-leaning (broad)
orientations. While some people no longer like to use they
appellations, I think they remain largely relevant.
The most vocal and majoritarian thread of Episcopalians in this
country is the broad orientation. This group tends to downplay the
Trinity and emphasis theistic concepts of God. It's highly
non-doctrinal and could easily be mistaken for a Unitarian
Universalist church. Grace Cathedral, the Cathedral of Saint John the
Divine, the National Cathedral, and many parishes in the urban and New
Jersey area are examples of the broad approach.
The low church tends towards Calvinism and Reformed thinking. This
wing of the Church is often evangelical, but very doctrinal. The high
church tends towards the perennial values of historic catholicism,
before it became distorted by the Church of Rome. It too is doctrinal,
but more of early-Church doctrine.
Obviously, these lines blur. Some churches have catholic-looking
liturgy, but are broad in their theology. Some have protestant-looking
preaching, but still retain the Benedictine inheritance. But the
dominant wing, the broad church, is really over-dressed, pretentious
Anglophile Unitarians. They believe both everything and nothing,
worshipping more and more in high dress and ritual, but with little
spiritual significance behind it.
______________________
Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
dsh...@worldnet.att.net
The Ecumenical Communion
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/ECUMENICAL-COMMUNION
"In things necessary, unity;
in things doubtful, liberty;
in all things, charity."
--Saint Augugustine of Hippo
Beercourt
the need to mount that soapbox about the homophobes down south?
JOH...@webtv.net
people are familar with. The High is usualy though of as
AngloCatholic they often have the word Anglican in the churchs name.
Now days they look more like a Catholic Church than many Catholic
churchs.
The broad is a more protestant looking in appearance and worship.
The low is very protestant and almst Unitarian
it uses all types of church building styles but is very
nondemoninational in liturgy.
BAugus54
>>I was wondering if anyone can tell me the difference between "high
>>church" and "low church"? I am a new Episcopalian and attend, I think,
>>a "low" church. Any enlightenment would be helpful. Thanks.
>>Ken
Then D. Stephen Heersink <dsh...@worldnet.att.net> offered this balanced,
thoughtful and generously Christian assessment:
>These terms, with the additional term of "broad," used to define the
>differences within the Anglican Communion along protestant-leaning
>(low), catholic-leaning (high), and theistic-leaning (broad)
>orientations. While some people no longer like to use they
>appellations, I think they remain largely relevant.
>The most vocal and majoritarian thread of Episcopalians in this
>country is the broad orientation. This group tends to downplay the
>Trinity and emphasis theistic concepts of God. It's highly
>non-doctrinal and could easily be mistaken for a Unitarian
>Universalist church. Grace Cathedral, the Cathedral of Saint John the
>Divine, the National Cathedral, and many parishes in the urban and New
>Jersey area are examples of the broad approach.
What utter crap.
>The low church tends towards Calvinism and Reformed thinking. This
>wing of the Church is often evangelical, but very doctrinal. The high
>church tends towards the perennial values of historic catholicism,
>before it became distorted by the Church of Rome. It too is doctrinal,
>but more of early-Church doctrine.
Not your cuppa either, eh, Stephen?
>Obviously, these lines blur. Some churches have catholic-looking
>liturgy, but are broad in their theology. Some have protestant-looking
>preaching, but still retain the Benedictine inheritance. But the
>dominant wing, the broad church, is really over-dressed, pretentious
>Anglophile Unitarians. They believe both everything and nothing,
>worshipping more and more in high dress and ritual, but with little
>spiritual significance behind it.
How convenient to see EVERYTHING in such neat, forever unbreakable, boxes.
As a broad church Episcopalian living within 60 miles of the dreaded Christless
urban sinkhole that is New York, I'd have to say that I have NEVER encountered
this brand of broad church that Stephen condemns so vehemently. We teach and
believe the Trinity in my church, and this is generally true in most churches
I've been to in my area. Including the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in
Manhattan, BTW.
Living in San Francisco as Stephen apparently does, he might be in a good
position to speak more accurately about Grace Cathedral, though. I have heard
Alan Jones (who is, or was, Dean of Grace, I believe) speak, and read a few of
his books, and he seemed Liberal, but Trinitarian to me. But from a distance
of 3,000 miles, I hesitate to make a sweeping generalized pronouncement about
Grace cathedral. Most reasonable people, I'm sure, would also avoid being
definitive about other people-- especially from such a huge remove.
Is it that broad churches aren't Roman Catholic enough? Is it that no one does
the Eucharist in Latin anymore? Is it that broad churches tend to be more
welcoming of gays, liberals and women? Is it just not eighth century enough?
Why the virulent condemnation?
Just wondering.
Brian Augustyn <BAug...@aol.com>
Grant M. S. Alvis
> Kenneth Colclough <val...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>
> >I was wondering if anyone can tell me the difference between "high
> >church" and "low church"? I am a new Episcopalian and attend, I think,
> >a "low" church. Any enlightenment would be helpful. Thanks.
> >Ken
>
> These terms, with the additional term of "broad," used to define the
> differences within the Anglican Communion along protestant-leaning
> (low), catholic-leaning (high), and theistic-leaning (broad)
> orientations. While some people no longer like to use they
> appellations, I think they remain largely relevant.
>
> The most vocal and majoritarian thread of Episcopalians in this
> country is the broad orientation. This group tends to downplay the
> Trinity and emphasis theistic concepts of God. It's highly
> non-doctrinal and could easily be mistaken for a Unitarian
> Universalist church. Grace Cathedral, the Cathedral of Saint John the
> Divine, the National Cathedral, and many parishes in the urban and New
> Jersey area are examples of the broad approach.
>
> The low church tends towards Calvinism and Reformed thinking. This
> wing of the Church is often evangelical, but very doctrinal. The high
> church tends towards the perennial values of historic catholicism,
> before it became distorted by the Church of Rome. It too is doctrinal,
> but more of early-Church doctrine.
>
> Obviously, these lines blur. Some churches have catholic-looking
> liturgy, but are broad in their theology. Some have protestant-looking
> preaching, but still retain the Benedictine inheritance. But the
> dominant wing, the broad church, is really over-dressed, pretentious
> Anglophile Unitarians. They believe both everything and nothing,
> worshipping more and more in high dress and ritual, but with little
> spiritual significance behind it.
>
> ______________________
> Stephen Heersink
> San Francisco
> dsh...@worldnet.att.net
>
> The Ecumenical Communion
> http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/ECUMENICAL-COMMUNION
>
> "In things necessary, unity;
> in things doubtful, liberty;
> in all things, charity."
>
> --Saint Augugustine of Hippo
I am a former high church Episcopalian who is now a Catholic. I have a
question about your statement "The high church tends towards the perennial
values of historic catholicism, before it became distorted by the Church of
Rome." First of all, what is historic catholicism separate from what you
call the Church of Rome? I do not follow your thinking. I also wonder what
you thought was distorted, and thus rejected by high church members? From
my experience of high church Anglicans, myself included, I found them in
almost total agreement with catholics. Those I knew held to ideas which
would be very comfortable in any Catholic Church. They believed in a very
real presence in the Eucharist. Many prayed the Rosary. True, they didn't
discuss the Pope much, but if asked about him, most accepted his teaching
ministry on some level, though I rarely knew them to use the word infallible
in any discussion. All I knew accepted seven sacraments. They all accepted
a very catholic view of holy orders.
I have always had a problem with discussions about traditions which are
legitimate and those which are distorted. Some love to speak of one
tradition as being ancient, and then another as being invalid because they
say it isn't old enough. Yet this rarely seems to be to support a real
attempt to find what is apostolic or ancient, to separate tradition from
Tradition, but rather to weed out what that person does not like. I will
give you an example. I knew a priest who loved to tell me that the priestly
vestments, i.e. chasubles, were not constant Church tradition, and so not to
be followed. Sounds good, and correct as far as it goes, except that his
church observed the forty day Lent, and all of the modern church calendar.
He also refused to use any precious metal in the celebration of the Mass
during Lent. Yet none of these traditions are any older than that of
vestments. Lent was three days long for many years. The early Church
probably had nothing comparable to Lent at all. But, many love to talk of
which traditions are not really necessary because they are not old enough,
but then keep even newer ones because they like them. It seems to me that
it is just a way to pick and choose what we like and give what sounds like a
good reason to do so.
God bless,
Grant
D. Stephen Heersink
>I am a former high church Episcopalian who is now a Catholic. I have a
>question about your statement "The high church tends towards the perennial
>values of historic catholicism, before it became distorted by the Church of
>Rome."
I understand the rest of his post to substantiate the belief that the
Roman subsists in catholic, and therefore, is inseparable. If this is
his understanding, we agree. But so too would we have to agree with
other communions that subsist in catholic, namely Old Catholics,
Anglicans, and Eastern Orthodox. Our faith is not in the "Roman" or
"Anglican" or "Orthodox" catholic Church, but the one, holy, catholic
and apostolic Church. Rome is by no means the only communion that
possesses the four hallmarks of catholicism. Some of us align
ourselves with different communions, largely for socio-political and
cultural values associated with the communion of choice. But as of
this moment, the "catholic moment" includes Eastern Orthodoxy,
Anglican-Catholicism, Old Catholicism, and Roman Catholicism.
As to Rome's distortion of core values, I am referring to three basic
areas of considerable contention: (1) The supremacy, vs. the primacy,
of the See of Peter, (2) the Petrine Office as possessor of
"infallibility," and (3) the use of 2 to proclaim the immaculate
conception of Mary. All three "doctrines" err in that they do not meet
the test of authenticity and catholicity, namely that a doctrine be
promulgated by the Sacred College of Apostles (i.e., episcopal
collegiality), the consensus of the faithful, the venerable tradition,
and sacred scripture. (1) -- (3) are wholly inconsistent with those
time-tested measures to test authenticity. That they are exclusively
Romish further supports their lack of catholicity, since they are the
domain of Rome, not of the universal Church. Even Rome acknowledges
others possess the catholic faith.
______________________
Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
dsh...@worldnet.att.net
The Ecumenical Communion
http://home.att.net/~dshsfca/
Sergei592
Anglophile Unitarians. They believe both everything and nothing, worshipping
more and more in high dress and ritual, but with little spiritual significance
behind it.
One of the best 'nutshell' descriptions I've read of what has become the mode
in ECUSA.
+++++++
+ Presvjataja Bohorodice, spasi nas + Most holy Mother of God, save us +
Pray without ceasing; it's later than you think
- Fr Seraphim Rose
'Are you Orthodox or Catholic?' Yes!
Bruce K. Darling
"Grant M. S. Alvis" <gmsa...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>From my experience of high church Anglicans, myself included, I found
them in almost total agreement with catholics. Those I knew held to
ideas which would be very comfortable in any Catholic Church.
Just curious - why did you abandon Anglicanism for Roman Catholicism?
I went the opposite direction ... spurred largely by an ugly divorce
and an unforgiving church. And I disagree about there being "almost
total agreement with catholics." While there are a great many points
at which our perspectives overlap, there are enough differences to
suggest that Anglicans and Roman Catholics may never reach unity,
especially if unity requires acceptance of papal authority. If there
were almost total unity, then it seems that Anglo-Catholics would have
more to gain by converting to Roman Catholicism or vice versa.
>They believed in a very real presence in the Eucharist.
The issue of transubstantiation among Anglo-Catholics is still
unresolved. I think it is safe to say that all (well - the vast
majority) of us agree that Christ is present in the eucharist, but no
one knows in what form. The suggestion that the host is somehow
transformed into the body and blood of Christ is difficult to swallow,
even for many Anglo-Catholics. I've known a few Roman Catholics who
are not sure, either.
>Many prayed the Rosary.
But I'm not sure that many who do pray the rosary interpret the prayers
literally. I've dropped all reference to Mary, in favor of other
meditations, such as the trisagion ("Holy God, Holy and Mighty, Holy
Immortal One, Have Mercy Upon Us."). Opening and closing prayers are
also different - taken from the BCP. There are, as you know, many
variations of the rosary.
>True, they didn't discuss the Pope much, but if asked about him, most
>accepted his teaching ministry on some level, though I rarely knew
>them to use the word infallible in any discussion.
I think it is safe to say that a great many Anglo-Catholics regard the
Pope as someone who commands a genuine aura of moral authority. So do
Billy Graham and the Dalai Lama. I'm not sure that His Holiness (and I
use the title with great respect) can be considered infallible.
>All I knew accepted seven sacraments. They all accepted a very
>catholic view of holy orders.
This is characteristic of the Anglican Catholic Church, but not
necessarily among Anglo-Catholics of the ECUSA. I am still
unconvinced, for example, that marriage and ordination - among others -
can be demonstrated via Scripture to be sacraments.
Regards
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Grant M. S. Alvis
more detail below. Please understand that I will approach your statements from
a position of a member of the Catholic Church, and will thus speak of matters as
I understand them to be taught by that church.
"D. Stephen Heersink" wrote:
> "Grant M. S. Alvis" <gmsa...@prodigy.net> writes:
>
> >I am a former high church Episcopalian who is now a Catholic. I have a
> >question about your statement "The high church tends towards the perennial
> >values of historic catholicism, before it became distorted by the Church of
> >Rome."
>
> I understand the rest of his post to substantiate the belief that the
> Roman subsists in catholic, and therefore, is inseparable. If this is
> his understanding, we agree.
Actually, the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. Unfortunately,
you begin with a strong attachment to Rome. I would mention that there are 21+
rites within the Catholic Church, of which only 4 or 5 are Roman. The most
prominent being the Latin Rite of course. So, those who use the term Roman
Catholic are speaking in way not truly reflected in the Church itself. We are
actually just Catholics, not Roman Catholics.
> But so too would we have to agree with
> other communions that subsist in catholic, namely Old Catholics,
> Anglicans, and Eastern Orthodox. Our faith is not in the "Roman" or
> "Anglican" or "Orthodox" catholic Church, but the one, holy, catholic
> and apostolic Church.
I am afraid that we would not agree here. The Catholic faith requires somewhat
more than what has been demonstrated by these communions. The Anglican Churches
have denied far too much to claim to hold the Catholic faith, unless the term
catholic is defined as such that the Orthodox and Catholic Churches must be
excluded.
I did speak of great nearness between the faiths of my church and those who
commonly call themselves Anglo-Catholic. But, by this I do not speak of the
Anglican Communion as a whole, or even high church members as a whole, but only
of those I knew. The existence of the Anglican-use liturgy in the Catholic
Church is a witness to the view of the Catholic Church on the matter. When
several Anglican churches returned to the Catholic Church, they retained much of
their methods. But, many significant changes were made. They could not be
Catholics and retain their liturgies, catechisms or theologies intact.
> Rome is by no means the only communion that
> possesses the four hallmarks of catholicism.
This is complicated by the use of the word Rome. I do not know of any other
communions which could claim to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic. Though,
the Orthodox are so close as to be somewhat confusing. But, of course, I am a
Catholic, and as such can not very well accept that the Anglican communion
contains the full faith. If I did, I would have remained Anglican.
> Some of us align
> ourselves with different communions, largely for socio-political and
> cultural values associated with the communion of choice.
This is fine, among the local churches, and the many rites available, if one
would maintain catholicity.
> But as of
> this moment, the "catholic moment" includes Eastern Orthodoxy,
> Anglican-Catholicism, Old Catholicism, and Roman Catholicism.
I am afraid, that again I would not agree. It is hinged upon a somewhat false
acceptance of "Roman Catholicism".
> As to Rome's distortion of core values, I am referring to three basic
> areas of considerable contention: (1) The supremacy, vs. the primacy,
> of the See of Peter, (2) the Petrine Office as possessor of
> "infallibility," and (3) the use of 2 to proclaim the immaculate
> conception of Mary. All three "doctrines" err in that they do not meet
> the test of authenticity and catholicity, namely that a doctrine be
> promulgated by the Sacred College of Apostles (i.e., episcopal
> collegiality), the consensus of the faithful, the venerable tradition,
> and sacred scripture. (1) -- (3) are wholly inconsistent with those
> time-tested measures to test authenticity. That they are exclusively
> Romish further supports their lack of catholicity, since they are the
> domain of Rome, not of the universal Church. Even Rome acknowledges
> others possess the catholic faith.
Of course, it goes without saying, that I would accept that the role of the
Petrine ministry, and the charism of infallibility have been ruled on by the
entire episcopate. As the councils which have historically declared these
things had the authority to do so. This renders no. 3 with the same authority.
However, I understand your disagreement. As to the consensus of the faithful,
tradition and scripture I certainly find no problems with the dogmas you have
mentioned. However, this does help me to understand the intent of your original
statements, and I do appreciate that you took the time to clarify.
On your statement "Even Rome acknowledges others possess the catholic faith."
I'm afraid that I would need some clarification of what you mean. If you mean
that the Catholic Church, which I assume is the meaning of the word Rome, has
declared that other communions are also the Catholic Church, I would have to say
that I do not know of any such admission. The Orthodox Churches are as close as
they come, but I do not know of such words being said about them in any official
manner. They do hold the faith, in it's basic entirety, but are in schism and
deny the primacy of Peter. Their sacraments are valid, and, unlike the
Anglican-use parishes, I do not know of any changes in any doctrine, outside of
acceptance of the Papacy, between them and the Eastern Catholic Churches. If
the Catholic Church has taught this, I would appreciate it if you would share
this with me, so I can read it and come to an understanding of the teaching.
Your statement "That they are exclusively Romish further supports their lack of
catholicity, since they are the domain of Rome, not of the universal Church." is
a little confusing to me. I assume that you mean that they are the product of
Roman influence, rather than doctrines which are arrived at by the bishops of
the world. Once again, though, the councils which promulgated infallibility
were ecumenical. And the role of the Bishop of Rome is an historical and
constant factor of the Catholic Church. A last word on this sentence would be
of the word 'romish'. I assume that you have used this without any intention of
attaching to it it's historic meaning. I do hope you have understood the truly
sincere intentions of my earlier post, and did not think that I was trying to be
in any way provocative. I only meant to ask you of the meaning of a few of your
words. However, 'romish' is an historic epithet against Catholics and their
church, and has always been used in a manner of insult. I trust, however, by
the tone of your post, that this was not your intention.
Again, thank you for your reply. If you have any thoughts about what I have
said here, please let me know. Until then,
God bless,
Grant
>
>
> ______________________
> Stephen Heersink
> San Francisco
> dsh...@worldnet.att.net
>
> The Ecumenical Communion
> http://home.att.net/~dshsfca/
Grant M. S. Alvis
> Just curious - why did you abandon Anglicanism for Roman Catholicism?
> I went the opposite direction ... spurred largely by an ugly divorce
> and an unforgiving church. And I disagree about there being "almost
> total agreement with catholics." While there are a great many points
> at which our perspectives overlap, there are enough differences to
> suggest that Anglicans and Roman Catholics may never reach unity,
> especially if unity requires acceptance of papal authority. If there
> were almost total unity, then it seems that Anglo-Catholics would have
> more to gain by converting to Roman Catholicism or vice versa.
I wouldn't use the word 'abandon' for my move. My reason for joining the
Catholic Church was due to my very strong high church association. I began
to feel a little strange constantly following the methods of Catholicism,
and going to the Catholic Church for guidance via the Catechism, and so
on. I felt a little like a Catholic impersonator. So, I began to look at
why I believed the things that I did. Why did I have the feelings I did
about the role of the bishops, or the Eucharist, etc. The only answer I
could find was the historic teachings of the Church. And the Catholic
Church still maintained this teaching, and had the best claim to be the
historic church. Of course, it goes further, but in this short medium...
As for disagreement between the high church Anglicans and Catholics, I can
only say that I have to speak for myself and my experiences. I am sure
that many would feel differently. But, I was never aware of too much of a
problem with the papacy on the whole. Many people I knew felt a longing
for the security of the Pope which would help to protect them from the
encroachment of modernism.
> >They believed in a very real presence in the Eucharist.
>
> The issue of transubstantiation among Anglo-Catholics is still
> unresolved. I think it is safe to say that all (well - the vast
> majority) of us agree that Christ is present in the eucharist, but no
> one knows in what form. The suggestion that the host is somehow
> transformed into the body and blood of Christ is difficult to swallow,
> even for many Anglo-Catholics. I've known a few Roman Catholics who
> are not sure, either.
The word transubstantiation is much confused for a physical change and
misunderstood by almost all in some way. I avoided it because I felt that
while it is a very specific and accurate way of defining the presence of
Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, an acceptance of the real presence was more
important than the term used to describe it as regards my points in the
previous post. I have found little attachment to the language of the
Eucharistic presence among believers in general, but more focus on the
devotion to the Sacrament and it's role. I do not think that such
terminology is really an issue with Anglicans of any type. Some may take
an interest, but most just believe in Jesus' presence, some real and some
otherwise. Notice also, that genuflexion, which is an act of adoration
towards the Blessed Sacrament contained in the tabernacle, is common among
the high church, but rare among the other groups. This is an indication of
the acceptance of Jesus present in the Blessed Sacrament after the
celebration of the Mass is over, rather than the common Lutheran and
protestant view that the presence ceases with the celebration.
And, by the way, very funny. Difficult to swallow! I assume that was
intentional.
> But I'm not sure that many who do pray the rosary interpret the prayers
> literally. I've dropped all reference to Mary, in favor of other
> meditations, such as the trisagion ("Holy God, Holy and Mighty, Holy
> Immortal One, Have Mercy Upon Us."). Opening and closing prayers are
> also different - taken from the BCP. There are, as you know, many
> variations of the rosary.
Of course it is common to use other prayers on the rosary beads. Many do
this in the Catholic Church. However, there is only one devotion called
the Rosary. This is the Holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It is
comprised of fifteen decades of the Hail Mary, corresponding to fifteen
mysteries, one per decade, which are meditated upon while saying the
prayers, and one Our Father between each decade. A few other prayers are
used of course, i.e. Apostles Creed, Gloria Patri, Hail Holy Queen, Fatima
Prayer, etc., but these are the main ones. I knew this devotion as an
Episcopalian, though not the Fatima prayer, and knew others who used it as
well. I will admit, though, that it was not an exceptionally common
practice, but it seemed the very 'catholic' often said it.
> I think it is safe to say that a great many Anglo-Catholics regard the
> Pope as someone who commands a genuine aura of moral authority. So do
> Billy Graham and the Dalai Lama. I'm not sure that His Holiness (and I
> use the title with great respect) can be considered infallible.
Those who commonly referred to themselves as high church that I knew would
put the Dalai Lama, and even Billy Graham, in a very different class from
the Holy Father. That is not to say that they held him in the regard that
we catholics do, but they did seem to have a respect for his status as a
very senior bishop. I can remember knowing many which thought far more of
the teaching authority of the Bishop of Rome than that of the Archbishop of
Canterbury. But, I agree that infallibility, which is a greatly
misunderstood charism, is not an easy one for any Anglican to accept. I do
think, though, that most do not consider it much, and some probably would
take no real position on it.
> >All I knew accepted seven sacraments. They all accepted a very
> >catholic view of holy orders.
>
> This is characteristic of the Anglican Catholic Church, but not
> necessarily among Anglo-Catholics of the ECUSA. I am still
> unconvinced, for example, that marriage and ordination - among others -
> can be demonstrated via Scripture to be sacraments.
I would have to say that your experience in this regard has been very
different from mine. The position held on the sacraments was always a way
to separate the high from the low. There seemed always to be all seven for
those of the high church, and only two for those of the low. My wife even
enjoyed the use of confession. And, I have found the matter of holy
orders, and apostolic succession, to be an even more significant divider.
No one I knew who was high church ever doubted the validity of orders, or
their necessity. They were incensed at the idea of joining with the
Lutherans, for fear of a weakening or loss of the episcopacy. They could
truly be called Episcopalian. It was they who were troubled by the papal
bull of Leo XIII of 1896 "Apostolicae Curae" which declared Anglican
orders ""absolutely null and utterly void." They resented such being said
against their Apostolic succession. This never seemed to be because of a
resentment over the Catholic Church denying something about their church,
but instead to be a real defensiveness about the validity of their orders.
Once again, though, while this has been my experience in the church, and I
feel that it was fairly representative, I can not say that others have had
similar experiences. I am sure that the term high church may have slightly
different connotations in different places.
God bless,
Grant
Robert Pindell
"Grant M. S. Alvis" wrote:.
[]
>
>
> > >They believed in a very real presence in the Eucharist.
> >
> > The issue of transubstantiation among Anglo-Catholics is still
> > unresolved. I think it is safe to say that all (well - the vast
> > majority) of us agree that Christ is present in the eucharist, but no
> > one knows in what form. The suggestion that the host is somehow
> > transformed into the body and blood of Christ is difficult to swallow,
> > even for many Anglo-Catholics. I've known a few Roman Catholics who
> > are not sure, either.
>
> The word transubstantiation is much confused for a physical change and
> misunderstood by almost all in some way. I avoided it because I felt that
> while it is a very specific and accurate way of defining the presence of
> Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, an acceptance of the real presence was more
> important than the term used to describe it as regards my points in the
> previous post. I have found little attachment to the language of the
> Eucharistic presence among believers in general, but more focus on the
> devotion to the Sacrament and it's role. I do not think that such
> terminology is really an issue with Anglicans of any type. Some may take
> an interest, but most just believe in Jesus' presence, some real and some
> otherwise. Notice also, that genuflexion, which is an act of adoration
> towards the Blessed Sacrament contained in the tabernacle, is common among
> the high church, but rare among the other groups. This is an indication of
> the acceptance of Jesus present in the Blessed Sacrament after the
> celebration of the Mass is over, rather than the common Lutheran and
> protestant view that the presence ceases with the celebration.
The remark above may be valid concerning "Protestants" it does not accurately
reflect good Lutheran usage.
Any consecrated elements remaining after the celebration of the Eucharist may
be taken to the home bound where they are communed using the order for the
"Distribution of Communion to Those in Special Circumstances" (pages 76-81)
Occasional Services, a Companion to Lutheran Book of Worship, Augsburg
Publishing House, Minneapolis, 1982. Or the remaining elements are reverently
consumed, or the remaining consecrated hosts are reverently retained and safe
guarded for a later celebration and the remaining consecrated wine is
reverently poured out on the ground along with the water used to clean the
vessels. When pre-consecrated hosts are available for use, the pastor will not
consecrate them again (there is a story about Martin Luther having a hand in
putting a pastor in jail for re-consecrating hosts).
[]
>
>
>
> God bless,
>
> Grant
bokononist
<gmsa...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> "Bruce K. Darling" wrote:
>
> I have found the matter of holy orders, and apostolic succession, to be an even more significant divider.
> No one I knew who was high church ever doubted the validity of orders, or
> their necessity. They were incensed at the idea of joining with the
> Lutherans, for fear of a weakening or loss of the episcopacy. They could
> truly be called Episcopalian. It was they who were troubled by the papal
> bull of Leo XIII of 1896 "Apostolicae Curae" which declared Anglican
> orders ""absolutely null and utterly void."
In my opinion, this is nothing more than aother example of the Roman
Catholic Church's strategy of definin matters in terms that best serve
the Church's objectives. Most Anglicans I know give no credence to
the Papal Bull in question.
Boko-Maru
--
Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).