While the C of E of course has failings ... I think it would be a great shame if it were ... only there for its members, as with most other denominations.
I think that's a bit unfair, TBH. I of course accept that the CofE at its best sees itself as being "for the community", though that at times may possibly diminish its Christian distinctiveness and call to discipleship. I also accept that there are many churches, even Anglican ones, that behave more like private members' clubs.
But there are many non-CofE churches which do a great deal of community work and definitely want to serve those living in their neighbourhood.
I'm so glad that there is no 'established' church in Scotland. There is a 'national' church which claims to serve all the people of Scotland. There are many other religious groups both Christian and other religions which would also claim to serve all those wherever they are who identify with that community and /or who come to them in some need.
I agree @Baptist Trainfan. It is supposed to be baked in for the CofE that the minister is priest for the parish, not merely chaplain for the congregation, but clergy and/or congregations are not always good at remembering or doing it (witness some of Exclamation Mark’s posts, for example), and non-Anglican churches can be very good at it.
I agree @Baptist Trainfan. It is supposed to be baked in for the CofE that the minister is priest for the parish, not merely chaplain for the congregation, but clergy and/or congregations are not always good at remembering or doing it (witness some of Exclamation Mark’s posts, for example), and non-Anglican churches can be very good at it.
It does rather grate when there is a town wide initiative and the powers that be look to the CofE who are doing nowt, zilch, stuff all and ignore the other churches who are sweating blood on the ground.
It's worse still when you have someone from the hierarchy Archdeacon and above who becomes the go to Christian voice even when their churches simply dont engage
I guess it depends what you mean by "exclude". Are Muslims excluded on the grounds that the CofE won't conduct an Islamic service for them? Are atheists excluded on the grounds that the CofE insists on having religious content in its services?
My understanding is that the premise is that the Church of England is established as a service to provide a church to any English subject who wants a church, much in the way that the state provides postal service or registers the ownership of property. By its nature it "excludes" people who don't want a church (or prefer a different kind of church) in the same way the mail service "excludes" the illiterate and property registration "excludes" those who own no real property.
Of course the question of whether providing a church is any job for the state is a different question entirely, though there may be some overlap with the question of exclusion.
My understanding is that the premise is that the Church of England is established as a service to provide a church to any English subject who wants a church, much in the way that the state provides postal service or registers the ownership of property. By its nature it "excludes" people who don't want a church (or prefer a different kind of church) in the same way the mail service "excludes" the illiterate and property registration "excludes" those who own no real property.
Of course the question of whether providing a church is any job for the state is a different question entirely, though there may be some overlap with the question of exclusion.
Although I can see where you're coming from, your understanding derives from two assumptions that mean that your understanding is, to put it as politely as I can, completely mistaken. First, you're assuming that the whole world has, always has had and always should have had the same assumptions as you do, and second, you're looking at the world through the spectacles of your own time and place without appreciating that not only is the past is a foreign country where they do things differently, but so are other peoples' presents.
Apart from your own country and revolutionary France, almost all states until very recently, have assumed that they have some sort of recognised or established religion. Many still do. England is by no means the only example. Nor are all the existing examples Christian. Many are not. Until your own country and revolutionary France took a different path in the late eighteenth century, the notion of a secular state was almost unimaginable. Indeed, as far as I can tell, even your own country doesn't seem really to have regarded itself as inherently secular, rather than just non-denominationally Christian until quite recently.
The notion that the CofE is there to provide religious services to the public just as the post office provides postal ones, the NHS medical ones or the local highway authority roads may be widely current among those who don't like there being a CofE or who haven't thought much about it but it isn't either why the CofE exists or why it is established. It expresses the notion that if God is sovereign over all things, kings, presidents, governments etc are all subject to him, accountable to him and get their authority from him. So, also, if God is sovereign, one of the functions of a state that recognises that is to encourage its people to acknowledge that, to serve him and to live by a Christian ethic.
This may be a very unfashionable take on political theory in the C21, but that's where the it all comes from.
And 'the State' no longer provides postal services in the UK, Royal Mail having been sold off some years ago.
As a member of the Church in Wales, a century since disestablishment had not stopped us baptising all in the parish and marrying those with a 'qualifying connection' to a church, in much the same way as the CofE does. We don't request 'proof of membership' (or even of baptism) for parents of the baptised or couples being married. There's a lot we could do but I don't think the English Church would become a membership-only body, at least, no more than it is (and we are) now.
While the C of E of course has failings ... I think it would be a great shame if it were ... only there for its members, as with most other denominations.
I think that's a bit unfair, TBH. I of course accept that the CofE at its best sees itself as being "for the community", though that at times may possibly diminish its Christian distinctiveness and call to discipleship. I also accept that there are many churches, even Anglican ones, that behave more like private members' clubs.
But there are many non-CofE churches which do a great deal of community work and definitely want to serve those living in their neighbourhood.
Agreed @BaptistTrainfan, I was not implying that other denominations don’t reach out to the community - many do a lot more than the C of E.
When it comes to funerals, weddings, christenings, civic services, special services for national events, prayers with the dying etc the default will be the C of E, it is the ‘go-to’ church for the populace unless they have affiliation elsewhere.
The notion that the CofE is there to provide religious services to the public just as the post office provides postal ones, the NHS medical ones or the local highway authority roads may be widely current among those who don't like there being a CofE or who haven't thought much about it but it isn't either why the CofE exists or why it is established. It expresses the notion that if God is sovereign over all things, kings, presidents, governments etc are all subject to him, accountable to him and get their authority from him. So, also, if God is sovereign, one of the functions of a state that recognises that is to encourage its people to acknowledge that, to serve him and to live by a Christian ethic.
I'm pretty sure that a lot of non-established religions also teach that God is sovereign over all things. They don't all necessarily make the leap from the idea that "[their] God is sovereign over all things" to the notion that therefore it is necessary to use the power of the state to promote adherence to precepts of their faith, or that all governments are inherently Godly in their authority. I will admit that the idea that religious belief is a matter of individual conscience rather than state policy is a relatively new one (certainly newer than the Church of England) but I'm not sure newness is inherently a flaw. States are, after all, inherently coercive institutions.
While the C of E of course has failings ... I think it would be a great shame if it were ... only there for its members, as with most other denominations.
I think that's a bit unfair, TBH. I of course accept that the CofE at its best sees itself as being "for the community", though that at times may possibly diminish its Christian distinctiveness and call to discipleship. I also accept that there are many churches, even Anglican ones, that behave more like private members' clubs.
But there are many non-CofE churches which do a great deal of community work and definitely want to serve those living in their neighbourhood.
Agreed @BaptistTrainfan, I was not implying that other denominations don’t reach out to the community - many do a lot more than the C of E.
When it comes to funerals, weddings, christenings, civic services, special services for national events, prayers with the dying etc the default will be the C of E, it is the ‘go-to’ church for the populace unless they have affiliation elsewhere.
It's "go to" simply because that's what has been taught and promoted. This can change if there is a will to do so.
The CofE treats this position as its right and due, even though there are many instances where has abused - and continues - to abuse that privilege.
Ok it may do the ceremony but it sometimes lacks the substance
While the C of E of course has failings ... I think it would be a great shame if it were ... only there for its members, as with most other denominations.
I think that's a bit unfair, TBH. I of course accept that the CofE at its best sees itself as being "for the community", though that at times may possibly diminish its Christian distinctiveness and call to discipleship. I also accept that there are many churches, even Anglican ones, that behave more like private members' clubs.
But there are many non-CofE churches which do a great deal of community work and definitely want to serve those living in their neighbourhood.
Agreed @BaptistTrainfan, I was not implying that other denominations don’t reach out to the community - many do a lot more than the C of E.
When it comes to funerals, weddings, christenings, civic services, special services for national events, prayers with the dying etc the default will be the C of E, it is the ‘go-to’ church for the populace unless they have affiliation elsewhere.
It's "go to" simply because that's what has been taught and promoted. This can change if there is a will to do so.
The CofE treats this position as its right and due, even though there are many instances where has abused - and continues - to abuse that privilege.
Ok it may do the ceremony but it sometimes lacks the substance
I think that’s unfair: those I know don’t have such an attitude, and do have both ceremony and substance.
I do however think that, for most English non-churchgoers, "the" church is the local CofE one. That may not be true in places such as Yorkshire where Nonconformism has traditionally been strong.
I've certainly been in situations where Anglican priests have ignored or looked down on me as not being the"proper" minister of a "proper" church. Conversely I have had some excellent Anglican colleagues who have treated me as an equal.
I do however think that, for most English non-churchgoers, "the" church is the local CofE one. That may not be true in places such as Yorkshire where Nonconformism has traditionally been strong.
I've certainly been in situations where Anglican priests have ignored or looked down on me as not being the"proper" minister of a "proper" church. Conversely I have had some excellent Anglican colleagues who have treated me as an equal.
Ha ha I’ve had the same reaction from some non-C of E ministers!
Locally to me most ministers work together, come together for community functions each playing a part, and are ready to live with differences while celebrating what we have in common.
Working together seems IME to be more effective outside the usual structures. It then operates on the basis of fellowship and partnership that's locally driven to local circumstances
Working together seems IME to be more effective outside the usual structures. It then operates on the basis of fellowship and partnership that's locally driven to local circumstances
Yes. In Our Town, there is an informal monthly meeting of the leaders of all the churches (except, IIRC, the Roman Catholics), which works on the basis you describe. They all seem to get on well together, even that minority of one who doesn't approve of women priests...
No doubt much more could be done on a co-operative basis than actually is done, but in these Dark Days post-pandemic (or the worst of it), most churches are finding their own survival difficult enough to maintain.
Yes, but it can take time. Just locally, one of my friends is having to negotiate who will lead a funeral. This is purely an Anglican problem, he wants a Vicar (friend of the deceased) to conduct the service in another church (where the deceased was married). Both churches are Anglican, both Vicars are happy to oblige ... but, although the churches are not much more than a mile apart, they are in different Dioceses which means that both Bishops have to be consulted.
Yes, but it can take time. Just locally, one of my friends is having to negotiate who will lead a funeral. This is purely an Anglican problem, he wants a Vicar (friend of the deceased) to conduct the service in another church (where the deceased was married). Both churches are Anglican, both Vicars are happy to oblige ... but, although the churches are not much more than a mile apart, they are in different Dioceses which means that both Bishops have to be consulted.
Had to react to the bold part. The Episcopal Diocese here includes Eastern Washington and Northern Idaho. Demarcation lines go from the Eastside of the Cascades, down to the Columbia River, up the Snake River, to the Salmon River to the Idaho Montana state line and the Canadian border.
The ELCA synod includes all of Eastern Washington, all of Idaho, a small part of Western Wyoming and a small part of Eastern Oregon.
There is always a work-around. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
Well perhaps but it's generally IME one where Anglicans have to be seen to be running the show.
Picture a school where for some years I shared the termly communion service with the Vicar, a good friend. The Vicar retired and the Rural Dean couldn't provide a substitute to lead the service while the parish was in vacancy. The Headteacher - a member of the RCC - asked me to lead the service. This I agreed to do on the basis I would use the same order of service as we'd used before. Everyone was very happy - most knew me as I was a Governor.
As soon as the Rural Dean heard of it she went ballistic and said that I couldn't lead as "I couldn't do the magic." In the end she led the service. I offered to stand aside but the head insisted I take part as before. In the end, the Head who was RC took communion in both kinds from me and Mrs M who was also serving - the first time she had done so. She said it was a deliberate act to receive from me.
It's far from the only community event where the CofE flexed its muscles. The disconnect between ceremony and everyday community input is striking.
I have to add that in other circumstances I have worked closely with very humble anglican priests who have worked as a team in their own churches and beyond. I count them not as colleagues but as friends .... even then they admit that that Bishop was keeping a very close eye on them to the extent of warning them off preaching in non CofE churches and certainly not leading communion in them.
How has that advanced the cause of the gospel when it's 100% obvious to the attendees and observers that there's tension?
It's ironic to think that there are people in the C of E who would say that the Rural Dean herself (let the reader understand) couldn't do the magic...
FWIW, I would have been perfectly happy for @ExclamationMark, an appointed minister in another part of God's church, to reverently and soberly lead the service, using (presumably) the C of E liturgy, and would have had no hesitation in receiving the Sacrament from him.
I would also be perfectly happy in receiving Communion in his church.
I am, alas, one of those Awful and Ghastly Libruls (aka Hell-Bound Hereticks) so detested by our former Father F***wit...
Well, to be honest, since the quote attributed to the rural dean was “I couldn’t go the magic,” it wasn’t clear to me whether it was an actual quote or a paraphrase.
Well, to be honest, since the quote attributed to the rural dean was “I couldn’t go the magic,” it wasn’t clear to me whether it was an actual quote or a paraphrase.
A quote. Those were the actual words and yes Leearning Cniht I respect the sacraments as central to the life of the church. Where I struggle to express respect is when the purposes of the church override the purposes of the Kingdom
Well, to be honest, since the quote attributed to the rural dean was “I couldn’t go the magic,” it wasn’t clear to me whether it was an actual quote or a paraphrase.
A quote. Those were the actual words and yes Leearning Cniht I respect the sacraments as central to the life of the church. Where I struggle to express respect is when the purposes of the church override the purposes of the Kingdom
I think there is a genuine tension between ensuring that things are done "decently and in good order" and recognising that Christ refused to be bound by rules that prevented him doing things that needed doing. The difficulty is how to spot when the latter situation pertains. While the rural dean's diplomacy could clearly use some work, I'm not sure her solution, of doing the service herself, is the wrong one.
Well, to be honest, since the quote attributed to the rural dean was “I couldn’t go the magic,” it wasn’t clear to me whether it was an actual quote or a paraphrase.
A quote. Those were the actual words and yes Leearning Cniht I respect the sacraments as central to the life of the church. Where I struggle to express respect is when the purposes of the church override the purposes of the Kingdom
I think there is a genuine tension between ensuring that things are done "decently and in good order" and recognising that Christ refused to be bound by rules that prevented him doing things that needed doing. The difficulty is how to spot when the latter situation pertains. While the rural dean's diplomacy could clearly use some work, I'm not sure her solution, of doing the service herself, is the wrong one.
Well, to be honest, since the quote attributed to the rural dean was “I couldn’t go the magic,” it wasn’t clear to me whether it was an actual quote or a paraphrase.
@Arethosemyfeet has a point, though. Her diplomacy may well have been defective, but she was perhaps observing the letter of the (church's) law.
I don’t know. Seems to me that “can’t do the magic” is much more than bad diplomacy; it’s a pretty gross misunderstanding of any church’s law or doctrine.
It is ,as NT suggests, a gross misunderstanding of the law and teaching of the Church,but it is the sort of phrase which 'insiders' might sometimes use,hopefully jokingly, amongst themselves,even here on SOF
It is ,as NT suggests, a gross misunderstanding of the law and teaching of the Church,but it is the sort of phrase which 'insiders' might sometimes use,hopefully jokingly, amongst themselves,even here on SOF
Perhaps so but does "jokingly" ever make it right? Once person's banter is another's bullying.
The notion that the CofE is there to provide religious services to the public just as the post office provides postal ones, the NHS medical ones or the local highway authority roads may be widely current among those who don't like there being a CofE or who haven't thought much about it but it isn't either why the CofE exists or why it is established. It expresses the notion that if God is sovereign over all things, kings, presidents, governments etc are all subject to him, accountable to him and get their authority from him. So, also, if God is sovereign, one of the functions of a state that recognises that is to encourage its people to acknowledge that, to serve him and to live by a Christian ethic.
This is an equally historically specific reading that is hard to extract from the Acts of Supremacy. At a practical level Erastianism ruled for large parts of the CofEs history.
I absolutely agree with E.M. that 'one person's banter is another person's bullying'
I would never use a phrase like that but I have certainly noticed phrases of that type being used on SOF (mainly by Anglicans and I assume in a joking way)
It is possibly because Anglicans have no one definite position on the eucharist and are therefore at times unsure of what to say and thus try to make light of it.
The RC Church would never talk about the eucharist as being 'magic' even although individuals claiming to be Catholic might.
I'm assuming,perhaps wrongly, that all this stems from a non-Anglican being asked to preside at a eucharist in a school which may or may not be a joint CofE-RC school.
@Arethosemyfeet has a point, though. Her diplomacy may well have been defective, but she was perhaps observing the letter of the (church's) law.
I don’t know. Seems to me that “can’t do the magic” is much more than bad diplomacy; it’s a pretty gross misunderstanding of any church’s law or doctrine.
I guess that depends on your understanding of ritual. This has echoes of the "I vs. we" controversy a few months back when the Roman Catholic Church invalidated years of baptisms performed by one particular priest who said "we" instead of "I". If your understanding of sacrament is that it only "works" if the officiant gets all the words exactly right (or some other requirement) then it's essentially casting a magic spell.
Just for clarification @ExclamationMark - did the service always use an approved and authorised C of E liturgy?
Or, to put it another way, was that what the school (pupils, staff, and parents) were accustomed to?
Not an approved liturgy no. I was happy to replicate the norm but being a CofE school I wasn't allowed despite being the clergy rep on Governors and approved as so personally and directly by the Bishop.
@Arethosemyfeet has a point, though. Her diplomacy may well have been defective, but she was perhaps observing the letter of the (church's) law.
It was a church school but I'd taken plenty of services there before
If it's a CofE school then it is reasonable to expect that it follow CofE doctrine and practice - that communion should only be celebrated by a priest who has been ordained by a bishop in apostolic succession, and using a form of service authorised by canon. If the school were an ecumenical foundation that would be a different matter.
Well, to be honest, since the quote attributed to the rural dean was “I couldn’t go the magic,” it wasn’t clear to me whether it was an actual quote or a paraphrase.
@Arethosemyfeet has a point, though. Her diplomacy may well have been defective, but she was perhaps observing the letter of the (church's) law.
I don’t know. Seems to me that “can’t do the magic” is much more than bad diplomacy; it’s a pretty gross misunderstanding of any church’s law or doctrine.
If it isn’t, then it should be.
While accepting that it is important that only those called to do so are allowed to preside at the Eucharist within the C of E, the priest is inviting God to ‘do the magic’ ie to bless the bread and wine, not doing it him or her self.
May I suggest that discussions of CofE law in regard to who may preside at Eucharist, and words to describe that, would be better suited to Ecclesiantics. It looks like a significant tangent away from the subject of this thread.
Speaking of which, the Chinese/Italian family whose daughter was baptised at Our Place a couple of years ago were in church yesterday, and, I am told, come fairly regularly - the little lassie must be about 3 or 4 now, and able to cope with an hour or so in church!
Mum (who is Chinese Buddhist) was present, along with Italian Dad and Chinese Nanny.
Also present were some students from India (I don't know if they're RC, or perhaps Mar Thoma), an Afro-American lady who told me some years ago that she's a Lutheran (not sure which Synod), a young twenty-something family from the Philippines, a Nigerian family, and some TEENAGERS!
This eclectic mix actually represents the demographics of Our Congregation, most of whom live either in the parish or only just outside the boundary.
Comments
I think that's a bit unfair, TBH. I of course accept that the CofE at its best sees itself as being "for the community", though that at times may possibly diminish its Christian distinctiveness and call to discipleship. I also accept that there are many churches, even Anglican ones, that behave more like private members' clubs.
But there are many non-CofE churches which do a great deal of community work and definitely want to serve those living in their neighbourhood.
It does rather grate when there is a town wide initiative and the powers that be look to the CofE who are doing nowt, zilch, stuff all and ignore the other churches who are sweating blood on the ground.
It's worse still when you have someone from the hierarchy Archdeacon and above who becomes the go to Christian voice even when their churches simply dont engage
My understanding is that the premise is that the Church of England is established as a service to provide a church to any English subject who wants a church, much in the way that the state provides postal service or registers the ownership of property. By its nature it "excludes" people who don't want a church (or prefer a different kind of church) in the same way the mail service "excludes" the illiterate and property registration "excludes" those who own no real property.
Of course the question of whether providing a church is any job for the state is a different question entirely, though there may be some overlap with the question of exclusion.
Apart from your own country and revolutionary France, almost all states until very recently, have assumed that they have some sort of recognised or established religion. Many still do. England is by no means the only example. Nor are all the existing examples Christian. Many are not. Until your own country and revolutionary France took a different path in the late eighteenth century, the notion of a secular state was almost unimaginable. Indeed, as far as I can tell, even your own country doesn't seem really to have regarded itself as inherently secular, rather than just non-denominationally Christian until quite recently.
The notion that the CofE is there to provide religious services to the public just as the post office provides postal ones, the NHS medical ones or the local highway authority roads may be widely current among those who don't like there being a CofE or who haven't thought much about it but it isn't either why the CofE exists or why it is established. It expresses the notion that if God is sovereign over all things, kings, presidents, governments etc are all subject to him, accountable to him and get their authority from him. So, also, if God is sovereign, one of the functions of a state that recognises that is to encourage its people to acknowledge that, to serve him and to live by a Christian ethic.
This may be a very unfashionable take on political theory in the C21, but that's where the it all comes from.
As a member of the Church in Wales, a century since disestablishment had not stopped us baptising all in the parish and marrying those with a 'qualifying connection' to a church, in much the same way as the CofE does. We don't request 'proof of membership' (or even of baptism) for parents of the baptised or couples being married. There's a lot we could do but I don't think the English Church would become a membership-only body, at least, no more than it is (and we are) now.
Agreed @BaptistTrainfan, I was not implying that other denominations don’t reach out to the community - many do a lot more than the C of E.
When it comes to funerals, weddings, christenings, civic services, special services for national events, prayers with the dying etc the default will be the C of E, it is the ‘go-to’ church for the populace unless they have affiliation elsewhere.
I'm pretty sure that a lot of non-established religions also teach that God is sovereign over all things. They don't all necessarily make the leap from the idea that "[their] God is sovereign over all things" to the notion that therefore it is necessary to use the power of the state to promote adherence to precepts of their faith, or that all governments are inherently Godly in their authority. I will admit that the idea that religious belief is a matter of individual conscience rather than state policy is a relatively new one (certainly newer than the Church of England) but I'm not sure newness is inherently a flaw. States are, after all, inherently coercive institutions.
It's "go to" simply because that's what has been taught and promoted. This can change if there is a will to do so.
The CofE treats this position as its right and due, even though there are many instances where has abused - and continues - to abuse that privilege.
Ok it may do the ceremony but it sometimes lacks the substance
I think that’s unfair: those I know don’t have such an attitude, and do have both ceremony and substance.
I've certainly been in situations where Anglican priests have ignored or looked down on me as not being the"proper" minister of a "proper" church. Conversely I have had some excellent Anglican colleagues who have treated me as an equal.
Ha ha I’ve had the same reaction from some non-C of E ministers!
Locally to me most ministers work together, come together for community functions each playing a part, and are ready to live with differences while celebrating what we have in common.
Yes. In Our Town, there is an informal monthly meeting of the leaders of all the churches (except, IIRC, the Roman Catholics), which works on the basis you describe. They all seem to get on well together, even that minority of one who doesn't approve of women priests...
No doubt much more could be done on a co-operative basis than actually is done, but in these Dark Days post-pandemic (or the worst of it), most churches are finding their own survival difficult enough to maintain.
True, though I can't think of any specific example of this locally.
Had to react to the bold part. The Episcopal Diocese here includes Eastern Washington and Northern Idaho. Demarcation lines go from the Eastside of the Cascades, down to the Columbia River, up the Snake River, to the Salmon River to the Idaho Montana state line and the Canadian border.
The ELCA synod includes all of Eastern Washington, all of Idaho, a small part of Western Wyoming and a small part of Eastern Oregon.
Both Bishops have a lot of miles to cover.
Well perhaps but it's generally IME one where Anglicans have to be seen to be running the show.
Picture a school where for some years I shared the termly communion service with the Vicar, a good friend. The Vicar retired and the Rural Dean couldn't provide a substitute to lead the service while the parish was in vacancy. The Headteacher - a member of the RCC - asked me to lead the service. This I agreed to do on the basis I would use the same order of service as we'd used before. Everyone was very happy - most knew me as I was a Governor.
As soon as the Rural Dean heard of it she went ballistic and said that I couldn't lead as "I couldn't do the magic." In the end she led the service. I offered to stand aside but the head insisted I take part as before. In the end, the Head who was RC took communion in both kinds from me and Mrs M who was also serving - the first time she had done so. She said it was a deliberate act to receive from me.
It's far from the only community event where the CofE flexed its muscles. The disconnect between ceremony and everyday community input is striking.
I have to add that in other circumstances I have worked closely with very humble anglican priests who have worked as a team in their own churches and beyond. I count them not as colleagues but as friends .... even then they admit that that Bishop was keeping a very close eye on them to the extent of warning them off preaching in non CofE churches and certainly not leading communion in them.
How has that advanced the cause of the gospel when it's 100% obvious to the attendees and observers that there's tension?
It's ironic to think that there are people in the C of E who would say that the Rural Dean herself (let the reader understand) couldn't do the magic...
FWIW, I would have been perfectly happy for @ExclamationMark, an appointed minister in another part of God's church, to reverently and soberly lead the service, using (presumably) the C of E liturgy, and would have had no hesitation in receiving the Sacrament from him.
I would also be perfectly happy in receiving Communion in his church.
I am, alas, one of those Awful and Ghastly Libruls (aka Hell-Bound Hereticks) so detested by our former Father F***wit...
I think the fact that you dismiss the rural dean's concerns about sacramental assurance as "ceremony" is rather telling.
Yeah, I'm very much not in love with that choice of phrase.
A quote. Those were the actual words and yes Leearning Cniht I respect the sacraments as central to the life of the church. Where I struggle to express respect is when the purposes of the church override the purposes of the Kingdom
I think there is a genuine tension between ensuring that things are done "decently and in good order" and recognising that Christ refused to be bound by rules that prevented him doing things that needed doing. The difficulty is how to spot when the latter situation pertains. While the rural dean's diplomacy could clearly use some work, I'm not sure her solution, of doing the service herself, is the wrong one.
The parents' response was "who is that woman?"
@Arethosemyfeet has a point, though. Her diplomacy may well have been defective, but she was perhaps observing the letter of the (church's) law.
I don’t know. Seems to me that “can’t do the magic” is much more than bad diplomacy; it’s a pretty gross misunderstanding of any church’s law or doctrine.
It was a church school but I'd taken plenty of services there before
Perhaps so but does "jokingly" ever make it right? Once person's banter is another's bullying.
This is an equally historically specific reading that is hard to extract from the Acts of Supremacy. At a practical level Erastianism ruled for large parts of the CofEs history.
I would never use a phrase like that but I have certainly noticed phrases of that type being used on SOF (mainly by Anglicans and I assume in a joking way)
It is possibly because Anglicans have no one definite position on the eucharist and are therefore at times unsure of what to say and thus try to make light of it.
The RC Church would never talk about the eucharist as being 'magic' even although individuals claiming to be Catholic might.
I'm assuming,perhaps wrongly, that all this stems from a non-Anglican being asked to preside at a eucharist in a school which may or may not be a joint CofE-RC school.
Or, to put it another way, was that what the school (pupils, staff, and parents) were accustomed to?
I guess that depends on your understanding of ritual. This has echoes of the "I vs. we" controversy a few months back when the Roman Catholic Church invalidated years of baptisms performed by one particular priest who said "we" instead of "I". If your understanding of sacrament is that it only "works" if the officiant gets all the words exactly right (or some other requirement) then it's essentially casting a magic spell.
Not an approved liturgy no. I was happy to replicate the norm but being a CofE school I wasn't allowed despite being the clergy rep on Governors and approved as so personally and directly by the Bishop.
If it's a CofE school then it is reasonable to expect that it follow CofE doctrine and practice - that communion should only be celebrated by a priest who has been ordained by a bishop in apostolic succession, and using a form of service authorised by canon. If the school were an ecumenical foundation that would be a different matter.
If it isn’t, then it should be.
While accepting that it is important that only those called to do so are allowed to preside at the Eucharist within the C of E, the priest is inviting God to ‘do the magic’ ie to bless the bread and wine, not doing it him or her self.
Alan
Ship of Fools Admin
I know. horrifying. (the refusal, not the paedobaptism)
Mum (who is Chinese Buddhist) was present, along with Italian Dad and Chinese Nanny.
Also present were some students from India (I don't know if they're RC, or perhaps Mar Thoma), an Afro-American lady who told me some years ago that she's a Lutheran (not sure which Synod), a young twenty-something family from the Philippines, a Nigerian family, and some TEENAGERS!
This eclectic mix actually represents the demographics of Our Congregation, most of whom live either in the parish or only just outside the boundary.
No Poles these days, thanks to Brexit...