Who can administer the Eucharist?

I can understand where HighChurchman is coming from and I can understand why he is using highlighting what that position is. I would do the same thing unless the tradition obviously went against what our Lord Jesus taught us. Here in lies the problem and why there are so many Christian Denominations, we all don't interpret the Bible in the same way. Some read more into it then was ever meant, and some cherry pick to argue their specific stance on a particular aspect even to the extent that they will ignore other parts of the same passage that are contrary to the point they are trying to make.

The simple problem is that not enough Christians know how to read the Bible for all it is worth.

 

I understand and can agree with what you're saying.

 

That's an interesting position and a great quote Highchurchman! I see that is rule was promulgated in th 1537 and again in 1543, which means it was part of Henry's rule. Do you consider Henry's vision for Anglicanism to be in accord with the later Anglican visions pushed under Edward's, Elizabeth's, and/or Charles II's reigns? It would appear to me that judging from the 10 Articles and even more so, by the 6 articles, that there is a wide gulf between the church under Henry and those of later monarchs (And I say this as one who is really supportive of the Henry's 10 Articles in some respects) . The 39 articles rejects transubstantiation while Henry endorsed it. The same is true with the invocation of the saints, private masses, and (maybe) even purgatory. While this is certainly evidence that the Anglo-Catholics aren't just 19th Century Roman mutts but have had a presence in the C of E predating the more entrenched Reformed party that seems to make up the majority of this forum, how does a Henrican reconcile himself to the more protestant Church of England that is considered classical or orthodox Anglicanism? Of course, you may not be a Henrican, in which case, I apologize for mischaracterizing your point of view.

 

LOL I love it - actually there was a number of people on this forum with similar views to HighChurchman but the continual snipes from the lot you are talking about pretty much made them decide it was all too hard to continue to post here, myself included for quite some time.

I appreciate your posts and remember:

"illegitimi non carborundum"​

 

I enjoyed reading your post and thought there was real value and substance in it -- until the part about Mary. Nothing scriptural there, but plenty of superstition. I mean, hard for her to remain "ever virgin" unless Jesus's siblings were conceived miraculously like He was. Here is what I was talking about with regard to letting "tradition" set doctrine rather than the scriptures.

 

Thanks for your reply! It was appreciated! Christianity is a mystery, whether God is, or not, how he created the world is. Six days or several thousand years is beyond me and I should imagine most other normal people. Christ's conception and indeed so much about Him is beyond man's ken . God and Man? The picture that is drawn in the New Testament for the most part is unfathomable in many cases. I refer to his Resurrection and Ascension,His disappearances or the knowledge that He shows about people. I accept them without too much heartburn.
For me the same thing goes about Mary, The Mother of God. Bishop Andrews said of the question of her being Immaculate and Ever Virgin, referring to her parturition: "The light cometh through the Glass, yet the glass is not perished. No more did the God of Heaven , by His passage, violate any in any whit the virginity of His Mother" Sermons.pg,74. At school we had an old Christmass Carol,'Forth He came as light through glass." Jeremy Taylor ,Frank, Barrow as well as relatively modern theologians such as Darwell Stone and Dr, Farrar, all accept Mary as Ever Virgin. The idea was a product of the Seven Councils as well. . It isn't that the Anglican Catholics accepted stories such as the,'Immaculate Conception," it is that Mary was preserved Immaculate and Ever Virgin by God, because of her relationship to the child Jesus, Man made God.

"

 

As we study the Didache in other threads, it's interesting to read the simple and short instruction for the Eucharist. Regardless of it's original writing date, there is a huge schism between it's instruction and the later ritual liturgies (St. Basil & St. John Chrysostom).

Jeff+

 

That is why we should take notice of the findings of the Ecumenical Councils, (Seven,) today everyone is interpreting for themselves and we can see the results! It brings up the question, what is the Church for?

 

I think that you have something there Highchurchman, but then how do we inerpret the councils? The creeds are binding, but is that true of the epistles and canons? If so, then almost all historic western churches have broken at least one canon for hundreds of years. The nicean canon forbids kneeling on Sundays and during pentacost but the BCP instructs us to do so. What was the intent of the reformers with regard to submission to ecumenical councils and how far reaching was it? Was it simply with regard to statements of faith and Christology, or does it include as binding decisions about church polity and practice?

 

I understand what you're saying, but still the primacy of scripture is of the utmost importance.

There was a time in the early church, because of political machinations, when Arianism was in the ascendancy as the "orthodox" view while Trinitarianism was counted heresy, with its primary defender, Athanasius, banished and in exile on five occasions. Had things developed differently, the Church might be reciting an Arian creed.

That's why scripture must come before tradition, the fathers, councils, or creeds. Sure, you sometimes have the "messy" situation of different interpretations, but all those things I listed should be used as a corrective of interpretations and a confirmation of scriptural doctrine, not to establish doctrine. I like what Article VIII in the BCP says: "Of the Creeds.
The Nicene Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture."

 

I actually think you and Highchurchman are arguing the same point from different ends. Both of you agree that Holy Scripture is foremost and that, if I am inferring rightly, the creeds an councils are used to help one identify orthodox understandings of the faith contained in it. The members of the first council of Nice were emphatic that they were not adding to the received faith but were only cleansing it from all the strange doctrines that had crept in over the centuries of persecution and lack of clear authority. They also soughr to unify the church. In both, they used Holy Scripture as their primary source. Thus, no one here I think would argue that the councils added to the faith or gave the church new doctrine to follow, only delineated what interpretations were true and which were false.

 

We are talking about the theological(?) canons not the disciplinary ones.The first four are Christological, the next two explanatory and the last is about manners! Forget about the bits. The early bishops simply interpret the teachings of Christ! Christianity, Catholic Christianity, that is .
The Reformation in England lasted about 130 years, some Americans claim it didn't end till 1685, the so called ,'Glorious Revolution.' I agree with them.

 

I hear what you are saying Brother, but I do believe that there is still room in the Church and theology for continual study of scripture in the pursuit of the Word of God. I don't believe it was all done and dusted by the councils over the centuries. That said I don't believe we should be in a hurry to throw out those teachings either... gently gently catchy monkey.... if you know what I mean.

 

I don't believe there is anything wrong with liturgy evolving... I grew up in a high church of England and we followed the 1662 BCP and as a child I found the language strange and hard to understand, actually I still find some of the language a little off putting. Today in the Anglican Church of Australia we have the Prayer Book for Australia which was finalised in the mid 90's and I find it a beautiful liturgy for Holy Communion, Order of Morning and Evening Prayer, but I find the weekday liturgy for morning, evening, and compline a little light on, so I use the Society of St. Francis (SSO) Daily Office for weekday prayer.

 

@Gordon

Celtic1 pointed out in this thread that Sydney Anglicans practice lay administration. Whilst I've read bits and pieces about this in various places I haven't found out whether they've actually got to the stage where lay administration is taking place. If so, who can preside...Deacons, Readers, any one else?

 

That was news to me as well, but the Sydney Diocese are not necessarily in step with the rest of the communion in Australia. I will do a little research for you and let you know what I find.

 

Thanks Gordon. Whilst there seemed to be support for lay administration I wasn't sure whether it was actually taking place yet.

 

Nor do I. The current BCP just seems to have a logical and smooth flow to it (in my opinion), with the option of the Rite one formality and language, or the simplicity of Rite two. I do wonder how much influence the first council had on the formation of liturgical worship?

Jeff

 

Dug around over the weekend and I had a chat with my local Priest.

The Sydney Diocese did trial lay presidency way back in 1999 and they have voted in favour of it at their diocesan synod, but the chances of it ever happening again in Australia are slim unless the Sydney Diocese breaks away and become a province in their own right. The Sydney Diocese is very small compared to other Diocese in Australia so I don't believe they would try and go it alone.