Posted on 04/28/2007 2:30:05 PM PDT by fgoodwin
MHGinTN asks "As an Episcopalian, can I receive the Eucharist if I attend Catholic Mass?"Please expand on my answer.+
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
There are plenty of priests who will give communion to non-Catholics, but as far as I know, it is not allowed by the Vatican.
“Most Churches opposed Jefferson, because he denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. He was not a Christian.”
****
It’s interesting that, according to the eminent Jefferson historian/biographer Dumas Malone, the Baptists of that day supported Jefferson because of his belief in freedom of religion.
There is undisputably a weakness in the liturgical churches that makes them more vulnerable. My personal theory is that the high level of ritualism implies that religious truth is allegorical, while churches with few or no rituals (often accused of "rationalism") have no need to redefine "allegories" they don't believe are allegories to begin with.
There's a huge difference between adhering to the religion and those associated with the NAME of the religion.
My main point was that "palaeoconservatives" are wrong when they advocate a separate inherited traditional religion for each people (and this is what they advocate, whether they say it or not). There is a universal One True Religion and it is the duty of each and every human being who comes into the world to search for it. The religion of our Founding Fathers is of historical value, but it has no more bearing on abstract religious Truth than the religion of the founders of Saudi Arabia.
I reiterate again: Fundamentalists regard the Bible as a book of facts. The ancient liturgical churches long ago rejected the facticity of truth as a "modern" creation of the scientific revolution and fell back on "truth" being abstract and symbolic while "facts" are mundane and have nothing to do with religion whatsoever. This it is a "truth" that G-d exists but it is not a "fact" that He exists, making the existence of G-d the same type of existence as that of Santa Claus.
To the highly ritualized churches the Bible is the text of a ritual pantomime rather than a book of facts. As a matter of fact, the clergy of the highly ritualized churches are full of atheists/agnostics who go through the motions in order to make a good living (after all, religious ritual is a basic human need that persists after the "myths" have been rejected, according to Eliade). It is much easier to tell a Protestant preacher's ideological orientation from a sermon than that of an Armenian priest by his performance of a two hour ritual.
Thank you for your input. I will consider it in the provided context.
You are speaking from the perspective of the secular, public-sector basis. Do differentiate, if you will. I intuit from what you speak, but you hamfisted it a bit.
>>Then why have Fundamentalist and Pentecostal denominations escaped this nonsense? <<
Who says they have? Ever been to a black Pentecostalist church?
Some churches are more conservative because they are comprised of conservatives fleeing mainline denominations, but they are becoming perverted by leftists (Rick Warren as a great example) at alarming speed. They are created out of conservatives; There’s nothing in the structure of such churches which make them remain so.
Arminian, not Armenian. Armenians are an Eastern Orthodox from the Former Soviet Republic of Armenia. They are truly paleoconservatives.
True, but America was never an Episcopalian nation.
The majority of European settlers up to the Revolution were "dissenters" - Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Quakers, Pietists, Catholics. And a good chunk of these Episcopals were actually Methodists - not a very clear distinction yet in those days.
The majority of founders were Episcopal because the English monarchy restricted voting, university education and military officerships to Episcopals by law.
As a result they were usually the wealthiest and best-connected people in the colonies, despite their status as a religious minority.
In my opinion, the American Revolution was largely a revolution "from above" - the colonial upperclass split into two factions: the Tories who hoped for preferment and the Founders who were tired of being shunted to the back of the line by toffs three thousand miles away.
The Founders were able to use the prestige their privilege gave them to make a change.
Ahem. I said "Armenian" and I meant "Armenian." Armenian priests perform two hour rituals (whether they actually believe in G-d or not). Arminians don't have priests or rituals.
I spent an entire summer attending an Armenian Apostolic Church, so I know what I'm talking about. But the Armenian isn't Eastern Orthodox; it's "Oriental Orthodox" (Non-Chalcaedonian); and they certainly aren't "palaeoconservatives" (in fact, many seem to have a leftist orientation).
Then why have Fundamentalist and Pentecostal denominations escaped this nonsense?
Who says they have? Ever been to a black Pentecostalist church?
My understanding is that most Black churches are as Fundamentalist theologically as they are leftist politically.
I have been to only one Pentecostal service in my life, and I immediately made up my mind that I would never, ever, EVER go to another one. And I haven't.
Some churches are more conservative because they are comprised of conservatives fleeing mainline denominations, but they are becoming perverted by leftists (Rick Warren as a great example) at alarming speed. They are created out of conservatives; There’s nothing in the structure of such churches which make them remain so.
I reiterate that the ritual nature of liturgical churches makes them more vulnerable to liberalism because they regard the Bible as a ritual text rather than a book of facts. I also consider the fact that Fundamentalist churches are made up entirely of "saved" individuals (ie, people who have had a mystical experience as adults) rather than people merely born into a church which is supposed to gradually save them throughout their lives as another reason for this.
:^D OK, touche’. It just seemed a little odd using a very rare, non-evangelical, foreign-based church as your example. But, yes, Methodists are often described as ArmInians, and they do have rituals and bishop, and, from what I gather, sometimes services that can go on for hours and hours.
>> I spent an entire summer attending an Armenian Apostolic Church, so I know what I’m talking about. But the Armenian isn’t Eastern Orthodox; it’s “Oriental Orthodox” (Non-Chalcaedonian); and they certainly aren’t “palaeoconservatives” (in fact, many seem to have a leftist orientation). <<
Oh, and the reference to the Orthodox being paleoconservative was a bit of a joke.
=]
The Episcopal Church, like other “mainline” Protestant denominations, never learned to discipline itself. Until after World War II, the clergy were kept in line by powerful men such as EI DuPont and JP Morgan. Many priests and bishops were essentially their employees, whom they kept in line (JP Morgan would never have tolerated Bps Pike and Spong).
After the war, these controllers faded away and new generations of clerics arose to “play” in their churches with endowments they had left. With neither the gumption nor the mechanism to exercise discipline, the ECUSA hierarchy chose to look the other way as heterodoxy and heresy crept into the seminaries.
The Catholics, Baptists and other Protestants never had a club of wealthy powerbrokers to maintain order. They therefore had to learn to discipline themselves in order to avoid ruin.
They were founded to escape that nonsense. Historically, the nonsense came first; fundamentalism started as a reaction to it.
My personal theory is that the high level of ritualism implies that religious truth is allegorical
I think that's a nonsensical theory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.