|
Post by marsha on Oct 27, 2008 3:03:04 GMT -5
Marsha, Yes, that's the official catechism. Another useful document is our list of 39 "Articles of Religion." See here: mb-soft.com/believe/txh/episconf.htmThese date to 1801 and are closely based on the Church of England's articles of religion, which are older. These don't get discussed much in the church; there is discussion occasionally about just what their effect is or should be. (I.e., should we expect everybody to believe all of them?) To be received as a 'member' of the church, really all that one must do publicly is go through the rite of confirmation in front of a bishop. This requires that you: (1) renounce evil, (2) renew commitment to Christ, (3)recite the Apostles' (not Nicene) Creed, (4) 'continue in the apostles teaching, in the breaking of the bread, and in the prayers,' (5) 'persevere in resisting evil, and whenever you sin, repent and return to the Lord,' (6)'proclaim by example the Good News of God in Christ,' (7)'seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself,' and in a requirement that has gotten sort of controversial, (8)'strive for justive and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being.' That's it - if you can do these things, you are a confirmed member of the church. Notice how you don't have to believe in the special authority of the Episcopal Church, believe in inerrancy of scripture, etc. Only deacons, priests and bishops have to publicly submit to the authority of the church and state belief that the Bible is the Word of God. Interesting, huh? Thank you, Srigdon. That is interesting. Also, interesting that the last part, about striving for justice and peace would be controversial...but, I definitely do see how it could be. Prop 8 in California is a good example of how people might differ on the interpretation of that last part. I am voting no on prop 8, because I do believe that same-sex couples have the "right" to equal protection under the law. And I do not believe they will get that, fully, unless they are given the same exact right to marry as heteros. It's kind of comparable to how "separate but equal" didn't work in the attempt to bring equality to African-Americans. Let's just simplify and cut to the chase and give rights that are due, equally to all. I do appreciate all the information you all have given here. I just read through the 39 Articles of Religion. I do agree with most of all of them. My one question would be about priesthood authority. The Evangelical Church I now attend believes the priesthood was desolved after Christ and he is now our only High Priest. Hebrews 1:1. How is a priesthood justified? (There is no requirement for confession to a priest, like in the Catholic Church, right?) I wanted to ask about prayer beads. Does anyone here use them? Are they ever used in services? Thanks again!
|
|
|
Post by angli_fan on Oct 27, 2008 8:17:36 GMT -5
There is no requirement for confession to a priest, like in the Catholic Church, right? All may, some should, none must.
|
|
srigdon
Eucharistic Assistant
Posts: 214
|
Post by srigdon on Oct 27, 2008 13:19:48 GMT -5
I've never seen beads used in services but some friends I have wear them - generally former Catholics, of course. I'm not an expert on the priesthood question, but there are a few comments I can make. The Hebrews quotation seems too vague to me to make that sort of firm conclusion. Sure, we regard Jesus as our great High Priest and head of the Church, but presumably human communities need human leadership too. That's what priests are. I presume your current church has leadership even if they aren't called 'priests.' The text of 1 Tim talks about qualifications for leadership - in particular, bishops and deacons are mentioned there. Now if the issue is the paucity of the use of the word 'priests' then somebody else will have to address that. We're reading a translation of Greek, and I know nothing about how clearly the Greek words correspond to the traditional offices of bishop, priest and deacon. It's important to know that Anglican churches are different from most Protestant churches in that we do not base our decisions solely on scripture. It is common to say that we appeal to 'scripture, tradition and reason' for authority. So the existence of the priesthood also comes from tradition of the church handed down through the centuries, a tradition that presumably had its origins in people who were close to Jesus or Paul himself. The wikipedia article on the Latin phrase 'sola scriptura' discusses this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scripturaThis lays out one sense in which Episcopal/Anglican churches are more 'catholic' than 'protestant.'
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Oct 31, 2008 13:54:25 GMT -5
The term "priest" within the Episcopal Church is a bit tricky to define. (But, then, everything about TEC is a bit tricky to define). Depending on how one interprets the Prayer Book and the Bible, you can arrive at several definitions of priest from a completely Roman view over to a strong Protestant view that the term presbyter is preferable to the term priest. My experience in TEC leads me to the generalization that the Lutheran concept of Pastor is generally equivalent to what most Episcopalians describe as priest.
|
|
|
Post by nini on Nov 26, 2008 23:58:42 GMT -5
perhaps i'm in the wrong place with this comment but I think the Episcopal church I have been attending is getting too "liberal?" We read a prayer at our Rite II service that referred to "the spirit of Jesus Christ herself. Am I hopelessly out of it when I say that I was shocked and not at all happy to be led in a prayer denoting Jesus as the feminine. I know that this is accepted by a growing number of people but I do not think it appropriate to introduce this belief to the general congregation without some discussion as to other people's beliefs. I am very disturbed over this. Please give me your thoughts. (I was raised Roman Catholic but have embraced the Episcopal church for many years. One of my most treasured possessions is the "old" Book of Common Prayer.)
|
|
srigdon
Eucharistic Assistant
Posts: 214
|
Post by srigdon on Nov 27, 2008 15:04:19 GMT -5
nini-
I urge you to complain about it. I have never heard anybody do that, but I have frequently heard people loudly refuse to say the word 'him' when the antecedent is 'God'. (Examples: the opening acclamation in Rite II 'and blessed be his kingdom...', and the sursum corda of the eucharistic prayer 'it is right to give him thanks and praise.'
I always find this annoying.
|
|