A Quaker Understanding...

[waxwing]

Once one is “convinced” of the Truth held in the Society of Friends, one petitions the Monthly Meeting to be named among it’s members. The “petition” goes before a “membership committee” and the perspective Friend is interviewed and asked why they wish to be among us…then at the next Monthly Meeting for Business, one is presented and if no one objects…one is added to the rolls of the Monthly Meeting with all rights and priveleges of membership.

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Publisher]

Exactly so! I think it was Pope John Paul the Great who said “outside of the Catholilc Church everything else is a social club…” Forgive me if I’ve mangled it, but this is true. These people will do their own thing all the way to hell.

Quakers have come a long way in the past forty years or so. My buddy asked to be married in the Friends Church of Whittier, California and was refused because his future spouse had been previously married and this somehow tainted him. Yet, today according to Publisher two men or two women can be married without any scruples involved. In ten years they’ll be marrying beasts. This is such a joke and there is nothing of the sacred to be found in these people. They think they know more than our Fathers Cyril and Ignatius and Augustine. The problem is they know nothing and by all accounts don’t want to know anything but what they feel. If it feels good, must be God.

Don’t you just love the way Publisher riddles his posts with quotes from Holy Writ and yet denegrates the Bible as being full of myths even denying our Lord’s virgin birth. Why is he even on a Catholic blog? Wouldn’t he find more “friends” on a Quaker website? And just for the record for those of us old enough to remember, Nixon was a Quaker. His home church was in Whittier, Calilfornia. He didn’t seem to have any problem sending an entire generation of young men to their deaths in Vietnam. I guess he never felt the urge to avoid war at all costs.

While I cannot answer to the concerns of the first part of your posts…I will address the “Nixon” part.

Yes, Friend Richard had his membership at Wittier Friends Meetings…after Watergate there was a petition to “read him out of meeting”…however…after much discussion, it was felt that should Friend Richard wish to withdraw his memberhip, he would be free to do so…but we would continue to hold him in the LIght and if possible…guide him back towards the Light…but in no way would we exclude him from the very people who claim to seek to “answer that of God in every man”…there is still “that of God” in him…we would not cast him aside.

 

[waxwing]

LOL…we are a “society” of like minded people…seeking to serve God…those who come to “convincement” seeks to join like minded beleivers…we have already been Baptized into Christ by His Spirit…and confirmed a member of His Church by the regeneration of our spirits…we are not petitioning to be “saved”…just to count ourselves among this particular Meeting of Christ’s Friends.

We do not exclude any one…if a question were to arise concerning the “petitioner”…we would discuss what it was that we are concerned over…we would discuss…pray and seek to come to an understanding that the one requesting membership does indeed understand the commitment one makes to the Meeting…and what commitment the Meeting makes to the perspective “Friend”.

To add to this, since the my understanding is that the Church is noncreedal, would one insisting on adhering to the Nicene Creed be a issue? My impression right or wrongly has been a group of people more concerned with the spirit of the law rather than the letter - but you know how impressions can be misleading

 

[GaryTaylor]

Seeker, I think you’ve uncovered a fundamental truth here. This seems to be the story of Protestantism, continuing to the present day. I have a belief system, I don’t like what church X teaches, so I’ll look for another that meets my fancy. But no way am I going to change MY beliefs! And if I can’t find a church that conforms to my beliefs, I’ll start my own church.

30,000+ and counting (it’s sort of like the national debt clock).

This is funny stuff ricmat, so its the McChurch theory? I do believe you’ll be at the Catholic Church for the duration.

 

[Publisher]

To add to this, since the my understanding is that the Church is noncreedal, would one insisting on adhering to the Nicene Creed be a issue? My impression right or wrongly has been a group of people more concerned with the spirit of the law rather than the letter - but you know how impressions can be misleading

Friends do not embrace a “written creed”…all creeds are finite and lacking as they are expressions only of the Truth…and not the Truth itself…if a particular Friend felt the Nicene creed best expressed his or her understanding of what it means to be “in Christ”…yes they would be welcomed. We have “liberal Friends and conservative Friends worshipping together in the Meeting…you are right…we seek to understand the “spirit of the law” over and above the “letter of the law.”…the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life…”

 

[ricmat]

LOL…we are a “society” of like minded people…seeking to serve God…those who come to “convincement” seeks to join like minded beleivers…we have already been Baptized into Christ by His Spirit…and confirmed a member of His Church by the regeneration of our spirits…we are not petitioning to be “saved”…just to count ourselves among this particular Meeting of Christ’s Friends.

A country club is a society of like minded people who all like golf.

One should not pick a particular church, and one does not find Truth in a particular church because “they think like I do.”

Isn’t it better to admit that “I know I need to be healed,” and then look for the best hospital? Rather than “I think I’ll find a hospital that will tell me what I want to hear.”

We do not exclude any one…if a question were to arise concerning the “petitioner”…we would discuss what it was that we are concerned over…we would discuss…pray and seek to come to an understanding that the one requesting membership does indeed understand the commitment one makes to the Meeting…and what commitment the Meeting makes to the perspective “Friend”.

Apparently I was confused by your statement below (my bolding):

:
Originally Posted by Publisher forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Once one is “convinced” of the Truth held in the Society of Friends, one petitions the Monthly Meeting to be named among it’s members. The “petition” goes before a “membership committee” and the perspective Friend is interviewed and asked why they wish to be among us…then at the next Monthly Meeting for Business, one is presented and if no one objects…one is added to the rolls of the Monthly Meeting with all rights and priveleges of membership.

 

[Publisher]

A country club is a society of like minded people who all like golf.

One should not pick a particular church, and one does not find Truth in a particular church because “they think like I do.”

Isn’t it better to admit that “I know I need to be healed,” and then look for the best hospital? Rather than “I think I’ll find a hospital that will tell me what I want to hear.”

Apparently I was confused by your statement below (my bolding):

Friend, how you wish to characterize the Society of Friends in a way that you feel best presents the truth is up to you.

As I’ve said in several other posts…I’m not even sure how to begin addressing your assertions without being “defensive”…I commend you to the Light…and hold you up before Him.

 

[Publisher]

The membership committee may counsel the new Friend concerning why he or she wishes to join the Meeting. During the Vietnam era, there was an “influx” in young men wanting to join the Society as they felt being a member of one of the “Historic Peace Churches” gave them an “out” for the draft…not wanting to get drafted or having a religious body to advocate for you as you declare conscientious objetor status is not a reason to seek membership…to be committed to the way of peace and embrace all men as your brothers and work within the confines of the Meeting to further the Kingdom of God IS a good reason…and confirming that one’s beliefs ARE best in line with the Meeting would be a good reason…but being a Friend has repsonsibilities with it…service to others one of the first responsibilities.

 

[Edward_H]

To add to this, since the my understanding is that the Church is noncreedal, would one insisting on adhering to the Nicene Creed be a issue? My impression right or wrongly has been a group of people more concerned with the spirit of the law rather than the letter - but you know how impressions can be misleading

If this book (or variants) has already been mentioned forgive me. Before I was married under the care of a Meeting (my fiancée was a Quaker at the time), I sought out more on Quakerism, and was given The Book of Discipline.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Discipline_(Quaker

On the whole I found the book interesting as far as it went, but what I found to be a bit of a letdown was the lack of “liveliness” or vitality in the corpus of beliefs. I don’t mean a mere cheap modernism at all. I mean instead that there was this apparent gap in current practical moral specifics tied back to a core of unchanging beliefs (abortion, remarriage after divorce, sexual matters, details of spiritual formation, catechesis, exegesis).

It seemed to me at least that many of the younger Quakers were quite encouraged to roll their own beliefs, and they weren’t being hesitant.

Instead, if you read John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, one is struck by the “rootedness” and substantialness of his thinking. Nothing will need changing. It’s already reconciled to the base of the Church’s beliefs. It’s current and it’s old.

We live in the details, and I like that the Catholic Church invests in moral theologians, philosophers, ethicists, lawyers, scientists, scholars, linguists, lay professional to help sort out a consistent ethic and morality for our lives in the world.

Just my two cents.

 

[Publisher]

If this book (or variants) has already been mentioned forgive me. Before I was married under the care of a Meeting (my fiancée was a Quaker at the time), I sought out more on Quakerism, and was given The Book of Discipline.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Discipline_(Quaker

What I found to be a bit of let down was the lack of liveliness or vitality in the corpus of beliefs. I don’t mean a cheap modernism at all. I mean instead that there was this apparent gap in current practical moral specifics tied back to a core of unchanging beliefs (abortion, remarriage after divorce, sexual matters, details of spiritual formation, catechesis, exegesis).

It seemed to me at least that many of the younger Quakers were quite encouraged to roll their own beliefs, and they weren’t being hesitant.

Instead, if you read John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, one is struck by the “rootedness” and substantialness of his thinking. Nothing will need changing. It’s already reconciled to the base of the Church’s beliefs. It’s current and it’s old.

Just my two cents.

That you now have found a faith tradition that “speaks to your condition” is a blessing indeed. I rejoice with you.

 

[Edward_H]

That you now have found a faith tradition that “speaks to your condition” is a blessing indeed. I rejoice with you.

You know…I’ve never cared to penetrate that expression. I’ve always thought it on the verge of a senseless and contrived tautology.

 

[Publisher]

You know…I’ve never cared to penetrate that expression. I’ve always thought it on the verge of a senseless and contrived tautology.

I rejoice with you none the less.

 

[ricmat]

That you now have found a faith tradition that “speaks to your condition” is a blessing indeed. I rejoice with you.

You made the comment above to another poster. And I get the impression that you use that statement a lot.

Is there anyone in the world you would not make that statement to? For example, Satan worshipers, or Druids?

BTW - Last minute edits are in this post… (sorry).

 

[Edward_H]

You made the comment above to another poster. And I get the impression that you use that statement a lot.

Is there anyone in the world you would not make that statement to? For example, Satan worshipers, or Druids?

BTW - Last minute edits are in this post… (sorry).

Well, Publisher’s earlier use of that expression (there may be others, not sure) was actually to me as well. So it may simply be carrying the point forward.

I agree with you that on the face of it at least that expression smacks of consequentialism…which thanks to Catholic moral theologians we know with certainty is an erroneous approach to thinking through moral issues.

 

[erichael]

You know…I’ve never cared to penetrate that expression. I’ve always thought it on the verge of a senseless and contrived tautology.

Publisher’s repeated expressions of goodwill are misplaced and to my ears slightly dismissive. I liken it to be petted on the head by a teacher while being told to run along and play nicely. Does his party line not sound reminiscent of the flower-child mentality of the late sixties and seventies?

 

[Publisher]

You made the comment above to another poster. And I get the impression that you use that statement a lot.

Is there anyone in the world you would not make that statement to? For example, Satan worshipers, or Druids?

BTW - Last minute edits are in this post… (sorry).

While I have some Wiccan friends…and even know a few atheists…I’ve not known too many Satanists…I do believe they too carry with them “that of God”…and it is to “that of God” in them…and in you…I would seek to connect to and address…I would place them in God’s hands…the best place to be I’d think…I do know one Druid that owns a bookstore…I too have sought to address “that of God”…that place where we can agree on a starting point where “Truth” can be understood and lived out…we may disagree on “how” our faith is expressed…I tend to reflect on Friend William Penn’s statement…

…“The humble, meek, merciful, just, pious, and devout souls are everywhere of one religion; and when death has taken off the mask, they will know one another, though the divers liveries they wear here make them strangers.”

We are all on this Journey…I seek to “connect” to those of different faiths…to find that Divine Center we share.

 

[ricmat]

While I have some Wiccan friends…and even know a few atheists…I’ve not known too many Satanists…I do believe they too carry with them “that of God”…and it is to “that of God” in them…and in you…I would seek to connect to and address…I would place them in God’s hands…the best place to be I’d think…I do know one Druid that owns a bookstore…I too have sought to address “that of God”…that place where we can agree on a starting point where “Truth” can be understood and lived out…we may disagree on “how” our faith is expressed…I tend to reflect on Friend William Penn’s statement…

…“The humble, meek, merciful, just, pious, and devout souls are everywhere of one religion; and when death has taken off the mask, they will know one another, though the divers liveries they wear here make them strangers.”

We are all on this Journey…I seek to “connect” to those of different faiths…to find that Divine Center we share.

Your statement:

That you now have found a faith tradition that “speaks to your condition” is a blessing indeed. I rejoice with you.

is what I was asking about. Would you say that to a satan worshiper, or a druid?

Do you consider it a blessing that they have “found a faith tradition” that “speaks to their condition?”

It can be a simple yes or no. You went through the whole post above and didn’t answer the question

 

[Publisher]

Your statement:

is what I was asking about. Would you say that to a satan worshiper, or a druid?

Do you consider it a blessing that they have “found a faith tradition” that “speaks to their condition?”

It can be a simple yes or no. You went through the whole post above and didn’t answer the question

I’m not sure what I would say…it would depend on how well we connected. I really don’t know…if their lives were in the service to others…which I don’t think a true Satanist would be…they tend to be “atheists” and somewhat self serving…at least the LaVey Satanists are from my reading…I would still seek to “speak to that of God” within them…my beliefs put more 'responsibility" upon me to respond to them in kindness and mercy than considering their responsibility in responding to me.

As Friend William wrote…“The humble, meek, merciful, just, pious, and devout souls are everywhere of one religion; and when death has taken off the mask, they will know one another, though the divers liveries they wear here make them strangers.” How well they portray themselves as “meek”, "merciful, “just” or “pious”…when Friends have come up against those that would not wish them well…we still are required to “speak to that of God” in the life of all…

Interesting question…and one I can’t answer truthfully other than as I stated already.

 

[Edward_H]

As I said earlier, most of the older Quakers I met lived their faith and were giving. They were constantly doing…mending clothes, knitting mittons, translating books into Braille, etc.

The younger ones seemed more focused on activism and complaining. They’d drive up to the Meeting House in BMWs…and then sit “simply” for 60 minutes, perhaps rail against some Republican, and then go home. Now this was in Washington DC and I was told that it was a bit of a more radical Meeting House, given its location to politics.

The point made about being patted on the head is on point, for many of the Friends I met in the DC area. But not for the older people many of whom were sincere and giving and non-condescending.

My wife put it well of the younger ones (perhaps who didn’t grow up in the Quaker tradition and were simply re-retreads from other “faith expressions” [ack!]): They’re proud and noisy about their humility.

Catholics are lucky in this sense…many of our inbound converts and reverts are tired of confusion and “multiple truths” and mumblihood.

I wonder what some of the older Quakers think. And I wonder if it would help them to energize some stronger formation and grounding for the younger folks.

 

[waxwing]

As I said earlier, most of the older Quakers I met lived their faith and were giving. They were constantly doing…mending clothes, knitting mittons, translating books into Braille, etc.

The younger ones seemed more focused on activism and complaining. They’d drive up to the Meeting House in BMWs…and then sit “simply” for 60 minutes, perhaps rail against some Republican, and then go home. Now this was in Washington DC and I was told that it was a bit of a more radical Meeting House, given its location to politics.

The point made about being patted on the head is on point, for many of the Friends I met in the DC area. But not for the older people many of whom were sincere and giving and non-condescending.

My wife put it well of the younger ones (perhaps who didn’t grow up in the Quaker tradition and were simply re-retreads from other “faith expressions” [ack!]): They’re proud and noisy about their humility.

Catholics are lucky in this sense…many of our inbound converts and reverts are tired of confusion and “multiple truths” and mumblihood.

I wonder what some of the older Quakers think. And I wonder if it would help them to energize some stronger formation and grounding for the younger folks.

This post reminds of the contradiction I experience - Politically and Socially I lean to the left, with a few important exceptions to this rule, a lot of the time when I talk with “lefties” I leave the conversation feeling empty, all the quiet arrogance/condescension as they leave to rush off to their Yoga Classes …The opposite happens when I chat with people down south who tend to lean to the right. Whenever I think of Salt of the Earth folks, San Francisco rarely springs to minds, small town Missouri, Mississippi etc do. Of course I am generalizing and I don’t mean to derail the thread but it is contradiction I haven’t made sense of.