Chaplain's aid prayer policy

[Tampa Turtle]

No, I am pointing out that with all the Christian denominations out there, only the Latin church teaches transubstantiation.  How can one be provocative by simply stating a true fact.  This is nothing new, the issue has been around for long before either of us was born.

Most Eastern Orthodox Churches (Greek, Russian, Armenian) do as well...they just use a different term. 

[Stosh]

Most Eastern Orthodox Churches (Greek, Russian, Armenian) do as well...they just use a different term. 

What term do they use?  I'm curious.

 

"The Eucharistic gifts of bread and wine become for us His Body and His Blood. We affirm that these Holy Gifts are transfigured into the first fruits of the New Creation in which ultimately God will be "all in all". - Greek Orthodox in America, Rev. Thomas Fitzgerald.

 

"Thus, the eucharist in the Orthodox Church is understood to be the genuine Body and Blood of Christ precisely because bread and wine are the mysteries and symbols of God’s true and genuine presence and manifestation to us in Christ. Thus, by eating and drinking the bread and wine which are mystically consecrated by the Holy Spirit, we have genuine communion with God through Christ who is himself “the bread of life†(Jn 6.34, 41)." - Orthodox Church in America,

 

"During the eucharistic prayer, the Lamb is consecrated to be the Body of Christ, and the chalice of wine is consecrated as His Blood. Here's the surprising part: the priest places the "Lamb" in the chalice with the wine. When we receive communion, we file up to the priest, standing and opening our mouths wide while he gives us a fragment of the wine-soaked bread from a golden spoon." - Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, Frederica Mathewes-Green.

 

http://www.pravmir.com/why-not-open-communion/

 

This link goes into explaining the issue very well and notes that a lot of this discussion revolves around the "traditions" of the churches in terms of their practice of Communion.

 

Needless to say, Nothing indicates the tradition of transubstantiation as stated by the Roman Church.  There is nothing in the Orthodox teaching which would be of any concern to a Lutheran, Anglican or United Methodist as being different than the way they were taught.  The concern arises in the denial of certain groups of people from "their" sacraments.  The problem lies in the use of the sacrament to instead of bringing people together by a common theology, they segregate them apart by their traditions.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Stosh

[Tampa Turtle]

The Catholic Church allows Orthodox to receive communion which indicates that THEY think it is about the same. Stosh I think you are just enjoying a good catholic bash. Get over it.

[David CO]

No, I am pointing out that with all the Christian denominations out there, only the Latin church teaches transubstantiation.  How can one be provocative by simply stating a true fact.  This is nothing new, the issue has been around for long before either of us was born.

 

No, that is not all you are doing.  You are insisting that our most sacred Sacrament is just a tradition.  You have stated so on numerous posts.

 

One does not refer to a real event as a tradition.  A solar eclipse is not a tradition.  It is a real event.  One would not call a solar eclipse a tradition.  One can have ceremonies and traditions to celebrate a real event, but the event itself is real, not a tradition.

 

I absolutely hate playing these stupid word games with you.  I don't enjoy it at all.

 

I don't agree with Beavah.  I don't think you are confused.  I think you know exactly what you are doing.  You are entertaining yourself by trivializing our most sacred Sacrament. 

[Stosh]

I take it that one has not read the link....

 

"

Then the writer added: “There is just one exception to this rule. Orthodox Christians (such as Greek Orthodox Christians) may take communion in all Roman Catholic Churches. The reason for this is that Orthodox Christianity also teaches the actual presence of God in the host.â€

This widespread understanding of the matter is not accurate and needs to be corrected on several counts, theological as well as pastoral. An entire tome could be written by way of explanation, but here are a few of the most important elements. In the next two columns we’ll explore some others.

In the first place, we need to acknowledge that many Protestant Christians (including many Anglicans) do believe that Holy Communion offers them a true participation in Christ’s Body and Blood. They may not articulate that belief as Catholics or Orthodox would like; but their faith in Christ’s “real presence in the Eucharist†is genuine and should not be disparaged or denied.

Then again, Orthodox Eucharistic theology does not explain the change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ as a result of “transubstantiation,†the teaching that the “accidents†(visible properties) of the elements remain unaltered, while their “substance†or inner essence becomes the actual Body and Blood. Orthodox tradition speaks of “change†or “transformation,†(metamorphôsis; in the Eucharistic Divine Liturgy metabalôn, “making the changeâ€) but always with a concern to preserve the mystery from the probings of human reason.

 

So here we have the bias of tradition rearing it's ugly head.  I'm not disparaging the Catholics, I am only pointing out their teachings which they have studied, published and proclaim.  If that is disparaging to them, then they had better go back and review their process of letting the world know about the Roman Catholic faith.

 

And like local option, it is rampant in the Roman Church.  What one priest in parish A promotes, another priest in parish B forbids.  When my first wife filed for divorce (her family is Roman Catholic, aunt was a nun) but she was brought up Lutheran.  She cited to the court that a Roman Catholic priest said it was okay for her to get a divorce.  That must have been quite a hunt to find a priest that says divorce is an appropriate way to handle divorce.  My youngest brother was the only one of my siblings that didn't marry a Roman Catholic,  I attended a consortium seminary of which the Latin Church was an integral part.  I have worked closely professionally with many Catholic clergy and have never found a reason to disparage them in any way.  I have taken the full array of classes a non-Roman Catholic would take in order to become a member of the church and find nothing there that I would theologically disagree with.

 

Feel free to point out instances where I need apologize for disparaging the Roman Catholic faith.  As a matter of fact, I have stood up to those who say it isn't Christian.  I believe it truly is and will say so as many times as necessary to emphasize it.  Why would I bash a religion whose theology I agree with and quite often commune at fellowship with them when the occasion arises?

 

One can call me a lot of things, but bashing Roman Catholicism isn't one of them.    I have had instruction in the Reformed, Methodist, Lutheran, Roman Catholic and Presbyterian Christian communities.  So what does that make me?  I hold no membership in any church and if I had a bone to pick with any of them it would be the Lutherans. 

[David CO]

What?

 

Did Stosh just say that he holds "no membership in any church?"  How can one be a minister in a church without being a member of that church?

 

I have no idea what that makes him.

Edited August 11, 2016 by David CO

[Tampa Turtle]

Perhaps Catholic Bashing was a cheap shot. I'll change that to Papist Pounding.

[Stosh]

I don't agree with your statement that Catholic is a subset of Christianity

 

Being a part of the Christian community makes every group a subset.  (Subset defined and used as the logical venn diagram model) 

 

Pope Francis is often a wonderful speaker.  One of the things I like about him is that he usually speaks to us in a familiar way, using a more conversational language, rather than speaking in a boring, careful, legalistic, and pontifical manner.

 

This sometimes causes confusion.  Some people like to use his statements, given in a conversational style, to claim that he doesn't believe in or support the traditional teachings in our catechism.  This is a mistake.

 

I believe that the Four Marks of the Church (One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic) preclude the possibility of denomination.  So I do not believe the Catholic Church is one denomination of many, and I do not believe Catholicism is a subset. 

 

This is what I was taught in all of my catechism classes, both youth and adult, and this is what I believe.

 

I do not generally use the word "Christian" as a noun, as most Protestants do, but I often use it as an adjective.  I do hope that all Catholics would act in a Christian manner.

 

What any one person of a denomination believes is not necessarily what that denomination teaches.  What one person defines a word as is not necessarily what the common usage definition of the word might be.

 

After making a ridiculous statement like that, I might not pay any attention to him either.

 

There are huge theological differences between Catholics and Protestants.  They are two totally different religions.  

 

A statement like that, again using venn diagram logic means that one or the other is Christian and the other is not.  This implies Protestant bashing and it has always been my contention that the Roman Church is as Christian as all the rest who profess the Christian Creeds.

 

Catholics are not looking for you to "justify" our religion.  You practice your religion and I'll practice mine.

 

Again, a slam against the non-Christian Protestants.

 

Christian theologians of other religions can deal with the issue any way they please.  It is no concern of mine.

 

Catholic dogma, affirmed by Vatican II, says something quite different.  Stosh is apparently aware of this since it was clearly stated in the link he put up on his previous post.

 

So what is his point?  Is he saying that Catholicism is a bigoted religion?

 

Please don't put those words in my mouth because I would never use it.  However, bigotry is more often defined in terms of an individual, not a group.

 

Anyone who is interested in learning the real Catholic teachings on this issue can google "lumen gentium" and read chapter 1.

 

No, Stosh.  I don't want to play a word game.  I'm finished discussing this with you.

 

Which I did when it first came out and I again studied it at length in seminary under Catholic theologians.

 

Hedgehog,

 

I never said that.

 

If you have any honest questions about something I have actually said, I would be happy to respond.

 

I am not, however, interested in playing any more word games.  So please, do not put words into my mouth and then ask me to defend them.

 

Tit-for-tat. 

 

Hear the words and listen to the meaning.

 

The Roman Catholic Church is as Christian as any other denomination that adheres to the three canonical Creeds, Apostles, Nicene, and Athenasian Creeds.

 

The all have their basis in the universally accepted Sacred Scriptures of the Holy Bible.

 

They all have their exegetical traditions which enhances but not changes the teaching of the faith.

 

All the denominations of this fellowship make up the mystical Body of Christ here on earth, also known as the Kingdom of God, the Church, etc.

 

I did not make up definitions to words that are commonly accepted, I did not imply anything beyond what I stated, and if that is Roman Catholic bashing, then I have a ton of 'splainin' to do to my family, my friends, my coworkers, my theological professors, my professional colleagues, who happen to be Catholic.  Because until this discussion arose here on the forum, I have never heard from any of them speaking of Catholicism in terms presented here.  It makes it hard to understand a person's point of view when all the history one has with professional theologians, clergy, and laity doesn't include such definitions.  About all I can do is apologize for other people's misunderstanding or personal biases people may have.

[David CO]

Once again, Catholic theology is not solely based on text.  Exegetical traditions are based on text.

 

This notion that all theology must be based on text, the Scriptures, is not something that we Catholics believe.

 

If, after taking classes at a Catholic seminary, you emerged without understanding that Catholic theology is not solely based on text, than you wasted your time and money.   

 

All the dictionaries and Venn diagrams in the world cannot change the fact that we are different religions.

[Tampa Turtle]

David CO- what is the difference between a Religion and a Denomination?

 

Stosh-I am surprised you are not a member of ANY church. Can't find one you like? 

[Stosh]

There are twelve classical world religions—those religions most often included in history of world religion surveys and studied in world religions classes: Baha'i, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism, and Zoroastrianism.

 

There are twelve classical world religions—those religions most often included in history of world religion surveys and studied in world religions classes: Baha'i, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism, and Zoroastrianism.

 

Featured religions and beliefs

• Atheism

  Atheists are people who believe that god or gods are man-made constructs.

• Baha'i

  One of the youngest of the world's major religions.

• Buddhism

  A way of living based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama.

• Candomblé

  A religion based on African beliefs, originating in Brazil.

• Christianity

  The world's biggest faith, based on the teaching of Jesus Christ.

• Hinduism

  A group of faiths rooted in the religious ideas of India.

• Islam

  Revealed in its final form by the Prophet Muhammad.

• Jainism

  An ancient philosophy and ethical teaching that originated in India.

• Jehovah's Witnesses

  A Christian-based evangelistic religious movement.

• Judaism

  Based around the Jewish people's covenant relationship with God.

• Mormonism

  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

• Paganism

  Contemporary religions usually based on reverence for nature.

• Rastafari

  A young religion founded in Jamaica in the 1930s.

• Santeria

  Afro-Caribbean syncretic religion originating in Cuba.

• Shinto

  Japanese folk tradition and ritual with no founder or single sacred scripture.

• Sikhism

  The religion founded by Guru Nanak in India in the 15th Century CE.

• Spiritualism

  Spiritualists believe in communication with the spirits of people who have died.

• Taoism

  An ancient tradition of philosophy and belief rooted in Chinese worldview.

• Unitarianism

  An open-minded and individualistic approach to religion.

• Zoroastrianism

  One of the oldest monotheistic faiths, founded by the Prophet Zoroaster.

 

No matter how much I Google search religions of the world I do not ever see Roman Catholicism as a separate religion from Christianity.   I do see the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses not under Christianity, but there are theological reasons for that.

 

So going with the world view of religions, I'm going to put you and all my Catholic friends, relatives, colleagues in with those who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.  

 

If that is Catholic bashing, I'll take my lumps over and over again, but I will not back off on saying me and the whole world put the Pope and Latin Church firmly in the definition of a Christian Church and integral part of the Body of Christ.

 

Now with that being said.  If others out there who are Roman Catholic who think that the Church out there other than Roman Catholic are not Christian, being of a different religion, then that's their prerogative to be wrong, too.

 

 

[Stosh]

David CO- what is the difference between a Religion and a Denomination?

 

This has been how I have been bashing the Latin Church.  He has a different defiition than what the dictionary defines.

 

Stosh-I am surprised you are not a member of ANY church. Can't find one you like? 

 

When I was young I was baptized Dutch Reformed, but my parents brought me up United Methodist.  At confirmation age, my parents switched over to the Lutheran church for a better religion program in confirmation.  The church at that time was the American Lutheran Church (aka, Norwegian Lutheran church)  I was ordained in the ALC  after I was in the parish for about 15 years, the ALC and Lutheran Church in America (aka, one of many German Lutheran chuches) merged into the ELCA along with a few other smaller Lutheran synods.   I was not impressed with the many changes that were brought into the congregations I was involved with because of the more liberal LCA.  When my Call to Ministry in the ALC ran out, I never took a call in the ELCA and eventually my certification in an organized Synod expired.  Life went on and I never looked back.  My CO of my new troop is an ELCA congregation, so there's no hard feelings with the people of the Church, just the political aspects of the higher-ups.  Not my cup of tea.  I am involved with the youth group of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LC-MS)  (aka a German Lutheran church) because my children go there and my father was a member there.  I went because I took him to services.  They kinda took me on as one of the lost sheep of the world.    The Mrs. and I do a lot of traveling, camping, kayaking and such and are not always home on the weekends, but we still try to catch services around 9-10 am in whatever town we happen to be in at the time.  We've been to the Lutherans (of all synods), Catholic, mostly, but will catch services at whatever door is open at that time.  

 

It's not an issue of having to like a congregation, it's just an issue of feeling comfortable there.  Eventually a congregation will find me and help me feel comfortable and I won't have to shake the dust off my sandals and move on. 

 

Maybe my ministry of working with young people, precludes me from being tied to just one place.  I have heard of others that kinda fit that situation, too. 

Edited August 11, 2016 by Stosh

[meyerc13]

 

What any one person of a denomination believes is not necessarily what that denomination teaches.  What one person defines a word as is not necessarily what the common usage definition of the word might be.

 

I think this is the heart of this debate.  If you fill a room full of random Christians (Lutherans, Catholics... whatever) and ask them what they believe, you'll hear a lot of the same things.  In fact, I suspect most of them would begin to wonder why their 'religion' is different from the others.

 

If, on the other hand, you take a room full of religious scholars from those same denominations and ask the same sort of question, you'll have a debate about what is different between them.  To the scholars, it is as clear as night and day why their interpretation is the correct one, while to the average person all of these minute details don't really matter.

 

For example, my wife states she is ELCA Lutheran.  Yet she doesn't believe that she is receiving the actual Body and Blood of Christ when she takes Holy Communion, she believes it is all symbolic.  Now, a religious scholar would point out that she can't be Lutheran or Catholic if she doesn't believe that.  Yet she believes she is Lutheran.  I strongly suspect that if we polled a group of Lutherans and Catholics, that she wouldn't be the only one who believes what she does.

 

I'll tell you what I believe - that most people spend more time picking a church based on two things:  1)The sermons and how good the pastor is at delivering them; 2)The type of music (I really like traditional hymns, my wife really likes contemporary music).  I doubt most of them put a whole lot of time into worrying about what makes a Missouri Synod Lutheran different from a Wisconsin Synod Lutheran different from an ELCA Lutheran different from a Catholic...

[NJCubScouter]

And on that reasonable note, and with neither DavidCO nor Stosh really having had the last word (at least that is how I choose to look at it), I am locking this thread. It has really become counterproductive and unduly personal and I think has gone over the "Scoutlike" line a few times.

 

If anyone really thinks there is more to say about this that has not been said in this thread, they can start a new thread.

Edited August 11, 2016 by NJCubScouter