In its efforts “to end bias, bigotry and racism in Toronto and the world” the Church of the Transfiguration will hold an ecumenical service where Imam Abdul Hai Patel will preach:
Second Annual Interfaith Evensong.
The Reverend Canon Michael Burgess will officiate at this service of Sung Evensong, Imam Abdul Hai Patel will preach, Rabbi Baruch Frydman-Kohl will offer a prayer, and Archbishop Terence E. Finlay, former Bishop of Toronto will give the blessing.
Sunday, October 18th, 2009
I find it difficult to see this as anything other than obeisance to the god of this age – tolerance at the expense of truth – and the stark admission that the Anglican Church of Canada really has given up on proclaiming the uniqueness of Christ, the fact that he is God incarnate, that he is the only way to God the Father, and that he alone is the propitiation for our sins.
Other than that little problem it all sounds very cosy.
Is a “blessing” by Terence E. Finlay, Archbishop though he might be, worth a tinkers dam?
What further proof do we need that the ACoC is no longer Anglican. To be an Anglican one must first be a Christian and that means accepting both the authority of Scripture and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. It is tragic – the situation is definitely worse but I cannot think of a better term – to see those who were once considered to be leaders of the church turn so quickly to the god of apostasy and political expediency. There is indeed a proper meaning for “tolerance” and “acceptance” but this is nothing but a perversion of both terms. Any blessing from these men can only be considered as a curse.
Actions such as this should provide a conclusive argument for the ANiC parishes to be granted ownership of their properties.
#1 Gawk – the ancient church deliberated, – and concluded that the sacraments were not invalidated by the sin of a rightfully ordained officiant (thankfully, as we’re all sinners) and at the time this included heresy – which is why they deliberated in the first place if my memory serves me correctly. A blessing comes under those things that may only be done by an ordained person.
Now – the teaching of that officiant may be a different matter.
Frank (#2), do you really think the leaders turned quickly? I think the corruption has been there a long time – just better hidden (or people were more easily able to ignore it or pretend it wasn’t there).
#3 – Hang on, I don’t think that is quite right. I give my sons a blessing each morning before they go to school – I lay hands on them and we pray together. There are lots of examples of parents giving children blessings in scripture.
#5 Kate – yes you’re right Kate – loads of blessings, in the Jewish religion the Jewish head of the family blesses the children at each Friday Shabat meal, with hands laid on; in the church the deacon, or lay person, may give a blessing to non-communicants at the rail, or in the home, but the language is different – – I was only thinking of those done in a formal liturgical setting where the officiant ‘stands’ in the place of God. There are many things that can be done in the name of the church by non-presbyters, including absolutions. Although, I might suspect that Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals might each have a slightly different take on it. That I don’t know.
In my small group in my previous church, an interesting discussion came up. One of the members suggested that we share the Lord’s Supper at one of our weekly meetings. As no one in the group was ordained, I felt uncomfortable (I was the informal leader), and things never got past the discussion phase. Since then, however, I’ve wondered if my discomfort was due entirely to my upbringing and the traditions I’m accustomed to, or if there is Biblical warrant for administering the elements only under the direction of designated people? I’m not aware of any Biblical restriction other than being a believer. Any thoughts?
Margo #3:
A blessing comes under those things that may only be done by an ordained person.
Margo, you must be speaking of “man made” rules on this and not the Word. Please correct me if I am incorrect. thanks.
Is it not the “man made” rules that keeps getting the church sidetracked over and over and over again? Just look at what they are doing inviting the Imam in to speak.
Are we any great bit different? We change rules to suit us in the church, yes, even in ANiC. When will we ever learn that it is only by attending to the Word that we will get it right?
Will the imam or the rabbi take part in Holy Communion? If they do they will contravene the prescription that it is only for baptized Christians. If they choose not to participate (as they should) they are indicating more discernment that their hosts, but that might be seen as ‘intolerance’, mightn’t it? Wouldn the Reverend Canon Burgess refuse it to them? That would be the height of ‘intolerance’, wouldn’t it? ;>)
What a tangled web, when we start down the wrong path.
Hey Warren,
Re: #7. Perhaps it’s just my upbringing where any pastor and/or current or former elder can do just about anything, but I would have no problem with any believer presiding over the Lord’s Supper or a Baptism or any type of blessing.
#7 – Warren; In the prayer of Consecration Jesus is quoted as saying Do this as oft as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me. I have always tripped over this because it seems to my interpretation (questionable) that this sacrament should be done at every meal, in fact at the hoisting of every glass etc. The point I am trying to make is this. For safety’s sake I will put it in the form of a question. If I stop for a coffee and a donut on the way home from a particularly engaging Spirit filled experience and as I sit in a quiet corner my thoughts turn to my Lord and His suffering and I remember his gifts of Body and Blood and finish my snack with thoughts of love and gratitude for Him. Have I not partaken of His Body and Blood? Conversely if I say the blessing at thanksgiving reminding all of our need to remember the greatest gift we have ever received, in acknowledgement of His sacrifice, could this be a “partaking of His Body and Blood”?
This does not change the fact of our tradition and I continue to rejoice at the Lord’s Table but is it possible that tradition has limited the scope of what Jesus presented?
I’m with you, I don’t know the answers. Anyone?
Stuck (#11), I see some merit in what you are saying, but I also think the Lord’s Supper is something that should be commemorated in Christian community. I would want to share the bread and cup with at least one other believer.
Margo et al. I will check with a tinker (if I can find one!) and see what he says about blessings and if only the ordained can participate. I’m afraid the answer will be rather colourful but I’m sure very insightful.
7,8, 10 & 11 (sorry about numbers – makes it easier) – “man-made rules” – the very early church had a Presider, and I would imagine in the N/T church there was some such person otherwise why would Paul give instructions about Communion – his letters were usually responses to ‘issues’. At the Last Supper, Jesus was of course the Presider, the Host.
Warren #7, we had a similar discussion once, about everyone saying the Prayer of Consecration together, and we thought that was OK so long as at least one person was an ordained priest (man-made rules again?)
Is there a bigger discussion here – about the Lord’s Supper? Is it “Memorial” – where we remember what Jesus did and how close He is to us, in His presence even. Or is it an “Anamnesis” where we remember, but it is as if the event is actually happening ‘now’, that Jesus is actually present (by His Spirit), and Himself presiding at the Last Supper ‘now’, so that the celebrant knows they may be saying the words and doing the actions, but not really ‘doing’ anything at all. What this means, for me at least, is that Communion (the Bread and Wine, the Body and Blood) is very spiritually powerful. I could go on – but it’s 10pm!
Please check with your ‘tinker’ Gawk (#13)
Thanks to Margo I searched for a tinker and his dam and found that only plumbers use a “tinker’s dam” anymore. As we know getting a plumber in on the weekend can be ruinous to one’s pocketbook hence whether the blessing was worth anything beyond a dam or a damn will be put off till Monday.
As for the other side to this “comments” re communion prayers I was informed at a long past worship study session that the phrase “in remembrance of Me” was according to the lecture’s full size Oxford dictionary the word remembrance could have the meaning of actually bringing into existence the article one was remembering. I wonder if anyone here has ever heard of that or has an Oxford dictionary with all the archaic meanings so as to see just what Cranmer might have been alluding too?
Gawk (#15), I took a look at my New Shorter Oxford (the large two volume set, not the 20 (or so) volume set), and could not find the meaning you are talking about. Outside of the church, I suspect the most common use of the word remembrance is in connection with Remembrance Day. I don’t think there is any sense of “bringing into existence” in that context.
I don’t know about your tinker Gawker but mine said to read our article 26 so I did which lead me to #28. I thank God for the wisdom I found as well as the disciplines of our church and Her officers who have well preserved the precious sanctity of both Sacraments. I had trouble with consecration as well, until I remembered my childhood family Grace at mealtimes “Bless o Lord these gifts to our use” One thing is for sure – A perpetual memorial -no doubt about it.
As for my well meaning #11? I think I will stand on the scripture supported tradition of my betters and leave the rest to the Holy Spirit.
Until the people of Islam show the same intensity and energy in decrying the works of evil that are perpatrated in the name of Allah, that they show in their anger at a cartoon or a book written, or their uniform need and philosophies of exclusion and self righteousness I cannot welcome them. It’s simply a question of trust……..
My 18 – I have been struggling with this and posted it in error there’s dsomething wrong but I’m to tired I’ll get back to it tomoorow.
Um…. “Not worth a Tinker’s dam” refers to Tinkers (Irish gypsies), who had the reputation for swearing a lot.
my #18 – nothing like a little prayer time, a good night’s sleep and my wife’s good coffee to help set things straight.
I know now why my statement which I still hold to be true is wrong-It’s not about trust at all – it’s about fear. Jesus didn’t teach fear he spoke against it.
1 John 4:17-19 (King James Version)
17Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
18There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
19We love him, because he first loved us.
Not withstanding the obvious error of allowing a non-christian to take the pulpit, another non-christian to offer up prayer, (is this prejudice?) I hope not! What it is for sure, is a weakening of the centrality that is the Son of God.
I have decided to attend this service-please pray for me.
I’m not sure that an event where people of different faiths share different aspects of their faith with others is automatically wrong. I think there is an element of the purpose of the event and the spirit in which it is done. If it is done to say ‘we are all basically the same and doesn’t matter who you call God’ then there is a problem. If you are coming together to gain better insight into each over and to promote peaceful co-existence I think there is some merit to that.
As for communion. There is the consecration and the distribution of the elements. Holy Communion is a symbolic re-enactment of a portion of the Passover meal Jesus shared with his deciples. The priest stands in for Jesus as the spiritual head of our faith community and as Jesus the head blessed the bread and wine so does our pastor. The elements are then passed around to the members of the community. Once the elements are consecrated I don’t think the manner of distribution is very critical. In the case of a bible study group, your pastor could be asked in advance to consecrate the bread and wine then bring it to share amongst yourselves at your meeting.
Cathy,
I think the question re: communion goes deeper. Does it need to be a Priest that does the consecration? If you were visiting a non-Anglican church where a non-ordained church leader was presiding over communion would you consider it invalid? I am quite interested in this topic. Like Warren I am perhaps a little uncertain as to where I stand on it.
Cathy (#22), I would humbly submit that you are coming to the question with presuppositions that are derived more from tradition than Scripture (I also have presuppositions that I find very hard to ferret out). What does “consecration” mean in a biblical sense given the context of the Lord’s Supper? Where is the warrant, in Scripture, for “consecration” to be done only by certain categories of believers?
While this discussion about Communion is interesting, I struggle to see its relevance to this post. Sung Evensong has never included a Eucharist.
Gordon (#25), if only comments relevant to the original post were allowed on this blog, I think it would have faded away some time ago. Lighten up.
22Cathy
“I’m not sure that an event where people of different faiths share different aspects of their faith with others is automatically wrong.”
“If you are coming together to gain better insight into each over and to promote peaceful co-existence I think there is some merit to that.”
Cathy – Very well said, IAW Christian values I most heartily agree, PROVIDED A. There is no denial of the supremacy of Jesus Christ and B. There is ABSOLUTELY no “dumbing down” of the “Faith once given to the Saints. It is the “thin edge of the wedge” that concerns me and what I will witness to this afternoon as I attend this service.
Warren & Gordon
Sometimes the obvious is overlooked. in reviewing the comments no one pointed out the obvious until Gordon did. One of the wonderful things in this particular communication tool (the Essentials Blog) is the exciting trains of thought that are created by the various planted topics. I call these (right or wrong) – “creative thought” the exchange of creative thought can lead to chrystallization, this has the POSSIBILITY of establishing a whole new paradygm of the original topic. I submit that no two individual thoughts are identical therefore personal criticism should be weighed heavily before submission.
There’s a dogmatic theologian by the name of Robert Farrar Capon (pronounced cap-on). A “dogmatic theologian” is the kind you consult to see if something is a Eucharist. If there is “valid matter” (a congregation, bread and wine/grape juice) and the words of institution, it’s a Eucharist. It may still not be licit (in accordance with the rules), or even appropriate, but it’s the Real Thing.
A couple of summers ago, one of the museums in Montreal had an exhibit of “treasures of the Vatican”. In there was an old wineglass that had once been discarded as trash; it was found and used as a chalice in the communion services held by Christians in Auschwitz. That those were not licit is beyond doubt; that there was the Real Presence of Jesus is equally beyond doubt. That it deserved to be esteemed with the big solid gold ones, just as much so.
Henry (#29), I’ve not read Capon (yet), but his writings are spoken highly of by my favourite blogger. This is an unsafe position for someone ordained in the Southern Baptist Convention.
Warren, you are being a bit too cryptic for me…
Kate (#31), sorry Kate. I recalled Capon’s name from the other blog and Henry’s comment peaked my interest to investigate his writings.