What is the difference between doctrine and liturgy

This ignorance frees us to apply new solutions to new cases in our time as he evidently did in his time. They did not think, as many apparently did—and still do—that the Council advocated an almost complete conformity to modernity. And, as Tracey Rowland has shown in Culture and the Thomist Tradition , modernity is not morally neutral. These erudite popes, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, were said to be far over the head of the average bishop, who did not understand what these two popes meant.

Bishops are practical men. They are burdened with many practical and bureaucratic problems. They are grateful for pastoral solutions that do not involve complicated theological issues. Thus, when Pope Francis arrived on the scene, he seemed to be the answer bishops were looking for. As a pastoral pope, he would cut through the red tape of heavy doctrine.

Everyone had problems with divorce and remarriages, contraceptives, sodomy, and gender issues. Who could go to communion? Who could not? The learned Germans saw no problem. What did the pope do when he was archbishop in Buenos Aires? Whatever it was, do that. Francis seems to think that his job is not to answer the ordinary questions that popes are expected to answer.

As a result, the faithful have become more and more confused about what the Church teaches. Paul, however, clearly stated that we must receive the sacraments worthily. The early Church did not invite unbelievers to participate in the Eucharist. To receive the sacrament worthily, we had to know and believe what it was. And this was not up to the Church to decide. It was given to it by Christ to be held steadfast throughout the ages. This abidingness to what was revealed is evidence of the truth of the doctrine.

The Gates of Hell were not to prevail. The practice followed the truth. God was worshipped when the sacrament was received as it was understood. The liturgy of the Church and its sacraments were not of mere human origin. In the history of religion, various efforts were made to return honor to God. Yet what is strikingly different about Christianity is that God gives to man the proper form of divine worship. In this sense, we see in the Old Testament a gradual purification of ancient sacrificial rites.

Holocausts of lambs and cattle are replaced by turtle doves and sacrifices of praise. Yet behind these rites is the constant reminder that Jesus must go to Jerusalem where he is to suffer and die. He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. In no other name is salvation offered to us. After his suffering and death, he would rise again. This rising again on the third day is found in the Creeds. It becomes the day set aside in creation when God rested.

It now becomes the day of rest when we free ourselves from the workaday world. God is properly worshipped when we are at rest. We discover the activities of leisure , i. In such moments we contemplate what is true. This act of worship is timeless, as is truth itself.

Liturgy is in many ways the public face or shop front of the Church, it is through the liturgy that people engage with the faith and deepen their relationship with God. No one makes up or invents a liturgy. It is something that grew over millennia of faith.

Liturgy is the divine worship of the Church and includes the celebration of Mass, the celebration of the Sacraments, and the Divine Office or Daily Prayer of the Church. The celebration of the Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith, and so all other liturgies flow from and to the celebration of Mass. Given a host of positive and negative cultural shifts since then, it is not surprising that such common prayer has all but faded into the background. This passing of common prayer is the tragic end of an era, not least linguistically.

But back to Dean Pearson: his liturgical proposals cannot be considered outside their embedded ecclesiology, a full-blown Protestant congregationalism. He is correct when he points out that the Anglican liturgical heritage of Eucharistic praying in this country differs somewhat from the English prayer book tradition. To them we are morally, legally, and spiritually bound.

Even more importantly, the authorized liturgies of Anglicans by necessity carry significant doctrinal freight. Especially in the United States — where canon law is only dogmatic by exception e. The Articles of Religion never had authority for us like in the English Church, and they never did so at a Communion level. Its passage represents another example of our General Convention approving a resolution that is unconstitutional, for the sake of political expediency.

Our vows do not give us the freedom to support the proliferation of theologically deficient liturgies: only to the doctrine, discipline, and worship that this church has received. Pearson rightly notes our theological division, but allowing and encouraging liturgical division will hardly foster a greater unity. It will exacerbate current tendencies, to the detriment of the whole church.

The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. Clergy assent to these liturgies and doctrine during their ordination vows, although the form of their assent is less direct than in the past. See the wording of Canon C They allow for a great deal of liturgical diversity. Regarding doctrine: Many, if not most, C of E clergy and ordinands have little intention to hold to the legally defined doctrine of the church, would question the very idea that it has identifiable doctrine, and have received little to no formal instruction regarding the historic formularies of the church during their theological education.

In other words, the C of E possesses a tightly defined theological identity, at least in relative contrast to the Episcopal Church, yet many of its pastors and teachers reject that identity.

Regarding liturgy: It occasionally seems that liturgical standards are observed primarily in their breach, despite canons and ordination vows e. Canon B 1.