Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [liturgy-l] Re: Summa

Expand Messages
  • Frank Senn
    Sean, I would note that the BCP 1979, including its Catechism, was authorized by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church.  It is used to teach the
    Message 1 of 303 , Jan 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Sean, I would note that the BCP 1979, including its Catechism, was authorized by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church.  It is used to teach the faith to baptized children and to older candidates for baptism.  Bishops question children on the Catechism when they make parish visitations.  Theologians appeal to it.  It may not be what is taught throughout the Anglican Communion, but it is at least what The Episcopal Church in the U.S.A. teaches.  That makes it an authoritative doctrinal statement.  Furthermore, when I was on the Lutheran-Episcopal Dialogue in the U.S., series II, we were told that the Prayer Book itself is the source of belief.  The lex orandi establishes the lex credendi.  Certainly the Prayer Books, which bear a family similarity to one another from one province to another, is a standard for Anglican Identity.

      Frank C. Senn

      --- On Wed, 12/31/08, Sean W. Reed <skreed1@...> wrote:
      From: Sean W. Reed <skreed1@...>
      Subject: [liturgy-l] Re: Summa
      To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 9:28 PM











      --- In liturgy-l@yahoogrou ps.com, "Lewis Whitaker" <lhwhitaker@ ...>

      wrote:

      >

      > You're still, of course, not answering my questions.

      >

      > What does the ANGLICAN Church, the Church that you belong to, have

      to

      > say on the subject? The BCP has a Catechism, but it doesn't mention

      > Purgatory. Why not?

      >

      > What makes an Anglican an Anglican?

      >

      > Lew

      >



      Lew -



      You seem to be approaching turning this to an ad hominem series of

      questions.



      I have never worried myself about what makes one an Anglican. I am

      sure there are many opinions. Particularly in the present day

      situation in the Anglican Communion. I am sorry I can't really help

      you with your question.



      The Oxford Movement has always been about proclaiming the Catholic

      faith in the Anglican Tradition. The Oxford Movement has always held

      the reformation went way too far.



      The BCP has a very brief Catechism, I don't know how they selected

      the few topics covered. The BCP Catechism has never been held to be

      an exclusive list of the sole beliefs of Anglicanism.



      Unless one counts the 39 Articles as a dogmatic theological statement

      biding upon the church in 2008 (soon to be 2009), which they are not,

      there is no statement by the church either for or against.



      Father Theodore Yardley wrote an excellent tract on purgatory back in

      the 1950s when he was rector of our parish. For many years it was

      published by Holy Cross Tracts, and currently sent out by the Guild

      of All Souls here in the US. If I can find an electronic copy I

      would be happy to send you a copy. The intermediate, purgatorial

      state is nothing new to Anglo-Catholic parishes.



      SWR


























      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Father Robert Lyons, SST
      ... If I reject it, it is because it is not supported by Scripture or the Fathers of the Church. ... has ... agree. ... I, for one, do not believe that the
      Message 303 of 303 , Jan 9, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com, "Sean W. Reed" <skreed1@...> wrote:
        >
        > I could certainly explain the teaching on this, but I suspect you
        > would reject it because you don't agree with it.
        >

        If I reject it, it is because it is not supported by Scripture or
        the Fathers of the Church.


        > St. Thomas Aquinas, a canonized saint and Doctor of the Church,
        has
        > done a masterful job, (as always)of treating this subject, as have
        > countless others. Walter Farrell in the mid 20th Century, in his
        > "Companion to Summa" http://stjamescatholic.org/farrell/ has also
        > treated this in great detail. Bishop James P. DeWolfe of the
        > Episcopal Church wrote a great deal about this also. They all
        agree.
        >
        > It all comes down do we believe what the church teaches or what we
        > prefer to think we modern folks have "restored" in the church.
        >

        I, for one, do not believe that the Church has any authority to
        alter the truth. She may alter her manner of worship (provided it
        doesn't go delve into what the Scriptures forbid) but she may never
        change her theology...

        If the Church has changed her theology on Confirmation/Chrismation,
        an assertion that is readily apparent when reviewing ancient ritual
        traditions and finding no evidence for confirmation/chrismation
        apart from baptism except among those who were recieving folks from
        heterodox traditions, one has to ask, where is the history to prove
        that a Middle Age or Modern theologian can do better than the
        Fathers of the Church?

        > All this seems to be moving pretty far from Liturgy.

        On the contrary, it remains at the heart of Liturgy. Do we do as
        has been modeled for us by the most ancient Fathers of our Church,
        or do we do as someone later suggests - someone who hails from an
        era when the Church in the West was most definately *not* breathing
        from both lungs of her tradition?

        I highly respect Augustine and Thomas Aquinas... but, at the same
        time, I stringently disagree with many of their assertions -
        including their views (together with the generally accepted Western
        view) on Original Sin, embracing instead the Eastern view on the
        matter. The theology I embrace, in turn, affects my liturgical
        practice.

        Looking back at nearly every historical baptismal liturgy we have,
        the deacons or deaconesses baptize an individual, then bring them
        out of the pool, clothe them, and take them directly to the bishop
        for Chrismation. There is no other confirmation rite... period.
        There is no historical evidence for what we would today call
        Confirmation until, what, the late 4th or early 5th century? How
        can we argue that Confirmation is one of the central Sacraments of
        the Church when Confirmation, in its origins, was simply the
        conclusion of the Baptismal Rite?

        To give a more apt example...

        When I was baptised at the age of 7 1/2 at my own request, after the
        pouring of water, I was anointed with Chrism and a prayer for the
        descent of the Spirit was offered over me. I was standing in a line
        with everyone else who had been baptized that night, the Easter
        Vigil, all adults except me. The same prayer was offered over all
        of us.

        They all recieved certificates for "Christian Initiation" detailing
        all three Sacraments - baptism, confirmation, and communion. I
        recieved a Certificate of Baptism. There was no difference in the
        rite or the prayer (and no, my memory isn't faulty... I have watched
        the video on several occassions and have heard the exact same prayer
        for the Spirit repeated over every person in the line). Yet, when I
        was a Sophomore in High School, I was told I needed to be
        confirmed. What did I need? What more could have been added? The
        Church Fathers seem to agree that nothing could be added. I was
        baptized and chrismated by a Priest with the faculty to confim.

        When can Confirmation rise to the Sacramental importance that has
        classically been linked to it? In my mind, it is only when baptism
        was performed by someone outside of Apostolic Succession - based on
        the Acts example of the Apostles confirming the baptisms in
        Samaria...

        Other than that example, I see no scriptural or historical evidence
        that attests to the need for a second Post-Baptismal Anointing.

        Rob+
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.