Thread: The Ecumenical movement Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029671
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
In Scotland, for many years now, there has been the Ecomenical Movement.
Accepting that we differ on biblical interpretation, religious practice and style of worship, we find it impossible to pray under the same roof.
This is surely the minimum that the Christian Comunity should achieve?

[The spelling error in the title was bugging me. -Gwai]

[ 09. March 2016, 01:23: Message edited by: Gwai ]
 
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 
Do you mean ecumenical, or have you combined this with economical or ecological to create a portmanteau?
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
Do you mean ecumenical, or have you combined this with economical or ecological to create a portmanteau?
Ecumenical, yes.
My spelling is even more dodgy than my theology.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
In my time I've seen more rows caused by forced ecumenical events that I care to think of.

One that particularly sticks in the mind (a highlight if you will) was c 20 years ago: a rant from a baptist minister which ended up with him saying that the rest of us were all wrong, seemed to delight in our error and that hellfires awaited the RC's in particular.

This was at a youth event so you can imagine how helpful this was in our keeping teens who were already on the "there isn't really a God, church is for losers" kick.

I'm afraid I avoid all events advertised as 'Ecumenical' like the plague. In any case, if Judaism can accept that there are different strands (Sephardic and Hasidic) with variances within those, what is so different about different strands of Christianity - Western and Eastern - with sub-divisions?
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
Many churches do worship together, and many people support ecumenical events. Food banks, street pastors, chaplaincies, inter-faith groups, Christian book and coffee shops are more often ecumenical than not. Responses to the refugee crisis, too.

There is less enthusiasm for dialogue or union between denominations, but if you're going to start a new practical project why wouldn't you do it ecumenically?
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
There's lots of ecumenical stuff going on, although some churches choose not to be part of it. In this town (and many others) winter night shelters and street pastors are run ecumenically. Over Easter our own church will join with Anglicans on Palm Sunday, Methodists on Maundy Thursday, all central churches for a Good Friday witness, and with the Catholics for a Holy Saturday vigil. We also have Christian Aid.

Two things though: (1) Ecumenical services can be wordy, worthy, dull-as-ditchwater, lowest-common-denominator events; (2) the desire for all churches to merge (rather than work together in diversity) has died a death.

I also think Ecumenism is stronger in England than in Scotland, where partisan lines are still more clearly drawn.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
When I lived I in a village in Perthshire, we took part in Eucumenical weekly meetings, during Lent.
These were attended by Presbyterians, Episcopalian, Roman Catholic and Methodists (who had no place of worship in the community).
It was well organised and had a booklet prepared for the event.
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
I can assure Frankenstein that there are many occasions,even in Scotland, where Christians of differing confessions worship together.

On 19th April in Edinburgh the Scottish Churches Trust will be meeting with members from all over Scotland and from many Christian denominations under the roof of St Mary's Metropolitan Cathedral (Roman Catholic) in the presence of the Church's Trust Patron, the Princess Royal.

Perhaps Frankenstein should come along.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I can assure Frankenstein that there are many occasions,even in Scotland, where Christians of differing confessions worship together.

On 19th April in Edinburgh the Scottish Churches Trust will be meeting with members from all over Scotland and from many Christian denominations under the roof of St Mary's Metropolitan Cathedral (Roman Catholic) in the presence of the Church's Trust Patron, the Princess Royal.

Perhaps Frankenstein should come along.
I shall be there in spirit.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Two things though: (1) Ecumenical services can be wordy, worthy, dull-as-ditchwater, lowest-common-denominator events; (2) the desire for all churches to merge (rather than work together in diversity) has died a death.
My favourite ecumenical event was a musical one. The RCC and Anglican places contributed choir members and an organist, there were some salvation army brass and I think a Methodist guitarist and flute player.

We did some traditional hymns and some more modern choruses. The whole thing worked brilliantly because of a very talented musical director who had written parts and organized something quite clever. Without that it could have been awful.

The only show of disunity was the RCC and Anglican lot disappearing to the pub afterwards with a rump Methodist group and none of the Salvationists.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Two things have taught me almost all I know about ecumenism: the Ship, and prison.

I have just returned from an international prison chaplains' conference where I was privileged to give the closing sermon to an audience of protestants, catholics, and orthodox, plus a guest muslim and a guest sikh.

Prison chaplaincy is a great environment for practical ecumenism and interfaith work. Often, inmates of different religions share the same worship space, and are not infrequently banged up with someone of a different faith. You have little option but to get along. I'm convinced there are lessons there for the wider world.

It is difficult in countries with a largely dominant faith group though. I often say that for the Catholics, ecumenism in France is like a trip to the zoo. The hierarchy has very set ideas about what it is, and how it should be organised. I've frequently been in planning meetings where the Catholics have expected us to choose hymns from their set list of ecumenical hymns, none of which I know.

I once experienced an interesting reversal of this perspective at a conference where I befriended a Catholic chaplain working in Greece, where he was of course in the precise "oppressed minority" position a protestant finds themselves in in France.

All that said, I think the stakes are such that we have to find a way to get along. The challenges of issues such as religiously-justified terrorism and immigration need joint action to be addressed meaningfully, and they make DH issues pale into insignificance.

I also think they call for more interfaith action, too; as I've argued here before, I'm convinced that Islamic terrorism thrives on the exclusion of peaceable Islam.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I have to say I'm among those who like the idea of ecumenism but find the practice of it to be rather unsatisfactory. Most of all I think it's best for ecumenical services to be held in ordinary time, not at major festivals. Holy week and Easter are not a good time to be trying to negotiate the pitfalls of who is willing to accept foot washing, who objects to the reserved sacrament, who thinks candles are a papist abomination and who thinks any music not played on the organ at half-speed might lead to dancing. Parcelling out the services to different denominations is equally as bad, turning up at a Good Friday service to be subjected to a rant from an ageing Calvinist about how those who rejected God's call at the revival in 1953 would never be given another chance and were going to hell for sure.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Many churches do worship together, and many people support ecumenical events. Food banks, street pastors, chaplaincies, inter-faith groups, Christian book and coffee shops are more often ecumenical than not. Responses to the refugee crisis, too.

There is less enthusiasm for dialogue or union between denominations, but if you're going to start a new practical project why wouldn't you do it ecumenically?
Worshipping together was, in my experience, the least satisfactory aspect.
The post Vatican 2 Mass and the Episcopalian Eucaristic service as experienced by me, are very similar.
The Presbitarian service, as experienced by me, was more on the lines of 'Songs of Praise', with a sermon, and a prayer (to which the congregation did not say Amen).
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
It strikes me that there are possibly three types of Ecumenical service.

1. Very closely-scripted service from ecumenical organisations such as in the "Week of Prayer for Christian Unity" or the "Women's World Day of Prayer".

2. Lowest-common-denominator services in which each tradition chips in a bit, being very careful to omit anything that others might find difficult.

3. Services which are the "home church's" tradition but with others invited.

Here in our town centre we do the first and have recently made a conscious decision to do the third as well. Over time we will have joint services in each of our churches and expect them to be "learning experiences" for those outside the respective tradition. Hence we had a full service of Evensong plus Benediction at the Anglo-Catholic church - the Baptists and Methodists were a bit bemused but enjoyed it as a once-off. Of course we'll hope that the A/C folks will be prepared to join the Methodists next time round!
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
It strikes me that there are possibly three types of Ecumenical service.

1. Very closely-scripted service from ecumenical organisations such as in the "Week of Prayer for Christian Unity" or the "Women's World Day of Prayer".

2. Lowest-common-denominator services in which each tradition chips in a bit, being very careful to omit anything that others might find difficult.

3. Services which are the "home church's" tradition but with others invited.

Here in our town centre we do the first and have recently made a conscious decision to do the third as well. Over time we will have joint services in each of our churches and expect them to be "learning experiences" for those outside the respective tradition. Hence we had a full service of Evensong plus Benediction at the Anglo-Catholic church - the Baptists and Methodists were a bit bemused but enjoyed it as a once-off. Of course we'll hope that the A/C folks will be prepared to join the Methodists next time round!
It seems to me that you bring out the essential problem.
The Eucarist, which to the Roman and Anglcan Catholics, is the pivotal worship, is to some Protestant denomination, as I understand it, an event for special occasions.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Yes and no - for instance the "Breaking of Bread" is pivotal in the Christian Brethren tradition (not that they're likely to be involved in ecumenical events); on the other hand, you can certainly have "services of the Words" in the Anglican tradition. I'm not qualified to say about the RCs.

But surely the whole point of ecumenical worship is that one must be prepared to temporarily "give up something" - even something precious - in order to further good relations; and also to humbly learn about what is precious and important in other traditions. (This is NOT the same as giving up one's principles!)
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I think it's true that Communion is often the bit people feel most sensitive about in their own tradition - either in terms of perceived criticism of what they do, discomfort with what others do, or the dead horse of some traditions not feeling that open communion is theologically right. Without a value judgement either way, this leads to some Christians feeling pressurized to do something they feel isn't right, and others feeling excluded.

For all these reasons I think it is best to avoid Communion in ecumenical events.

Music is another area people feel sensitive about, but in my experience musicians are often much more flexible and keen to try out something new than one would expect. It does take someone with imagination to put very different traditions together though.

[ 08. March 2016, 11:50: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes and no - for instance the "Breaking of Bread" is pivotal in the Christian Brethren tradition (not that they're likely to be involved in ecumenical events); on the other hand, you can certainly have "services of the Words" in the Anglican tradition. I'm not qualified to say about the RCs.

But surely the whole point of ecumenical worship is that one must be prepared to temporarily "give up something" - even something precious - in order to further good relations; and also to humbly learn about what is precious and important in other traditions. (This is NOT the same as giving up one's principles!)
'Yes and no' is inevitable when dealing with many denominations.
I am not qualified to speak about any tradition other that of the Church of Rome.
The central worship in RCC circles is the Mass or Eucharist.
Any other service such as Benediction, Lauds, Vespers, are over and above.
A card carrying RCC hears mass once a week.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Ecumenical community service is easier to navigate than ecumenical worship, for the reasons that have already been covered. Our local homeless shelter is an ecumenical effort, with congregants from all sorts of persuasions, as well as unaffiliated individuals, showing up each night to help set up cots and cook a hot dinner. Because of the opportunity for dialogue as we're working and the common goal, this probably goes a lot further to advance the cause than the fraught negotiations required of putting together a worship service. Not that ecumenical worship isn't a worthy goal, just that it might be more successful coming later in the process of dialogue, rather than as the first endeavor.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Agreed.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
cliffdweller: Ecumenical community service is easier to navigate than ecumenical worship
Some of us believe that community service is a form of worship [Smile]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
cliffdweller: Ecumenical community service is easier to navigate than ecumenical worship
Some of us believe that community service is a form of worship [Smile]
Indeed.
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
These days a card carrying RC would do more than 'hear Mass'. Such a person would participate more fully, even if it were only 'listening' rather
than simply 'hearing'.

These days there is no bar on card carrying RCs participating in the religious services of other Christians or even other faith groups.

Yes, a card carrying RC would not normally receive
Communion in a non Catholic church, but in Scotland many Christian communities rarely celebrate the Lord's supper.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Ecumenical community service is easier to navigate than ecumenical worship.
This is so true. We had 8 Muslims help with our Christmas day dinner this year [Smile]
 
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
What is there to be ecumenical about in community service ? That seems to me like calling a soccer game or a concert ecumenical if people of various religious groups participate. The question of overcoming the religious differences between Christians doesn't arise in contexts where there is no specifically Christian content.

Not that people getting together to run a project is in any way a bad thing, but I don't see why one would want to call it ecumenism.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
What is there to be ecumenical about in community service ? That seems to me like calling a soccer game or a concert ecumenical if people of various religious groups participate. The question of overcoming the religious differences between Christians doesn't arise in contexts where there is no specifically Christian content.

Not that people getting together to run a project is in any way a bad thing, but I don't see why one would want to call it ecumenism.
If we understand it to be our common calling as Christians to care for the poor I think it does exactly that. It starts to build bridges. As I said, I'm not suggesting it instead of ecumenical worship, but rather as a prelude to ecumenical worship. It's helpful to have developed these sorts of relationships around common cause before you start to do the hard work of negotiating worship. (Same thing is true intergenerationally within a church as a prelude to negotiating the ever-so-fraught worship wars).
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
(Same thing is true intergenerationally within a church as a prelude to negotiating the ever-so-fraught worship wars).
We interrupt your scheduled programming to complain about this unwarranted assumption. Please stop assuming that old people want style X and young people want style Y. It's just not true.

I'm entirely capable of having worship wars with my coaevals without the old'uns or young'ns needing to chip in.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Very true, I know better. Shuffling off and muttering under my breath in shame.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
In theory, ecumenical activity should encompass all that would happen in an individual church. So, as individual churches would engage in social action (either directly in running a soup kitchen or similar, or indirectly through fund raising) so also there should be an ecumenical version of that. Individual churches would have social events, and there should be ecumenical social events. Individual churches would have fellowship groups (including Bible studies, prayer groups, womens guild etc) and there should also be ecumenical fellowship groups. Individual churches have formal worship services, and there should be ecumenical versions of those. And, there is nothing wrong with the ecumenical version replacing the individual church events.

Quite often we fall into two mistakes.

One is that the ecumenical events become something extra. So, you have a Wednesday Bible Study in your church, and there's an ecumenical one on Thursday. One Saturday your church has a coffee morning, and there's an ecumenical concert the following week. Few people have time or energy to do everything, and the ecumenical events become something just for those who are particularly keen, and as energy flags they tend to fall by the wayside. There is often a need for individual churches to sacrifice some of their own programme to allow the ecumenical programme to flourish.

The other mistake we make is to focus on just one aspect of the life of a church. So, we organise ecumenical services (and stumble over the issues of Communion or music style) without any social or fellowship programme. Or, we have ecumenical soup kitchens, but never meet for social or fellowship groups. We need larger ranging ecumenical programmes.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
a card carrying RC would not normally receive
Communion in a non Catholic church
Is it only here that RCs have a closed table? At masses I've attended in an official protestant capacity, representatives of non-Catholic confessions are corralled and someone hangs around to ensure you don't go up to receive the host. Our local bishop stomps on any attempt to derogate, e.g. in prison.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Quite often we fall into two mistakes.

One is that the ecumenical events become something extra. ... There is often a need for individual churches to sacrifice some of their own programme to allow the ecumenical programme to flourish.

The other mistake we make is to focus on just one aspect of the life of a church. ... We have ecumenical soup kitchens, but never meet for social or fellowship groups.
I'm not saying that we've got it right ... but we do seem to do a bit better than that.

For instance, our Palm Sunday joint service is our "main" service that day and alternates between our building and the parish church (of course some folk from both churches see it as an opportunity for a "day off" [Mad] !) The Ecumenical "Week of Prayer" service replaces our normal evening service (not that that's usually well-attended!) And we take part in things like the Winter Night Shelter project.

Conversely attendance at the Easter Saturday Catholic Vigil (their church is literally next door to ours) is "extra". We've also been invited to share discussion on "worship" with the local Quakers (tonight, as it happens) but that is a one-off, initiated by them for their own good reasons.

Possibly we do this because we are largely URC which has "ecumenical" built-in to its DNA.

[ 09. March 2016, 07:42: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Is it only here that RCs have a closed table? At masses I've attended in an official protestant capacity, representatives of non-Catholic confessions are corralled and someone hangs around to ensure you don't go up to receive the host.
Certainly we can't take Communion at the RC church next door ... so much for it being a feast which binds together God's family! (We ourselves have "open" communion, so it would be up to any visiting Catholic to decide for themselves whether to receive. They could, I suppose, decide that what we're offering isn't a "proper" sacrament and so could be received as a simple remembrance of Jesus' death, if you see what I mean).
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Certainly we can't take Communion at the RC church next door ... so much for it being a feast which binds together God's family!
Exactly. One of my protestant colleagues describes such events as "inviting someone to lunch and not allowing them to eat"!

A lot of 'official' ecumenical events in France seem to consist in large measure of breast-beating by the catholics due to the prohibition on them sharing communion with us.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
The RCs are only the most prominent to practice closed communion. The Orthodox are also closed and you will also find small Protestant groups that still are.

Please remember that Open Communion where those not in fellowship with the congregation but with the wider Church are able to partake is only a late 19th Century invention.

Jengie
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
Sorry for a second post, to elaborate further:

The Modern Ecumenical Movement is dated from the World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh in 1910. That is not to say there were not Ecumenical activity before that. There were earlier ones and indeed there are myths around this movement. At least as far as England is concerned this movement reached its peak in the early 1970s (No not just the URC, what the URC expected at formation was pretty soon after 1972 that Anglicans and Methodists would merge).

At the present, I regret that the attitude of various denominations that they will win if they are the last group in existence, however, small they are. However, I do think that formal Ecumenical discussions do need to be held in tension with the reshaping of the power structures of the Church and that we are anyway changing to a post-denominational Christendom.

Jengie
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
I've joined for many years in World Day of Prayer services – the 'Women's' was dropped a few years ago and a number of men attend in our suburban church.

The ecumenical committees in different countries always seem to produce something that all participants can enjoy and benefit from taking part in.

This year Presbyterian, Anglican, Methodist and Catholic parishes were involved. The service as adapted for New Zealand included a Maori version of the Lord's Prayer which was partly chanted and partly sung, one which seems to have started with the cathedral choir and been taken up in local Anglican churches. It was beautiful; I hope we can learn it.

The only sour note was a few years ago in my holiday centre, when it was decided that it was the Catholic priest's turn to provide a sermon. He is an Irish octogenarian, carrying on because there is no one else to look after the local flock, and although he had it explained to him that the theme of the service was Forgiveness (or whatever) he subjected us, mainly older faithful church women, to a diatribe against the sexual immorality of contemporary society. Very embarrassing.

On the other hand, the mimed foot washing last year was very effective.

GG

Edited to tidy punctuation.

[ 09. March 2016, 08:23: Message edited by: Galloping Granny ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
At the present, I regret that the attitude of various denominations that they will win if they are the last group in existence, however, small they are. However, I do think that formal Ecumenical discussions do need to be held in tension with the reshaping of the power structures of the Church and that we are anyway changing to a post-denominational Christendom.
While I agree with that, I suspect that there are still many Catholics and Orthodox (at least) who regard their affiliation as fixed and strong, possibly because of nationality and birth. I don't know whether that would be true of younger people living in a country like Britain; it may well be lessening in Ireland; it could be strengthening in Romania.

Generally speaking, denominational affiliation here (England) is loose among under-40 Protestants, who will go to the church they "like" and don't regard themselves s Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans etc. However the actual word "ecumenical" turns them off: they'll happily go to a "town-wide celebration event" but not to an "Ecumenical service", as the latter carries the suggestion of dull fustiness and efforts to formulate joint constitutions and the like.

[ 09. March 2016, 08:33: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

I'm afraid I avoid all events advertised as 'Ecumenical' like the plague. In any case, if Judaism can accept that there are different strands (Sephardic and Hasidic) with variances within those, what is so different about different strands of Christianity - Western and Eastern - with sub-divisions?
Same here. Especially services for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, which for me is at best rather bland and woolly and worthy and at worst a bit National Brotherhood Week.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
The RCs are only the most prominent to practice closed communion. The Orthodox are also closed and you will also find small Protestant groups that still are.
Maybe, but around here I think they are the only ones to have the temerity to specifically invite non-Catholics to attend a mass from which the latter are excluded.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
It's not as if they don't have non-eucharistic services at all, is it? They could invite people to Vespers, say, even if that's not a service they'd normally hold for themselves.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
That's what our local Orthodoxen have done in the past.
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
Eutychus - my experience of Catholics in France has always been that they are very welcoming to those non-Catholics who choose to come to Catholic services. Your experience, which will be greater than mine, seems to be different.

It is,however, not just a French idea, but a Catholic and indeed even more strongly an Orthodox idea ,that only those who are in full communion with the Church, should receive Communion.

The Catholic Church,but not the Orthodox Church,permits non-Catholic Christians to receive communion in a Catholic church,if a) they have a genuine desire to receive, b) if they have no access at that time to Communion in their own community c) if they believe essentially the same as Catholics about Communion.(If they don't believe the same as Catholics, what is the point of taking a Communion in which one does not believe ?

Yes,I know it may seem unkind if you are invited to take part in the Liturgy of the Word,but not allowed to participate fully in the Liturgy of the Sacrament,but remember that that pain of separation is also felt by Catholics.

In the last 50 years many steps have been taken to bring Christians together and in the next 50 many more will be taken.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Don't know what Eutychus thinks about this: to me, all that is understood- but why, then, have a Mass as a supposedly ecumenical service, or at least as one to which you make a point of inviting people from other traditions? Why not something non-eucharistic?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Eutychus - my experience of Catholics in France has always been that they are very welcoming to those non-Catholics who choose to come to Catholic services. Your experience, which will be greater than mine, seems to be different.
I worded my post carefully.

If you turn up incognito to a mass, you are likely to be able to commune. But if you are invited in your capacity as the representative of another denomination, as I not infrequently am, you'll be politely prevented from doing so.

In my experience this is an issue for the hierarchy rather than at all grassroots levels.

Of course the pain of separation is felt on both sides, nevertheless just how this is experienced varies. In my diocese, the Year of Mercy/Jubilee was pretty unequivocally announced as a sort of amnesty for lapsed Catholics to return to the fold, and a lot of official ecumenism still has that feel about it, sometimes despite the best intentions of the protagonists.
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
It is indeed difficult for the Catholic church NOT to feel that it is indeed the Catholic Church.

It is difficult for the Catholic Church ,when trying to invite those who have for various reasons abandoned the Church, NOT to ask them to return to the Church.

For Catholics the link between Christ and His Mystical Body,the Church, is an extremely close one.

It is part of the differing perspectives and beliefs which we have and we have to accept this, while searching for a way to come closer to other Christians with different backgrounds.

Be assured that if you feel that you are seen as some time not really being 'in the body of the kirk' (as we say in Scotland),it can be the same for Catholics in Presbyterian Scotland.

On a positive note things have changed immeasurably in the last 50 years.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
Some of us would like to see things go back to the pre Martin Luther days but without the corruption that had entered the Church of Rome.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
It is indeed difficult for the Catholic church NOT to feel that it is indeed the Catholic Church.
I think its fine for them to feel that. I feel that I'm right as well. The point is that however one feels one doesn't have to say it. A lot of my life would be quite difficult if I just said what I felt.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
It would be an interesting exercise for all of us to trace the history of our particular denomination.
When it started and by whom it was founded. Also from whom it broke away.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I think a lot of people are aware of that. We see it often discussed on these boards.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think a lot of people are aware of that. We see it often discussed on these boards.
Then they should be capable of drawing logical conclusions and in the interest of Christian Union,
Try to reverse the fragmentation.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Wow, that's a real leap for logical conclusions. If people trace the theological points of principle or of practice at stake causing the split or the worldly-abuses of power that drove a particular split they may actually become even more convinced of the need for a separate denomination.

Also those that want unity generally want the others to be the ones to change.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Wow, that's a real leap for logical conclusions. If people trace the theological points of principle or of practice at stake causing the split or the worldly-abuses of power that drove a particular split they may actually become even more convinced of the need for a separate denomination.

Also those that want unity generally want the others to be the ones to change.
In former centuries the faithful were lucky to be literate let alone being capable of tracing points of theological niceties. Good try, but quite ridiculous.
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
mdijon you are right to feel what you feel is right.
We have different backgrounds and we do not always see things in the same way.
People cannot be blamed for seeing things in the ways which either their parents showed them or the community around them showed them or indeed in the way which they have come to understand for themselves.

We will only achieve perfection and unity if and when we reach Heaven. It should not stop us however from seeking unity even if we cannot reach it. But seeking unity should not necessarily oblige us to jettison dearly held beliefs.
For Catholics one of these is the eucharist and all which it entails. If there are some reasons which prevent non Catholic Christians from seeking full communion with the Catholic Church then it must be these same reasons which prevent them from taking part in the intimate moment of
sacramental communion in a Communion which they do not share.

I am happy to honour and respect Christians who do not share in the beliefs of the Church.They are my dearest brothers and sisters in Christ but of their own volition and from their own understanding and beliefs they do not wish to be part of the Catholic Church (as it is normally understood to be)
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Wow, that's a real leap for logical conclusions. If people trace the theological points of principle or of practice at stake causing the split or the worldly-abuses of power that drove a particular split they may actually become even more convinced of the need for a separate denomination.

Also those that want unity generally want the others to be the ones to change.
I agree with the second point. I really disagree with the first.

Most of us approach Christian unity from the standpoint, 'wouldn't it be wonderful if the xxxx s became more like us'. It's not just the Catholics that think like that. Back in the days of Vatican II (can anyone remember that?), the prevailing feeling among Protestants was, 'isn't it wonderful. At last the Catholics are going to catch up with the Reformation'.

However, I do not think under modern conditions that anyone is ever entitled to say that there is any point of principle that is such a point of principle that makes it defensible to set up a new schism, and a separate denomination. There are enough schisms as it is.


Unless and until one gets thrown out, I think that those who claim something is an issue of principle, that they have the truth and the others don't, are obliged to stick it out. That's so even if it is uncomfortable and even if their belief that they know God's opinion and others don't obliges them to do all they can to try to persuade those who disagree with them to change their minds.

There is one Christ and one body of Christ. He is not divided. So we are not entitled to divide either. We are certainly not entitled to claim that he has led us out, called us to divide or whatever.

I know, from the response on these boards when I have said similar things recently, that there are many shipmates who disagree with me, but that is what I think.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Wow, that's a real leap for logical conclusions. If people trace the theological points of principle or of practice at stake causing the split or the worldly-abuses of power that drove a particular split they may actually become even more convinced of the need for a separate denomination.

Also those that want unity generally want the others to be the ones to change.
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
In former centuries the faithful were lucky to be literate let alone being capable of tracing points of theological niceties. Good try, but quite ridiculous.
I thought we were talking about us? Even then I'd dispute that the standard of theological thinking has gone up so much that we are in a different class from our forbears. Are you really arguing that all those taking decisions to break away were illiterates who wouldn't have done it if they'd only known better?

That doesn't seem like a very ecumenical attitude to me.

[ 09. March 2016, 18:18: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
There are enough schisms as it is.
I agree. I was more thinking of the historical justification for a current schism. For instance I think that the average reformed church person would be thoroughly convinced of the need for a reformed church movement to support their particular theological views no matter how much history they learnt. Likewise the average Pentecostal is going to feel the need for their style of worship irrespective (or maybe even because of) a knowledge of the history of their strand of Pentecostalism.

But I wasn't suggesting that at present I could think many people would be justified in a new split.

(Although perhaps a certain dead horse issue might be a persuasive candidate for me).
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
I believe that there are now thousands of denominations in existence.
If you see this as a strength then so be it and good luck.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
I believe that there are now thousands of denominations in existence.
If you see this as a strength then so be it and good luck.
As with most things, it depends on your perspective.

If you view the (actually tens of thousands) of various denominations as schismatic attempts to be "more pure" than the others, if we see them all in competition with one another, then it is nothing but problematic. It's a sinful, prideful divisiveness that brings great harm to the body of Christ.

However, if you view the grand spectrum of diverse denominations as ways of reflecting the broad diversity of the body of Christ-- reflecting the various cultural streams, personality types, and perspectives of the whole church universal-- it is something quite wonderful and to be celebrated. It calls each of us to think beyond our narrow cultural boxes and be challenged to look at faith in new ways.

The reality I believe is somewhere in between.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
It is indeed difficult for the Catholic church NOT to feel that it is indeed the Catholic Church.

(...)

It is part of the differing perspectives and beliefs which we have and we have to accept this, while searching for a way to come closer to other Christians with different backgrounds.

Ecumenical and indeed interfaith initiatives really get off the ground when the participants make a conscious effort to adopt the perspective of the other participants - which includes not simply assuming they know what that perspective is.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Wow, that's a real leap for logical conclusions. If people trace the theological points of principle or of practice at stake causing the split or the worldly-abuses of power that drove a particular split they may actually become even more convinced of the need for a separate denomination.

Also those that want unity generally want the others to be the ones to change.
In former centuries the faithful were lucky to be literate let alone being capable of tracing points of theological niceties. Good try, but quite ridiculous.
The ultimate splitters are the original ones that split from the simplicity of Christ.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
I believe that there are now thousands of denominations in existence.
If you see this as a strength then so be it and good luck.
That's yet again a different point from the assertion that if individuals understand the history of their denomination they would want to reverse the process. People have different views and the differences aren't always due to misinformation.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
I am of the opinion that the vast majority of us are members of the denomination into which we were born,
I include myself.
As such we are taught of the self evident righteous of that particular stance.
When I entered the Royal Air Force, national service, I was unprepared for the strength of opposition there was towards my particular faith.
No other denomination was subjected to this kind of examination. They were well prepared, one might say orchestrated into what to say.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
Righteous should read righteousness.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
John 17:21 King James
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Need one say more?
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
John 17:21 King James
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Need one say more?
Of course one need say more. Does 'all may be one' mean one institution? I don't think it does, rather I think Jesus meant something closer to having unity of purpose and focus.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
The other "more" one has to say is what should be sacrificed to achieve unity and by who.

To be blunt, is the message of that verse that I should become RC? Or Orthodox? Or remain Protestant but pray very hard that someone else changes? Which creates more unity?
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
John 17:21 King James
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Need one say more?
Of course one need say more. Does 'all may be one' mean one institution? I don't think it does, rather I think Jesus meant something closer to having unity of purpose and focus.
Until Martin Luther, the vast majority of Christians were Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic and a few others.
All the main Christian bodies were present at the council of Nicaea AD 354.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The ultimate splitters are the original ones that split from the simplicity of Christ.
I note that in 1 Corinthians 1 those who proudly claim "I am of Christ" come in for as much flak from Paul as those claiming to be of Apollos, etc...
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Frankenstein: Until Martin Luther, the vast majority of Christians were Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic and a few others.
All the main Christian bodies were present at the council of Nicaea AD 354.
… aaand?

If you're saying that there is an imperative for us to become more united, then I agree with you. I am an active member of the ecumenical movement. What more are you expecting of us?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
Until Martin Luther, the vast majority of Christians were Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic and a few others.
All the main Christian bodies were present at the council of Nicaea AD 354.
I don't understand what you think this is proving. A large percentage of Christianity think the RCC, Orthodox et al are the ones who need to do the changing in order to promote unity.

This is a pointless zero-sum game.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Frankenstein: Until Martin Luther, the vast majority of Christians were Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic and a few others.
All the main Christian bodies were present at the council of Nicaea AD 354.
… aaand?

If you're saying that there is an imperative for us to become more united, then I agree with you. I am an active member of the ecumenical movement. What more are you expecting of us?
This is a statement of fact.
The real trouble came about in England after Henry 8 matrimonial difficulties and in Scotland by acts of parliament 1560
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Frankenstein: This is a statement of fact.
Thank you for stating this fact.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I note that in 1 Corinthians 1 those who proudly claim "I am of Christ" come in for as much flak from Paul as those claiming to be of Apollos, etc...
Yes, because they were asserting their moral superiority over everyone else, and so showing themselves just as schismatic as anyone else.

Years ago I remember speaking with a young man who wouldn't go to any local church as they were all denominational - he would only go to his own church, "the church with no name". We failed to make him see that, in fact, all he and his ilk were really doing was creating a new denomination.

[ 10. March 2016, 12:18: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
Until Martin Luther, the vast majority of Christians were Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic and a few others.
All the main Christian bodies were present at the council of Nicaea AD 354.
I don't understand what you think this is proving. A large percentage of Christianity think the RCC, Orthodox et al are the ones who need to do the changing in order to promote unity.

This is a pointless zero-sum game.
By far the much larger percentage are RCC and Orthdox.
The much smaller percentage, divided into thousands of parts, think they have something to offer.
Indeed they have nothing to offer but disunity.
We are one flock.
You are asking us to join the sheep who are scattered.
What is the point of that?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
By far the much larger percentage are RCC and Orthdox.
I'm not sure why you think that matters. Whichever way you look at it, a large minority in both directions believe it is the other who has to do the changing.

quote:
The much smaller percentage, divided into thousands of parts, think they have something to offer.
Indeed they have nothing to offer but disunity.
We are one flock.
You are asking us to join the sheep who are scattered.
What is the point of that?
I'm not asking you to do anything. I'm quite comfortable with anyone/everyone deciding for themselves which denomination fits and to which they are called.

This whole unity thing is a myth by which the RCC tries to use a phony moral superiority claim and a vivid imagination to bully others into acceptance. Unbelievably it doesn't work.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
Agreeing with mr cheesy, but I'd take a step further back - those who feel institutional unity is what God intends need to make the argument for that viewpoint, instead of simply begging the question.

And then, which institution is the right one? Does numerical superiority trump all else, or is there some other test that should be applied in order to find out which is God's approved institution?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
The much smaller percentage, divided into thousands of parts, think they have something to offer.
Indeed they have nothing to offer but disunity.
Besides disunity we also have cake and comfy chairs.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
Frankenstein, it feels a bit like you mostly want to accuse people and churches of not doing enough towards unity. Is there anything else you want to discuss?
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't understand what you think this is proving. A large percentage of Christianity think the RCC, Orthodox et al are the ones who need to do the changing in order to promote unity.

This is a pointless zero-sum game. [/QB]
You wish to promote unity by promoting disunity.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Frankenstein, it feels a bit like you mostly want to accuse people and churches of not doing enough towards unity. Is there anything else you want to discuss?
It seems to be the topic in hand.
If we cannot clear the first hurdle there is little point in going on.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
You wish to promote unity by promoting disunity.
Not at all, I am quite capable of being spiritually united with brethren in other denominations without the need to insist that the only acceptable form of unity would be for them to join my denomination.

That's the rub here. There is absolutely no way I would ever join the RCC. You've just got to get over it.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
The much smaller percentage, divided into thousands of parts, think they have something to offer.
Indeed they have nothing to offer but disunity.
Besides disunity we also have cake and comfy chairs.
Richard Dawkins, I am sure, is not adverse to cake and comfy chairs.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Frankenstein, it feels a bit like you mostly want to accuse people and churches of not doing enough towards unity. Is there anything else you want to discuss?
Where the main thing they could do to promote unity would be to become RC.

As I say upthread, I accept that is a legitimate view and I'm not bothered by it.

It is naive to think that us disunity-types would be won around by reviewing our history (my God - it was all so Henry VIIIth could have a divorce? what a lie I've been living. Point me to a Catechism class now), or by derision of our disunity. Not being united to the RCC is the point of Protestantism. I accept that is a price, the gulf of understanding is to determine why a Protestant might feel like that in the first place.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Frankenstein, it feels a bit like you mostly want to accuse people and churches of not doing enough towards unity. Is there anything else you want to discuss?
It seems to be the topic in hand.
If we cannot clear the first hurdle there is little point in going on.
Well, the first hurdle is, as others have noted, deciding what is meant by "unity": Institutional unity? Baptismal unity? Spiritual unity?

The answer to this question drives how we seek to exhibit that unity more clearly.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
The much smaller percentage, divided into thousands of parts, think they have something to offer.
Indeed they have nothing to offer but disunity.
Besides disunity we also have cake and comfy chairs.
I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
You wish to promote unity by promoting disunity.
Not at all, I am quite capable of being spiritually united with brethren in other denominations without the need to insist that the only acceptable form of unity would be for them to join my denomination.

That's the rub here. There is absolutely no way I would ever join the RCC. You've just got to get over it.
Believe me, no one on this website, has persuaded me in the slightest, to change my allegiance.
But as you clearly think that I am in the wrong, please would you advise me as to which of the denominations out there, I should apply?
Or will anyone do as long as it isn't Papist?
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
Who's saying you should leave the RCC, Frankenstein? It seems to me that you're the only person on this thread who's giving advice about what church people should be part of...
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
'All would be well if only the Pope were a bit more like the Archbishop of Canterbury.'
Discuss.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
Believe me, no one on this website, has persuaded me in the slightest, to change my allegiance.
But as you clearly think that I am in the wrong, please would you advise me as to which of the denominations out there, I should apply?
As I said above:

quote:
I'm not asking you to do anything. I'm quite comfortable with anyone/everyone deciding for themselves which denomination fits and to which they are called.
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
Or will anyone do as long as it isn't Papist?
At the end of the day, your religious choices are none of my damn business. For me, the Pope is but one reason that I couldn't join the RCC, but what you do it up to you.

[ 10. March 2016, 14:06: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Who's saying you should leave the RCC, Frankenstein? It seems to me that you're the only person on this thread who's giving advice about what church people should be part of...
I give no advice.
There are a few key points in history that have brought us to this sorry state.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
If the RCC wants to persuade me to join them, a couple of glasses of Trappist beer might have a slightly bigger chance of success than anything that is argued on an internet forum.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
'All would be well if only the Pope were a bit more like the Archbishop of Canterbury.'
Discuss.
All would be well if the Archbishop of Canterbury were more like his predecessors from Augustine to whoever it was yielded to Henry 8.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Of course the silly part of this is that the RCC itself is divided from Orthodox Christianity via the schism of 1054.

The RCC itself is schismatic.

Spitters.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.
Well, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Sorry. [Devil]
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
If the RCC wants to persuade me to join them, a couple of glasses of Trappist beer might have a slightly bigger chance of success than anything that is argued on an internet forum.
Benedictine is also quite persuading!
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Of course the silly part of this is that the RCC itself is divided from Orthodox Christianity via the schism of 1054.

The RCC itself is schismatic.

Spitters.
Mutual excommunicated.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Who's saying you should leave the RCC, Frankenstein? It seems to me that you're the only person on this thread who's giving advice about what church people should be part of...
I give no advice.
There are a few key points in history that have brought us to this sorry state.
Of the various models for the Church that fits under the "all one" umbrella you do seem to be leaning strongly towards an institutional unity where everyone is part of a single institution, and the sub version of that where it is achieved by everyone joining one of the existing denominations. And, your suggestion is that we wind back the clock and reverse the schisms that created the denominationalism in the first place, all the way back to Luther. Which effectively has all us prods rejoining the RCC.

So, yes you are giving advice about church membership. That if we're serious about being one body we should all join your church.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Of course the silly part of this is that the RCC itself is divided from Orthodox Christianity via the schism of 1054.

The RCC itself is schismatic.

Spitters.
Mutual excommunicated.
The is a very cordial relationship between the Orthodox Church and the Church of Rome.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
The is a very cordial relationship between the Orthodox Church and the Church of Rome.
Well of course, that's a category error: there is no "Orthodox church".

And it is the work of a moment to find Orthodox websites calling the RCC heretical and Roman Catholic websites which call the Orthodox churches heretics.

I'm not even going to waste my time searching for Protestants that call the others names.

[ 10. March 2016, 14:41: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Also, y'know, there are some Greek Orthodox bishops who are quite vocal about this kind of thing.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
Well as this "discussion" has descended to the level of the gutter, I for one am leaving.
Perhaps you will have more fun taking on Richard Dawkins. I think I might join him.
You can tell they are Christians by their love!
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
In former centuries the faithful were lucky to be literate let alone being capable of tracing points of theological niceties. Good try, but quite ridiculous.
In former centuries, people here were living as hunter-gatherers - on the other side of Eden, still in the Garden, while the old world population had been converting the gardens over there to dust and farming, living the life of Cain. The literacy was of intimate knowledge and connection to the natural world. Whereas the European settler population considered the world as mostly dead and set about killing what was alive, both material and spiritual. The original population considered that there was something animate in everything, the subtleties of which is over the heads of many as they label it as animism or something similar. It is not animism, but something more akin to respect for both living things and the environment in which we all live. This is written on the hearts of many Canadians in ways incomprehensible to others. Though I'm seeing the disconnection from the natural world accelerate even here in my lifetime.

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
I am of the opinion that the vast majority of us are members of the denomination into which we were born,
Not here.
The settler incursions and settling is merely 100-130 years old where I live, indeed in some areas much less: the original settlers are still alive. Little of the old world rigidity about religion and culture is important at all, e.g., the Scottish marry Ukrainians in Lutheran churches (if they don't just shack-up together): it's what's available both in terms of who your neighbours are when population density is less than 1 person per square mile and the neighbour is living only as close to you on the next quarter section of land (their "home quarter") either 1 or 2 miles from you, but often 5 or 8 miles away. And town where the one church is, is the only choice, because next church is 50 or 100 km away.

When it comes to cities and the organization of denominations, the Anglicans and Lutherans (Anglican Church of Canada, Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada) are in full communion, they share priests and often share everything else as well. The United Church of Canada is composed of most Congregational, Methodist and Presbyterians since 1925. Anglicans, Lutherans and Roman Catholics share various chaplaincies, retreat centres, and indeed we partake of each others' communion wafers.

Of course, like everywhere people often don't bother much with church at all. They stay home and sleep in, or when the whether is get out to a lake, have a picnic, barbeque, do some physical activity. I sometimes wonder if churches might do better to extend ecumenical efforts to exercise, yoga, golf, walking, having a drink and listening to live music.

[ 10. March 2016, 14:54: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Frankenstein: I am of the opinion that the vast majority of us are members of the denomination into which we were born,
I may be wrong but I have the feeling that there is more denominational fluidity on the other side of the pond.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Well I'm confused. I didn't see anything approaching a conversation in the gutter.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well I'm confused. I didn't see anything approaching a conversation in the gutter.
To the pure, all things are pure.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
Oscar Wilde:
"We are all of us in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
To the pure, all things are pure.
What.are.you.talking.about?

This is a discussion thread in Purgatory - this website's board for discussion. You've made some statements, to which others have responded, disagreed and proposed alternatives.

Nobody has called anyone names, nobody has denied the right of other views, nobody has done anything that could remotely be described as "in the gutter".
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
The only remotely sharp comment I notice is the "nothing to offer but disunity" one. I don't think anyone really took offence though.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Frankenstein: I am of the opinion that the vast majority of us are members of the denomination into which we were born,
I may be wrong but I have the feeling that there is more denominational fluidity on the other side of the pond.
During my short stay in America,(New England) I became aware how many churches there were. Each one had its own descriptive name. I got the feeling, rightly or wrongly, please correct me, that anyone could set up a ministry and preach the Good Book.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Frankenstein: I am of the opinion that the vast majority of us are members of the denomination into which we were born,
I may be wrong but I have the feeling that there is more denominational fluidity on the other side of the pond.
Indeed. In the States, at least, there is a great deal of fluidity among denominations and traditions, and not just among Protestant denominations.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
To the pure, all things are pure.
What.are.you.talking.about?

This is a discussion thread in Purgatory - this website's board for discussion. You've made some statements, to which others have responded, disagreed and proposed alternatives.

Nobody has called anyone names, nobody has denied the right of other views, nobody has done anything that could remotely be described as "in the gutter".
Agreed, so why the fuss!
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Frankenstein: During my short stay in America,(New England) I became aware how many churches there were. Each one had its own descriptive name. I got the feeling, rightly or wrongly, please correct me, that anyone could set up a ministry and preach the Good Book.
I don't know much about the US, but what you're saying is certainly true in Brazil.

I've told this before on the Ship but there is a famous example of a church in the city of São Paulo. It was led by a married couple; he was the pastor and she was the treasurer. There was a nasty divorce and she set up another church, just crossing the road. There are pictures which show the two church signs, right opposite of each other. That of the original church, called something like The Disciples of the River Jordan, and that of her new church, called The Real Disciples of the River Jordan.

Some interesting research was done in the nineties (I read it in an excellent book by André Corten) saying that the tendency to split and fragment has been both the strength and the weakness of Pentecostalism in Brazil. If there is a fight, you simply start a new church, which could take a lot of the pressure off.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
To the pure, all things are pure.
What.are.you.talking.about?

This is a discussion thread in Purgatory - this website's board for discussion. You've made some statements, to which others have responded, disagreed and proposed alternatives.

Nobody has called anyone names, nobody has denied the right of other views, nobody has done anything that could remotely be described as "in the gutter".
Agreed, so why the fuss!
You agree with him that the conversation hasn't gone into the gutter? Great, but then, what was all this about...?

quote:
Well as this "discussion" has descended to the level of the gutter, I for one am leaving.

 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
During my short stay in America,(New England) I became aware how many churches there were. Each one had its own descriptive name. I got the feeling, rightly or wrongly, please correct me, that anyone could set up a ministry and preach the Good Book.
They can. They may not find a following, but they can. (And do.)

But what we're saying is that in the U.S., the idea that someone born and raised a Catholic, Baptist or Presbyterian will remain one throughout his or her life simply isn't the case anymore. It may still be more common with Catholics, but there are plenty of people raised one thing who become something else later in life, whether because of shifts in belief, marriage or simply being drawn to a specific congregation. My Presbyterian congregation includes quite a few former Catholics, Baptists, Episcopalians, etc.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
(If you do want a discussion in the gutter, the Ship of Fools has a way to provide that.)
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
To the pure, all things are pure.
What.are.you.talking.about?

This is a discussion thread in Purgatory - this website's board for discussion. You've made some statements, to which others have responded, disagreed and proposed alternatives.

Nobody has called anyone names, nobody has denied the right of other views, nobody has done anything that could remotely be described as "in the gutter".
Agreed, so why the fuss!
You agree with him that the conversation hasn't gone into the gutter? Great, but then, what was all this about...?

quote:
Well as this "discussion" has descended to the level of the gutter, I for one am leaving.
Read the quote from Oscar Wilde:
We are all of us in the gutter...
You obviously aspire to greater things.
[Overused]
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
The is a very cordial relationship between the Orthodox Church and the Church of Rome.
Well of course, that's a category error: there is no "Orthodox church".

And it is the work of a moment to find Orthodox websites calling the RCC heretical and Roman Catholic websites which call the Orthodox churches heretics.

I'm not even going to waste my time searching for Protestants that call the others names.
I suggest you visit and read some of these websites.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
(If you do want a discussion in the gutter, the Ship of Fools has a way to provide that.)
There seems to my simplistic mind, a tendency for "discussions" to descend from the lofty planes to the lower regions, possibly incorrectly described by me as the gutter. I should try to remember that some of those who partake on these boards have no sense of humour or sense of irony.
Well good luck to them.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
I suggest you visit and read some of these websites.
Why?
Is it going to change the point that some Orthodox believe the RCC to be heterodox and some RCC believe the Orthodox to be heretics?
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
I suggest you visit and read some of these websites.
Why?
Is it going to change the point that some Orthodox believe the RCC to be heterodox and some RCC believe the Orthodox to be heretics?
Because I do not think you will find the word heretic there.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I've been reading those sort of websites for over 20 years.

Where have they got me?

[Confused]

I'd far rather interact with RCs, Orthodox and various forms of Protestant in real life - for all the time I spend here online - and I'm not knocking that.

Reading what RCs and Orthodox and various forms of Protestant have to say about one another simply highlights the differences - which can be informative - but it doesn't actually resolve anything.

Should I trust Rome more than Constantinople or Constantinople more than Rome?

How can I tell?

Both make the same claim - that they are the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. How do I know which one to believe? If either?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
Because I do not think you will find the word heretic there.
from the Orthodox website:

quote:
The Roman Catholic Church with which Patriarch Athenagoras would establish liturgical communion, and with which, through the actions of Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad and others, the Moscow Patriarchate has already entered into communion, is not even that same church with which the Orthodox Church led by St. Mark of Ephesus refused to enter into a union. That church is even further away from Orthodoxy now, having introduced even more new doctrines and having accepted more and more the principles of reformation, ecumenism and modernism.

In a number of decisions of the Orthodox Church the Roman Catholics were regarded as heretics.
quote:
From time to time, heretics and schismatics have cut themselves off and have fallen away from the One and indivisible Church of Christ, whereby they ceased to be members of the Church and parts of Her Theanthropic Body. The first to fall away thus were the Gnostics, then the Arians, then the Macedonians, then the Monophysites, then the Iconoclasts, then the Roman Catholics, then the Protestants, then the Uniates, and so on—all the members of the legion of heretics and schismatics.
From this Roman Catholic website:

quote:
prior to the Second Vatican Council it was quite common to speak of non-Catholic Christians as heretics, since many of their doctrines are objectively contrary to Catholic teaching. This theological distinction remains true, though in keeping with the pastoral charity of the Council today we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth. Such persons are formally (in their conscience before God) guilty of heresy
quote:
he person who refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff, whom Vatican I defined as having a universal primacy of authority over the whole Church, is at least a material schismatic. It was thus common in the past to speak of the schismatic Orthodox Churches who broke with Rome in 1054. As with heresy, we no longer assume the moral culpability of those who belong to Churches in schism from Rome, and thus no long refer to them as schismatics.
It seems incontestable that at least some of those quoted on these websites consider the other faith to be heresy. QED.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Reading what RCs and Orthodox and various forms of Protestant have to say about one another simply highlights the differences - which can be informative - but it doesn't actually resolve anything.
I introduced these websites to show that there was a fallacy in assuming the RCC and Orthodoxy are in a cordial relationship. That's clearly not the case for at least part of each of those churches - who believe the other to be heresy.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
In recent years, there have been cordial interchange between the Pope and the equivalent Orthodox Pontiff.

The Orthodox see themselves as going back to Paul.
Their Old Testament is the Septuagint, the translation made in Alexandria in the 4th century BC.

Similarly the Archbishop of Canterbury has on several occasions visited the Vatican.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
The Orthodox ...Their Old Testament is the Septuagint, the translation made in Alexandria in the 4th century BC.
Which was the OT for the entire Church until the protestant reformation muddied the waters.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
Where was Christianity to be found in the year 1500?
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Frankenstein: Where was Christianity to be found in the year 1500?
I can feel a Circus thread coming on.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Frankenstein: Where was Christianity to be found in the year 1500?
I can feel a Circus thread coming on.
If Christianity existed at all in the year 1500, it existed somewhere.
If this question makes you feel uncomfortable, perhaps you should ask yourself, why?
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Frankenstein: If this question makes you feel uncomfortable, perhaps you should ask yourself, why?
Speculations about how a question makes me feel are directed at me as a person, not at what I'm saying. I can't answer those in Purgatory.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Frankenstein, you aren't being remotely logical here. You talk about ecumenism - but really mean we should all become RC as the alternative only offers disunity. You talk about the conversation going into the gutter - but apparently that was ironic. I can't even understand ironic about what. You say the word heretic is not used between RC and Orthodox but it clearly is, as evidenced by the websites you said wouldn't use the word heretic.

The only thing that makes sense of this is a general defensiveness regarding Catholicism, and given what you say about experiences in the Airforce that is understandable. But these lines of discussion aren't furthering anything.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Frankenstein, you aren't being remotely logical here. You talk about ecumenism - but really mean we should all become RC as the alternative only offers disunity. You talk about the conversation going into the gutter - but apparently that was ironic. I can't even understand ironic about what. You say the word heretic is not used between RC and Orthodox but it clearly is, as evidenced by the websites you said wouldn't use the word heretic.

The only thing that makes sense of this is a general defensiveness regarding Catholicism, and given what you say about experiences in the Airforce that is understandable. But these lines of discussion aren't furthering anything.
I can only see things as I see them.
The reformation is a tricky issue.
Martin Luther, in my eyes was the most logical.
He was a devote Catholic. He visited Rome and did not like what he saw. I have every sympathy with him. He disposed of those elements he despised and retained the rest. He retained latin, vestments, bishops and a lot else.
I am sure that someone else will correct me.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
In Scotland, in 1560, the Church of Rome was rejected by Acts of Paliament. In 1590, 30 years on, the whole of Scotand had about 400 ministers for a geographically divided community.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Frankenstein, you aren't being remotely logical here. You talk about ecumenism - but really mean we should all become RC as the alternative only offers disunity. You talk about the conversation going into the gutter - but apparently that was ironic. I can't even understand ironic about what. You say the word heretic is not used between RC and Orthodox but it clearly is, as evidenced by the websites you said wouldn't use the word heretic.

The only thing that makes sense of this is a general defensiveness regarding Catholicism, and given what you say about experiences in the Airforce that is understandable. But these lines of discussion aren't furthering anything.
I accept your criticism. I attribute it to my advanced years, I shall be 80 in December.
My defence is that the Church of Rome existed throughout Christian history and every council of the Church since the first in 325.
The Orthodox Church attended the first 7 councils.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The ultimate splitters are the original ones that split from the simplicity of Christ.
I note that in 1 Corinthians 1 those who proudly claim "I am of Christ" come in for as much flak from Paul as those claiming to be of Apollos, etc...
And so they should Eutychus. All those exclusive, superior, closed, esoteric, apostatic, sexist, homophobic, placist, warmongering, mandatory, traditional, weird, magic thinking.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
As the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved, any other issue of Christian belief is quite trivial by comparison.
There are several interpretation to the nature of the Eucarist, the Bible and what it says to us.
Is the Bible the literal truth or is it better to see some of it as allegorical?
The whole issue of denominations is equally insignificant. Any real Church would have emerged after Constantine made Chritianity the religion of the Roman people.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
The Orthodox ...Their Old Testament is the Septuagint, the translation made in Alexandria in the 4th century BC.
Which was the OT for the entire Church until the protestant reformation muddied the waters.
The Greeks had the advantage that they did not need the text to be translated.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Of course the silly part of this is that the RCC itself is divided from Orthodox Christianity via the schism of 1054.

The RCC itself is schismatic.

Spitters.
Mutual excommunicated.
The is a very cordial relationship between the Orthodox Church and the Church of Rome.
Do I understand that you think it's sufficient to Christian unity that the relationship between the Orthodox and Roman Churches is very cordial? On the other hand you have been saying that Christian unity requires the Protestant churches to return to the fold of the Roman Church. Which is to be? Cordial relationships or institutional union?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
And since you seem to enjoy the gutter so much ...
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Of course the silly part of this is that the RCC itself is divided from Orthodox Christianity via the schism of 1054.

The RCC itself is schismatic.

Spitters.
Mutual excommunicated.
The is a very cordial relationship between the Orthodox Church and the Church of Rome.
Do I understand that you think it's sufficient to Christian unity that the relationship between the Orthodox and Roman Churches is very cordial? On the other hand you have been saying that Christian unity requires the Protestant churches to return to the fold of the Roman Church. Which is to be? Cordial relationships or institutional union?
Both Catholic and Orthodox Churches took part in the first seven councils of the Christian Church. This was somewhat more than being cordial. Yes, I would like to see Christians reunited but I realise that this is close to impossible. The Anglican Comunity is having great difficulty keeping itself together.
Even the Lutheran Church has fragmented.
In the Creed: I believe in the One, holy, Catholic and apostolic church.
One Church, not 20000 denominations.
 
Posted by Rowen (# 1194) on :
 
Come out to the remote Australian Alps... High in the mountains... Along steep, winding, dirt roads... Through flood, snow, drought, pounding rains and terrible forest fires...

Ecumenism here means finding any church AT ALL, with a sense of amazement that any clergy makes it out here, and joining in, sacraments and all, regardless of original church inclination.

I experience this daily, as the only minister in the region.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
Both Catholic and Orthodox Churches took part in the first seven councils of the Christian Church.
Well, strictly speaking both evolved (via a schism) from the one Church represented at those councils. If the unity of agreement with the pronouncements of the first 7 councils can survive schism (with slight disagreement about the precise wording of some creeds), why can't that also survive further schism? Why are you in a church that is in unbroken communion with those earlier Christians but my Reformed or Lutheran churches aren't? Is there some threshold of how many times the tree can branch?

quote:

In the Creed: I believe in the One, holy, Catholic and apostolic church.
One Church, not 20000 denominations.
You seem to accept One Church in two denominations (RC and Orthodox). Why not 20, or 200 ... or 20000?
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
Both Catholic and Orthodox Churches took part in the first seven councils of the Christian Church.
Well, strictly speaking both evolved (via a schism) from the one Church represented at those councils. If the unity of agreement with the pronouncements of the first 7 councils can survive schism (with slight disagreement about the precise wording of some creeds), why can't that also survive further schism? Why are you in a church that is in unbroken communion with those earlier Christians but my Reformed or Lutheran churches aren't? Is there some threshold of how many times the tree can branch?

quote:

In the Creed: I believe in the One, holy, Catholic and apostolic church.
One Church, not 20000 denominations.
You seem to accept One Church in two denominations (RC and Orthodox). Why not 20, or 200 ... or 20000?
As I am sure you know, the Orthodox Church objected to the prominence the Papiscy was receiving.
As I said nothing about the Orthodox Church being part of the One Church the rest of your observation is irrelevant.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Ah right, so I was mistaken in thinking you were being cordial about the Orthodox. They're as bad as us Prods then, and also not part of the One Church.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
Both the Orthodox and the Church of Rome see themselves as the One, True. Catholic and Apostolic Church
Four possibilities
The Orthodox Church is right
The Church of Rome is right
Neither is right
Christianity is a myth.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Ah right, so I was mistaken in thinking you were being cordial about the Orthodox. They're as bad as us Prods then, and also not part of the One Church.
I would never describe any member of another sect as bad. Mistaken perhaps.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
Both the Orthodox and the Church of Rome see themselves as the One, True. Catholic and Apostolic Church
Four possibilities
The Orthodox Church is right
The Church of Rome is right
Neither is right
Christianity is a myth.
Neither is right - because the One, True, Catholic and Apostolic Church extends beyond institutional boundaries.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
I think you misunderstand the word cordial.
I have been known to be cordial with a Conservative even if I cannot abide his politics.
I like the culture of the Orthodox Church.
Splendid liturgy, splendid vestments, great theatre
and bags of incense. The gospel book is carried by the deacon above his head, splendid.
And the Russian choirs...
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
Both the Orthodox and the Church of Rome see themselves as the One, True. Catholic and Apostolic Church
Four possibilities
The Orthodox Church is right
The Church of Rome is right
Neither is right
Christianity is a myth.
Neither is right - because the One, True, Catholic and Apostolic Church extends beyond institutional boundaries.
You're words, not mine.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The alternative is that the One, True, Catholic and Apostolic Church (OTCAC) is confined within the institutional boundaries of a single organisation. Is that agreed that those are the two alternatives (ignoring the option that there is no such thing as the OTCAC)?

So, if the OTCAC is confined to institutional boundaries then each time the institution divides one part remains the OTCAC and the other is no longer the OTCAC (or, both parts cease to be the OTCAC). How does one decide which part remain the OTCAC? In 1054, how does one decide between the Eastern and Western churches as to which remains the OTCAC? When Luther reluctantly separated from the RC Church, did he and his followers form the OTCAC or did that title remain with the RCs (assuming for the sake of argument that the title hadn't gone to the Orthodox)?

So, logically we have (as I see it) three options.
  1. During each schism one part remains the OTCAC, but we have no basis upon which to decide which part that is.
  2. During each schism both parts remain the OTCAC (assuming neither deviated from the Apostolic teaching of Scripture and the early councils), and the OTCAC thus extends across institutional boundaries.
  3. At the first schism the church was no longer One and Catholic - and therefore the OTCAC ceased to exist at that point.
Option 1 just opens the door for everyone shouting "me, me. I'm the OTCAC!" and is IMO a nonsense.

Option 3 is tempting. But, I do believe that in Scripture and Creeds we have a record of the Apostolic teaching and that many churches are in agreement with that. So, I can't actually believe that the OTCAC has disappeared.

Which leaves me with option 2.
Though option 3 is tempting,
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
As a Presbyterian, I feel as if I'm being left out in the cold, but in fact it doesn't bother me.

I do get some ideas for a forthcoming sermon though.

Several decades ago there was an earnest movement in Aotearoa New Zealand to unite five denominations: Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, Churches of Christ, and (?) Baptist. It eventually came to a vote, and I remember our minister being really cross with me when I told him I'd voted against pursuing the union option.

A number of united or uniting congregations have formed. This involves having to be responsible to two annual conferences/assemblies as well as the Conference of Uniting congregations (I forget its title).

Clergy also move between congregations. A nearby Presbyterian/Methodist parish has a really great ex-Baptist minister, and the much loved incumbent before him came from the Salvation Army, in which case two elders were authorised to officiate at Communion.

We have always had close relations with our neighbouring Anglican congregation, though some vicars have been easier to convince (train?) than others. They welcome us to their communion and happily share ours – though it's possible that they have members who avoid such occasions. I do understand from a good friend within their walls that they are a less united family than we are and this seems to be partly due to the vicar's ability to make unpopular decisions, that a Preaching Elder surrounded by Ruling Elders can't do.

GG
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I think there are a reasonable number of protestant denominations where unity is, in practice, achieved without any need for an institutional arrangement.

Baptist, Evangelical, United Reformed, Presbyterian, Methodist and various free church ministers seem very able to move from church to church and could recognize services in each others churches as being "their type" without much discomfort.

There are sections of some of these denominations - for instance some Methodists are quite liturgical.

I would suggest there is much greater disunity within the CoE. The evangelical part of the CoE would find it easy to transit through Methodist and Baptist congregations, but would be totally at sea in a high church CoE setting.

And then very profound disunity is caused by certain disagreements on dead horse issues, which split some congregations more than they are fault lines between denominations.
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
Hopefully there are not too many who would see the other denominations as not Christian.
What standing do the Plymouth Bretheren and the Mormons have with you?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I find the Plymouth Brethren very legalistic and think their very exclusive (and non-Ecumenical) approach is a shame. However I would have no problem sharing services with them although it is likely they would regard me as a non-believer (or "not truly in the way") and wouldn't want to share services with me. (Or even eat with me).

Mormons usually self-identify as Christians and I tend to feel that one should take such self-identification at face value whenever given. However I understand that they reject the creeds and have a non-Trinitarian view of God. I find some of their beliefs, especially the cosmology stuff, really quite way-out and some practices in services are very off-putting - such as metaphorically "baptising" the dead based on obituary records. I expect I'd feel a bit strange about sharing a service and would have to think about that pretty hard.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0