I need help to succinctly, accurately and [hopefully] simply differentiate between;
Catholic
Protestant
Anglican
at a level which will work for a 9 year old.
Thanks.
|
1.Multiple Pixies
2.One pixie who doesn't like those who worship multiple pixies
3.Similar to 1 but the priests like women rather than boys
|
May the fleas of a thousand camels.............
Doctors, never know when to laugh and when to be serious.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 19 May 14 at 01:41
|
It's a question of politics more than religion.
Catholicism is a religious order which is presided over by a Pope
Anglicanism is a group of churches linked to the Church of England which left the orbit of the regular Catholic church in the 1500s after Henry VIII fell out with the Roman Catholics (over a woman).
Protestantism is a bunch of religions who split from the Roman Catholics at least in part because of the way the RC church was run and the many doctrines that are basically nowt to do with the gospels/Bible.
I'd suggest some kind of Venn diagram.
In fact this music video shows a wider spread of religions in cartoon form:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeUWJbs9Q5E
Last edited by: Lygonos on Thu 17 Apr 14 at 23:52
|
>>I'd suggest some kind of Venn diagram.
Good thinking.
Care to try giving a few differences in belief or behaviour between Protestant and Anglican to help?
|
Protestant religions typically focus on the Bible as being their 'guide' while Anglicanism is a halfway house with at least one foot in the RC camp of doctrine and tradition being at least as important as the actual scriptures.
Protestantism = capitalism
Anglicanism = socialism
RC = communism
Sort of.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Fri 18 Apr 14 at 00:02
|
Lets try to narrow this down (mostly because I haven't got it straight in my head so I;ll never get it straight in hers).
Catholics:
1) Believe the Pope stands between them and God
2) Worship Multiple Saints
3) have strict behaviour stuff (contraception, sex before marriage, celibacy for priests etc.)
Protestants:
1)
2)
3)
Anglicans:
1) Worship direct to God
2) Acknowledge multiple saints but do not worship them
3) Priests are family men
And Protestants?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 18 Apr 14 at 00:10
|
Wiki says it best:
Protestants generally may be divided among four basic groups: The "mainline" churches with direct roots in the Protestant reformers; the Radical Reform movement emphasizing adult baptism; nontrinitarian churches; and the Restorationist movements of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. There are over 33,000 Protestant denominations, and not every one fits neatly into these categories.
Spans a huge number of groups from Ian Paisley's guys to Quakers.
|
Jesus, now I know what my Mother feels like when I'm explaining computers to her.
You used pretty much no words that I understand, I realise that this is my failing. Actually, I think I understood all the words, it was the sentences which confused me.
I have never had any interest in this subject and so have not paid a blind bit of attention in 50 yrs.
Is it possible to pick up on 3 or 4 points which would differentiate between Protestants and either Catholics or Anglicans?
Sorry if I'm being unhelpful here, but I'm trying.
|
Protestants are like hardcore Anglicans - generally utterly refute the Pope's position.
They may use adult baptism (rather than, or in addition to childhood brainwashing christening)
They tend to have a more informal hierarchy of lay priesthood or elders as well as formal priesthoods.
They may be more evangelical, perhaps sticking to the 'sabbath' more than Anglicans and Catholics.
It's like trying to define an African.
|
...now I know what my Mother feels like when I'm explaining computers to her.
You're a nun?
};---)
|
|
You're well wrong on that one Doc. The social history of Wales revolves around two things - socialism and chapel. Both are meshed together in blood and the sputum of the coal miners and the quarrymen. The landlords had their flash churches the workers their chapels.
|
In Scotland, protestants go to 'church' while catholics go to 'chapel'
Despite chapels usually meaning places of worship within other buildings.
As I said way up the top: it's politics.
Start with a decent idea, and once you let people and power get involved it all turns to crap.
|
|
Non Conformists in Wales view themselves as Protestants...the hub of education in the 18 to 20th Cent. An education not generally available in the stat system, it developed a highly literate and well educated socialist elite verging on the nationalist. The Protestants went to chapel and the Anglicans to church -the native collaborators followed their Landlords to the churches. Catholicism was very much an also ran. There was no dressing up in robes in the chapel....
|
>>You're well wrong on that one Doc. The social history of Wales revolves around two things - socialism and chapel
Welsh religion as far as I am aware is largely Anglican, which I referred to as socialism (rather TIC) - seems to fit to me.
|
>> Doctors, never know...
Yes, atheists tend to be proud of themselves, but they're no brighter than believers. I twigged that even before I became one myself. People carry their bigotry and arrogance with them wherever they go.
I'm not really learned enough to answer your nipper's question properly. But:
Catholic and apostolic church is the oldest established western variant of Christianity. It is centred in Rome and its chief prelate is called the Pope. Until recently its services, called Masses, were conducted in the Latin language. Most Christian believers in the southern European and Latin American countries are Catholic.
Protestantism was founded by radical priests, mainly in northern Europe, in the late Middle Ages in reaction to the privilege and corruption that had set in in the Catholic church. There are many protestant cults, but in general protestantism rejected the grandeur and wealth of the old Catholic church, along with its elaborate ceremonial and clothing, believing that Christians should be poor and simple like Jesus and his first disciples.
The Church of England is the established mainstream English variant of protestantism, established not without bloodshed in Elizabethan and Jacobean times. It isn't really all that different from Catholicism, but it thinks it is despite the robes and ceremonial. It is seen as the official English (or British) church and its chief prelate is the Archbishop of Canterbury.
It is worth noting that other protestant cults, known collectively as 'nonconformist', have quite numerous followers among those who believe in a Christian God and go to church or chapel. Elsewhere in the world, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic and other old-established Christian cults still hold sway among believers.
|
Venn diagrams, politics... see what I mean about arrogance and bigotry FMR? Just the thing for a puzzled 9 year old.
TCHAH!
|
If they can cope with a bearded dude bringing their Xmas presents, and a guy being nailed to a cross and then coming back to life to save us from ourselves (only being seen by a handful of chaps and subsequently vanishing again, to be written about a hundred or more years later... but hey it really happened) then they can cope with a venn diagram.
My 7 year old can manage it.
|
>> they can cope with a venn diagram.
>> My 7 year old can manage it.
It won't help them understand what religious belief is. Nor will all that crap about sky-pixies. It's all very well to be an unbeliever, but that won't help anyone understand the variants of religious belief, which is what this is about, hmmm?
One needs to back off the old ideology shuffle from time to time Lygonos.
|
|
Actually the girls get venn diagrams, very useful for a multitude of explanations.
|
Catholics;
1. The Pope. Catholics have a Pope, an infallible stand-in that heads the Church. Protestants believe no human is infallible and Jesus alone heads up the Church.
2. Catholicism says that “humanity must discover its unity and salvation” within a church.
3. Catholics pray to saints in addition to God and Jesus.
4. Catholics have Holy Water, celibacy, nuns and Purgatory
5. On the Church has the authority to interpret the Bible
6. Catholics have the 7 Sacraments to achieve salvation.
7. Catholics have strict behavioural stuff (Holy Days, Obligations, etc.)
8. Catholics believe that the bread and wine *ARE* the blood and body of Christ
9. Believe that the Church stands between Man and God
Anglicans;
1. Anglicans believe no human is infallible and Jesus alone heads up the Church
2. Anglicans acknowledge saints but do not pray to them.
3. Anglicans do not have have Holy Water, celibacy, nuns and Purgatory
4. Each individual has the right to interpret the Bible.
5. Anglicans believe that salvation is achieved through Faith alone
6. Anglicans largely believe that behaviour should be "real world"
7. Anglicans believe that the bread and wine are merely symbolic
8. Believe that individuals have direct access to God and the Church is only there to help.
Protestants;
1. Much more strict.
Clearly I need a few more words for Protestants, and to understand if I've got the others right...!
|
I think Anglicans do have holy water.
Wonder where the various monastic groups fit in there...
Last edited by: Lygonos on Fri 18 Apr 14 at 00:34
|
"I think Anglicans do have holy water."
I agree, though it's possibly not as holy as catholic holy water. It's what they use to christen babies with and it must be passed by the bishop (though I'm not sure about about the last bit)
When your daughter's a bit older, take her to see 'The Life of Brian' - which explains it all very well. Though, on second thoughts, maybe you have to know a bit about religion to understand 'The Life of Brian'.
As a biologist, I am fascinated by the evolution of religion in the human animal. I believe it can be explained by the fact that highly motivated individuals do best. As a simple example, I've a friend, a former work-colleague, who became a self-employed gardener when the old firm took over another company. He had also become a fanatical born-again christian and he told me once that he'd had to trim down a gigantic leylandii hedge. His technique was to get down on his knees and say a quick prayer for divine assistance - he knew his god would help him. Whereas he succeeded in overpowering the hedge, I would have admitted defeat, not been paid - and starved to death as a consequence.
|
>>he'd had to trim down a gigantic leylandii hedge. His technique was to get down on his knees and say a quick prayer for divine assistance - he knew his god would help him.
I once told a Tamil Hindu worker to cut down a tree. He began by burning a little camphor (something I saw in many Hindu ceremonies) and saying prayers to his axe, pleading with it not to injure him.
Makes as much sense as worshipping a God who seems to consist of three separate entities.
The fact remains however that humans seem to have a built-in need to acknowledge a higher, non-human power, or some other means of self-transcendence.
|
>> The fact remains however that humans seem to have a built-in need to acknowledge a higher, non-human power, or some other means of self-transcendence.
Existence itself is an impenetrable mystery. Anyone who wondered at an early age what it all is, matter, consciousness, how it started, can readily understand the terrifying meaning of 'vertigo'.
Seems to me that belief, albeit provisional, in a big bang or a concertina-like succession of big bangs, is ultimately as irrational and superstitious as religious belief. It's just a different sort of superstition.
Some may feel that there's no point in worrying our pretty little heads about unanswerable questions. That is their right of course. But I think it's a dull attitude.
|
"The fact remains however that humans seem to have a built-in need to acknowledge a higher, non-human power, or some other means of self-transcendence."
Absolutely - we all seek divine leadership in some form or other …….. the various gods, Santa Claus, Superman, Batman, Sir Alex Ferguson etc.
Bizarre, isn't it?
|
|
FM2R: Was brought up as RC, but lost what little belief I had at the age of 13. Overdose of forced attendance and matters relating to Father Hudson's Homes which I will not go into except to say I saw the warning signs and extricated. Pope only "infallible" on matters of doctrine, when that is pronounced ex cathedra. Rather rare. So, not "infallible" in the ordinary sense. As for *8 transubstantiation,: only the naive believe that. More a symbol of suffering recalled. *9. Not sure that isn't Protestant propaganda, otherwise prayer no value. Re Anglicans: IIRC, there are a couple of thousand nuns and monks secreted about the place. Not just UK.
|
AC - How many of the things you wrote about Protestants in this note apply to Protestants and *not* Anglicans? If any?
I appreciate this effort Guys, Easter is coming and as far as I understand it I get struck by lightening and burn in hell if I don't get this straight in No 2's mind before the weekend.
Bear in mind that in South America they think you have Catholics and everybody else is going to Hell or somewhere like it.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 18 Apr 14 at 00:42
|
ooo, how about this...
"Protestants" refers to any groups of Christians who separated from the Catholic Church for any reason at any time. There are many groups and they are wide ranging in their beliefs and practices.
Anglicans are a subset of Protestants.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 18 Apr 14 at 00:51
|
>>Anglicans are a subset of Protestants
and also a subset of Catholics - hence the Venn diagrams.
and funky robes.
|
Right. But the reason I couldn't find differences between Protestants and Anglicans is that all Anglicans *are* Protestants, but not all Protestants are Anglican.
However, surely no Anglican can be Catholic since they are disparate subsets of Christianity?
Although if the Venn diagrams refer to beliefs rather than people, then I guess there is substantial overlap.
I wish we could do pictures here.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 18 Apr 14 at 01:01
|
Some Anglicans see themselves as catholics, the so-called Anglo-Catholics.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Catholicism#Theology
Looks like some meat there showing differences/similarities
|
"However, surely no Anglican can be Catholic since they are disparate subsets of Christianity?"
Not quite, the Anglican communion of churches (churches of England, Scotland and Ireland, at least) see themselves as catholic, just not Roman Catholic. So, they don't answer to the Pope in Rome and, in that sense, they're Protestant churches.
As an ex-Roman Catholic practising Anglican (confused yet?) I'd say the traditions of both are fairly similar. The difference for me is in the mindset: follow the Pope's rules and you've done your duty vs. do what *you* think is right and we'll help you figure it out along the way...
Last edited by: Gromit on Fri 18 Apr 14 at 07:01
|
And the robed ones are the official religion in England (Church OF England) whilst in Wales there is a tentative acceptance that they are the viewed as infidels by naming themselves Church IN Wales.
Interestingly the non-conformists are allowed to form their own views on Gay marriage, maybe that's what made them nicer and less class ridden than the ones with the spires, oh and they sing better.
|
''Yes, atheists tend to be proud of themselves, but they're no brighter than believers.''
Much brighter, because they're not deluding themselves.
|
>>Much brighter, because they're not deluding themselves.
That can't be proven, anymore than the other lot can, Atheism is just another system of belief after all.
|
|
Atheism is more the absence of belief, surely? It doesn't require, or have, an analogue of the God industry. There is no system to it. There is no baggage in the form of payroll.
Last edited by: NortonES2 on Fri 18 Apr 14 at 08:36
|
Nothing worse than debating/discussing/arguing about religion, bit like poly ticks really.
I'm probably (without looking it up) an Agnostic these days, in as much as I believe there is a creator but it cannot be known by us mere mortals.
And now I believe I'm taking the dog out for a walk :)
|
" Atheism is just another system of belief after all."
Yes, and 'not-believing in Santa Claus' is just as valid as 'believing in Santa Claus'.
|
Pretty sure I linked "He's not the messiah - he's a very naughty boy" bit from Life of Brian on a previous thread, Haywain.
One of the best films of all time.
|
I have a modest understanding of most religions, and sometimes use it to great annoyance.
One of my favourites is to ask Catholics "Who was the product of the Immaculate Conception?"
When they reply (inevitably) "Jesus" I get to mock them a bit more.
|
Organised religion has been used throughout the ages as a control system by the "haves" to control the "have-nots" with threats and promises, neither of which have any validity.
It is a fact that almost religions rely on utterly improbable stories and myths, completely unprovable, to enforce control. There has always been a cynical priesthood class who have grown rich and fat by manipulating the masses.
Yes, there may have been the cave-dwelling ascetics whose minds were so addled by their faith in a god of some sort, to eschew comfort and live in poverty, but they were and are, in the minority.
From the cat worshippers of Egypt, to the human sacrificing sun worshipping of the Incas, to the Nordic gods of Thor et al, to the Greeks with their pantheon of malevolent and generous deities, history is littered with religions all utterly convinced that THEIR religion is correct.
They cannot all be right!
Today we have the Christians, who believe in the myths in a series of stories gathered into book, written years after their Jesus theory was revealed.
Now there is real danger abroad - that of Islam, whose declared intention, as written in its holy book, to which all Moslems MUST adhere in full, is that the whole of the world will be subject to and ruled by the strict and repressive laws dreamt up by a nomadic desert Arab to reinforce his authority.
What is it in the human psyche that leaves us so lacking in self-confidence that so many feel the need to worship ANYTHING?
Sad, I call it.
|
Religion in one form or another has been responsible for a great range of appalling crimes. Whenever you have a group of people who are convinced that they and they alone know "the truth" about the human situation, morality or whatever - that they have some kind of privileged revelation or insight into such matters - they have a poisonous tendency to inflict their beliefs on others.
What upsets me about any belief system is that its purpose is almost always to prevent independent thought and exercise control.
I admit the historical role of the Church in Europe of preserving knowledge and promoting visual and musical arts, but the abuses and excesses of its crusades, persecution, politics and the manipulation of its vast wealth are breathtaking.
As for fundamentalist Islam, it is a medieval weapon for intolerance and violence, much of it directed against women.
|
"And almost everyone when age,
Disease, or sorrows strike him,
Inclines to think there is a God,
Or something very like Him."
Arthur Hugh Clough
|
|
There's a distinct lack of religious tolerance forming in the UK. Religion has played a hugely positive role in our history - and yes negative. But on the whole it was responsible for, probably, the most civilised legal system in the modern world, the industrial revolution and basic education for the masses. Sneering at it is easy - ironically religion actually gave us the basis for freedom of thought and speech....
Last edited by: R.P. on Fri 18 Apr 14 at 09:30
|
''"And almost everyone when age,
Disease, or sorrows strike him,
Inclines to think there is a God,
Or something very like Him."
Arthur Hugh Clough
Hmmm. And because Mr Clough said it, that makes it so does it?? Mr Clough presumes to assert a truth on behalf of, well, almost everyone. Cods.
RP: Tell me more. How exactly was religion responsible for the industrial revolution? I take it you're suggesting that it wouldn't have happened without religion? Education: The organised religious masters took money from the masses then spent some of it on education to exercise further indoctrination and control. Maybe some of it was a good thing (the wider education) but it doesn't make out a case for the existence of God. Law: I'd suggest that the bible is a story and the ten commandments were written by man. A moral code from which law developed. Having a belief in God isn't a prerequisite for understanding how to live alongside your fellow man. Religion doesn't hold a higher moral hand or understanding of what's right and wrong. The development of modern law now has little to do with the ten commandments and far more to do with trying to control modern society for the benefit of all who choose to live in some sort of well mannered structure. God help us. Whoops, done it again!
|
|
Ten Commandments are so Old Testament....!
|
"Hmmm. And because Mr Clough said it, that makes it so does it?? Mr Clough presumes to assert a truth on behalf of, well, almost everyone. Cods."
No, the poet is simply making the point that when all is going well in their lives many will give little though to the existence of God or deny his existence but in times of adversity they are quite likely to turn to God. "or something very like him" This was true when Clough wrote the poem in Victorian times and I believe is still true today.
As has been said "there are no atheists in foxholes"
The majority of people in this country still believe in some sort of god or divine power as is perhaps evidenced by the way a large proportion of the population still turn to the church or other religious institutions for major events in their lives such as births, marriages and deaths.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Fri 18 Apr 14 at 14:44
|
"There's a distinct lack of religious tolerance forming in the UK."
That's true, and it's very worrying for those of us who aren't excited by all that mumbo-jumbo! It's also very troubling that many supposedly-educated people are drawn into it.
|
|
Quite right. I work with a guy who carries his anti-religious views as a badge of pride. He was mentioning today to a volunteer as some Christian Festival and the branch being closed. I told him he was more than welcome, as a symbol of principle, to open up today and Monday...I'm not a religious person but I defend the right of anyone to so be.
|
Most belief systems serve as a sociological glue providing a structure, a set of conduct rules and a medium for its practitioners to feel part of a an elite group conferring a sense of worth and membership.
Many of these are good things in enabling communities to function.
It can be pretty scary if or when you finally realise for sure that you are just a worthless smart monkey and religion acts as as a psychological barrier to that and as such gives some meaning to an otherwise fairly mundane and transient existence.
|
The mocking of religious thinking is itself not only tedious and rude, but ignorant and oppressive (not that I haven't done it myself in the past, or will do again, possibly in this very post).
Some highly intelligent people, far from deluded, have lived a religious life. I'm sure the point that not all monotheistic religions can be literally right hasn't escaped them.
It's probably high time to abandon state religion, though not to replace it with state atheism; but perhaps we should consider the legal position of religions that treat non-believers as sinners or are themselves repressive.
I detest fundamentalists of all kinds. You never know what God might tell them to do next.
I'm atheist myself, but the local vicar told me a while back that He still regards me as one of his flock, so that's OK.
|
>> The mocking of religious thinking is itself not only tedious and rude, but ignorant and oppressive (not that I haven't done it myself in the past, or will do again, possibly in this very post).
Well said Manatee. Couldn't have put it better myself. I agree with virtually all of that post.
There's something very irritating about the smugness of atheists who apparently think they can't be deluded about anything. It's childish.
|
>> I'm atheist myself, but the local vicar told me a while back that He still
>> regards me as one of his flock, so that's OK.
I do hope you are not in Wales, or we will be moving this to the Operation YewTree thread.....
|
>>ironically religion actually gave us the basis for freedom of thought and speech....
Sure as hell was diddly to do with Roman Catholicism.
|
>> Not quite, the Anglican communion of churches (churches of England, Scotland and Ireland, at least)
Is the Church of Scotland Anglican?
My understanding was of a more austere Calvinist outfit (albeit even more austere and more calvinist versions are available - qv villages on the Western Isles with three churches).
The Scottish Episcopal Church seems to be the Anglican brand north of the border.
|
|
There's something very tedious about people that 'believe' in fiction and equally tedious that they think it rude for others to state their opinion. Another example of religion thinking it deserves some special right not to be offended.
|
I too am curious, nothing more in truth, to know what constitutes rudeness versus what is simply the expression of a different opinion or view?
I certainly do not deride anyone's beliefs, I may though, not agree with all or some of them. Is that rude?
Sensitive subject I know.
Last edited by: Runfer D'Hills on Fri 18 Apr 14 at 12:09
|
>> There's something very tedious about people that 'believe' in fiction and equally tedious that they
>> think it rude for others to state their opinion.
Ouch, if that was a comment on my post. Not aimed specifically at you Woodster.
I don't dispute anybody's general right to express his opinions, and to be rude, within reason. I certainly wouldn't want to stop you writing what you did.
Incidentally it's not the opinion that's rude, it's the frequent manner of expression. Belittling people is always rude isn't it?
Maybe I need a better word than "mocking".
>>Another example of religion thinking it
>> deserves some special right not to be offended.
Hardly. I'm an atheist too, and have my very own copy of Life of Brian.
|
>> There's something very tedious about people that 'believe' in fiction
Religious beliefs may not be literally 'true' but they aren't fiction exactly. They have the dead weight of millennia behind them.
Nor does the expression of unbelief need to be offensive. It just often is. I have a good friend who is a physicist and mathematician and also a Catholic convert. I am an atheist and we very often discuss these matters without anyone getting offended. The view that atheists are necessarily brighter than believers is arrant rubbish. It's in the nature of things that most people in both categories aren't all that bright, although a few are.
|
'Religious beliefs may not be literally 'true' but they aren't fiction exactly. '
Crystal!
|
>> Crystal!
Heh heh... an element of vagueness is inherent in the subject woodster. If you want crystal clarity, talk about something with defined limits.
|
|
I think the irreligious bloke I work with is a sanctimonious left wnger. Whinges about capitalism and religion, but owns a flat in central London from which he pulls a very tidy income. He made a comment about the Foodbanks run by the Pentacostal Church the other day - something along the lines of people only doing because it makes them feel good about themselves. He has a flawed view of Christianity. Maybe his mother was frightened by an Ass or donkey or something.
|
|
By the way - anyone noticed or commented on St Dave's recent conversion...?
|
|
I'd admit to becoming tedious if I told you how clear it all is to me....
|
Totally political on Dave's part.
Hypocritical too, when you consider his forcing through the gay marriage thing - against Christian mores and beliefs.
|
|
Politicians generally have a cold and cynical outlook which they have to play down to avoid frightening the punters. I can't remember any PM 'coming out' as an atheist. US politicians are similar. They have to pay lip service at least, or the voters get shirty.
|
>> Totally political on Dave's part.
>> Hypocritical too, when you consider his forcing through the gay marriage thing - against Christian
>> mores and beliefs.
Only or some parts of christianity. The Quakers for example were first to accept same sex marriage.
The 'representative christian objector' found by BBC on morning act came into force had an unhealthy obsession with consummation and same sex partners' incapacity to comply with his view of what it entailed.
Since DC previously described hs faith as 'like reception of Magic FM in the Chilterns - it sort of comes and goes' I'm sceptical of his conversion now.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 19 Apr 14 at 00:05
|
>> How many of the things you wrote about Protestants in this note apply to Protestants and *not* Anglicans? If any?
See Lygonos's Wiki post giving some detail on the can of worms that is protestantism. Perhaps can of worms is a bit unkind, although many here would applaud it. My own account, off the top of my head, was heavily elided and simplified to suit me as well as yr nipper. But my exlicit view was that Anglicanism is the established English variant of protestantism. As I and others have said, it isn't all that different from Catholicism anyway in its more establishment manifestations. My guess is that the English didn't want the pope or foreigners but still had Catholic sensibilities, so didn't take in large numbers to the stark northern variants of protestantism. Nevertheless lots of those have small followings, usually local.
I've even noticed incense in one or two high church Anglican ceremonies I have attended. You can't get much more Catholic than that.
|
Church of England (Anglican) is certainly a "broad church", to coin a phrase. At nearby St Albans Cathedral candles, incense and confession are certainly in evidence, as well as rich vestments for the clergy, especially at important festivals like Easter and Christmas.
But "high" church congregations still don't believe in the Pope and don't pray to saints or the Virgin Mary, nor do they believe in transubstantiation. Neither do they believe in the intercession of priests (i.e. the priest as an essential medium between the believer and God).
The Protestant churches don't create saints on the basis of supposed miracles.
Protestants seem to believe in two or three sacraments, or ordinances, as they prefer to call them: baptism, communion and marriage; Catholics in seven: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Matrimony, and Holy Orders.
I could go on.
"Can of worms" might be applied to the whole Christian community, I feel.
Last edited by: FocalPoint on Fri 18 Apr 14 at 16:31
|
Tell ya what I do believe in .. Pink Floyd and, I'm orf to cut the grass with the Division Bell on my headphones.
(*_*)
|
My small, atheistic brain is hurting now. When the hospital effectively ' killed ' me for 4/5 hours last year, there was nothing. No senses, no darkness, nothing. That's what I think it will be like after your last breath. Tough t1tty for the Pope, A of C and all the others if that's the case !.
It's midnight, I'm orf to bobos.
|
7 days without God makes one weak.
:}
|
|
Give it a month and you feel so much better!
|
|
Religion is an artefact, invented by humans who find it hard to accept that without it, this is all there is.
|
|
Horror shock awe are doomed - Oh wait its our resident racist daubing his graffiti on the toilet walls again.
|
Sorry, Zeddo, but you'd better believe it. My wife teaches here in lovely Suffolk, but one of her colleague's daughter works in one of those schools.
Personally, I don't think religion, any religion, should feature in the landscape of our schools.
|
>> Sorry, Zeddo, but you'd better believe it.
NO! I can't possibly believe that schools in a predominantly muslim areas tailor their facilities and teaching to their pupils, can't be possible. We all know they should be forced to be white christians.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 19 Apr 14 at 20:55
|
"We all know they should be forced to be white christians."
Did you read the last line of what I posted?
|
|
You're right Haywain....faith schools have no place in a secular society...maybe this is the catalyst.
|
>> You're right Haywain....faith schools have no place in a secular society...maybe this is the catalyst.
I agree in principle but separating religion from its wider cultural setting is going to present some serious challenges. Can kids still have a Christmas Party?
The article PMF links would be easier to follow if it made each point only once. As it is it's a mish/mash of repetition. While segregation and omission of aspects of the curriculum are alarming is what's happening here that much different to what routinely happens in schools sponsored by the Roman Catholic church or even the cosy old CofE? Mrs B, a supply teacher, has been sent to an RC focussed establishment and reports a deal of symbolism around the place and it's own approach to aspects of the science curriculum.
The role of the CofE and its 'reach' into government mean a move to secular education in the style of France is not going to happen.
The sort of 'power grab' alleged in Birmingham would be much more difficult if not impossible if LEAs still retained a role in the funding and governance of schools. The move to Academies, directly funded by Whitehall and with their own freedoms has made this sort of thing much easier.
Where is the accountability?
|
>> "We all know they should be forced to be white christians."
>>
>> Did you read the last line of what I posted?
Didn't see you complaining when they were white anglo saxon schools that had christian fundamentals.
There have been jewish schools, RC schools, Jesuit schools - all sorts of religious themed schools for years. You send your kids where you want.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 19 Apr 14 at 21:32
|
"Didn't see you complaining when they were white anglo saxon schools that had christian fundamentals"
Have you been drinking something nice with your supper?
|
|
As it happens yes, doesn't alter the fact you weighed in to whine about a Muslim take over,
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 19 Apr 14 at 21:48
|
>>I don't think religion, any religion, should feature in the landscape of our schools.
Actually, I rather like the way my girls' school in the UK does it. They insist that they are an Anglican school, and indeed have a church in the grounds which is used for assemblies every day, but in studies they are taught pretty equally about all the main religions.
|
All the schools I went to had an official religion. Most were Anglican but a couple were Catholic. All wihout exception were, in the terms of the time, sensitive about not being too fundamentalist and accepting variation, even when non-Christian.
Schools that try to impose a strict version of some cult, especially in a country where there's absolutely no hope of making a different religion altogether prevail with the majority, should be closed or at least whipped into line.
I don't think this country has a secular education system. In France it's written into the constitution. But we don't have a constitution. We are formed in a vague Christian mould, and no harm in that.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sat 19 Apr 14 at 22:21
|
The Prime Minister's ringing declaration that this is a Christian country was a bit American admittedly but didn't bother me at all, being true as far as it goes. Nor apparently did it get anything but approval from representatives of the other big world religions, as one would expect.
Criticism has come however from fifty or so prominent unbelievers, smug shrill spokesfolk for the 5% of our population willing to admit to atheism. I really think it's cheeky of these people to expect the same consideration as if they were a religion. Everyone knows what's what. Why make a fuss and clamour about it? As bad as other fundamentalists.
Tee heee...
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Tue 22 Apr 14 at 17:21
|
>> The Prime Minister's ringing declaration that this is a Christian country
...for all the right reasons of course:
www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/jesus-died-to-give-us-two-bank-holidays-2014041785796
:)
|
>> Prime Minister's ringing declaration that this is a Christian country
... was shortly followed by the deputy PM's call for the C of E to be disestablished.
Always thought Clegg was OK until he came out with that - going up against the PM, threatening the coalition's integrity, insulting the monarch and being cheeky to Christians. What does the silly fellow expect to achieve?
|
>>What does the silly fellow expect to achieve?<<
A backbone, because that's what he's been lacking for far too long.
Pat
|
|
Head-butting a concrete bunker won't do his backbone much good Pat (with all due respect). He's gone mad if you ask me.
|
>>Head-butting a concrete bunker won't do his backbone much good Pat <<
Now I agree with that but to be seen to be trying (even though it hurts) would.
Pat
|
>> Why make a fuss and clamour about it?
In order to set favourable change in motion, one would presume. A lot of people don't like religion and don't want it in public life. It is in public life so what other way to address that and state one's opinion than to state it in public?
Why do you think everyone else is "shrill" and "smug" when expressing a perfectly valid and well supported position? Was Cameron being "shrill" stating this is a Christian country? You often come out with this sort of nonsense. Bah.
|
>> Was Cameron being "shrill" stating this is a Christian country?
He was, a bit, but he's a Tory PM and what he said was true really. To claim this isn't a Christian country is a position with some support, but it isn't really 'perfectly valid'.
Might you not be an atheist fundamentalist yourself Alanović? No blame of course. I used to be like that myself.
|
>> To claim this isn't a Christian country is a position with some support, but
>> it isn't really 'perfectly valid'.
Oh. How so? Church attendance isn't exactly running at 99%.
>> Might you not be an atheist fundamentalist yourself Alanović? No blame of course. I used
>> to be like that myself.
>>
Atheist yes, but there's only one (lack of) belief to that, so it's pretty hard to sling the accusation of fundamentalist at it in the way you can with religionism.
|
>> Church attendance isn't exactly running at 99%.
Religious observance isn't an accurate indicator of some form of religious belief. There are as many or more non-observing believers than observing ones these days, even among Catholics.
>> it's pretty hard to sling the accusation of fundamentalist at it in the way you can with religionism.
The assumption that atheists are essentially correct, and (usually) the unstated assumption of their intellectual superiority, seem pretty fundamentalist to me.
You probably remember that I am one of a number of atheists who post here, along with a number of agnostics. Seems a bit silly to be squabbling over mere nuances.
|
>> We are formed in a vague Christian
>> mould, and no harm in that.
>>
That's a good summary of the official Cof E standpoint. No one could argue with that. :)
|
That's a good summary of the official Cof E standpoint
Yep - they're basically fun guys.
|
>> That's a good summary of the official Cof E standpoint
>>
>>
>> Yep - they're basically fun guys.
>>
As many an alter boy will testify.
|
>> As many an alter boy will testify.
I didn't think they had castratos any more?
|
"That's a good summary of the official Cof E standpoint
>>
>>
>> Yep - they're basically fun guys.
>>
As many an alter boy will testify."
Altar boys are Catholic, not C of E.
|
I'm a bit late to this party, but...
Whilst the reformation was going on in mainland Northern Europe, driven by protestants such as Luther (but don't forget Luther nearly became Pope), Henry VIII merely wanted to get a divorce.
So Henry dropped the Pope through legislation enacted around 1534 and in replacing the Pope became head of the English church himself. This was a catholic church, not a protestant church. There was no particular intention on Henry's part that anything should change as a result, other than the change in leadership. (England, being a distant island, had always been a bit different from the rest of Europe, anyway. It used the Sarum (Salisbury) rite for Mass, whereas the rest of Europe used the Tridentine (Trent, Italy) rite.)
Over the next century, England chopped and changed between the Pope and the Monarch as head of the church. The arrival of the puritans made the church more puritanical, and the 'protestant' feel came - no music, candles, etc. But there was nothing that enacted the church as anything other than reformed and catholic.
In the mid 19th Century there arose a desire within the Church of England to return to its origins, as it had been under Henry VIII, and the Oxford Movement (or Tractarians) got going. Some priests were imprisoned for using vestments (brightly coloured robes) etc. etc. , but eventually fashion changed the law.
These days the Church of England contains:
a) Anglo-Catholics - you probably cannot tell the difference between them and Roman Catholics. They have statues, incense, sacraments and do not doubt transubstantiation (after all, the words of the institution are "this IS my body" not "this represents my body".
They may even pray for the Pope, and will be regarded as 'Anglo-Papists'. Many have joined the Roman Catholic church over the last decade or so, largely on account of women priests.
b) High Church - they definitely won't pray for the pope but they will have many of the trappings of the Anglo Catholics but won't be as enthusiastic as the Anglo-Catholics.
c) Middle of the Road - to be found in the average country parish church. Hymns and the Prayer Book (whichever version they fancy, probably the 2000 edition). Incense unlikely, elaborate vestments likewise. But there will be a formality to the worship.
d) Evangelical - their services will have little if any structure, and they will probably regard themselves as protestants. They probably are, as they will often continue their services with scant regard for canon (religious) law. Much of what they do will be illegal.
Meanwhile, Wikipedia tells me there are 33,000 different protestant sects...
And only one Roman Catholic. (although there are splinter
N.B. The term 'Roman Catholic' is a term used by Anglicans. The RCs call themselves 'Catholic'. Only in the Anglican part of the world does the catholicity of the Anglican church require the rider 'Roman' to be put before it.
|
|
Excellent summary, Mapmaker.
|
That's very well explained, Mapmaker.
It reflects my understanding of the differences, and explains my puzzlement as a boy at a nominally CofE school why we were reciting "I believe in the Holy Catholic church", yet the (Roman) Catholics were excused school prayers and went off somewhere else.
I only realised later that Roman Catholics and Jews were not the same thing, ie boys who didn't attend prayers.
|
H E L P ! ! ! - Religion - Lygonos
