Does anyone have bad stories from their Protestant days?

[racing59]

When I was young I got hurt by both Protestant and Catholic Churches, but what does that matter now, I have forgiven them! People hurt other people, that I am sure of. When man is involved people will get hurt. This is not the way God intended it! I don’t sit around and lick my wounds from when I was young. I use negative experences and grow from them, hopefully in love. Jesus was Crusified for all our sins, he did not sit on the Cross and bruid about it. No, he ask Father forgive them for what they do. I personally choose to forgive!
Peace and God Bless

I want to know if anyone out there had any bad stories from when they where protestant.

When I was 7-13 I had the fear that I was going to get left behind during the Apocalypse. I always had to be around my family and when we would get a bad T storm I would be scared that the trumpet was being blown and that this was it. We were always tormented with story’s of the End and also had to watch bad acting movies. It was amazing one film the Antichrist is a man another he is a program. (it was like tron on a bad acid trip) But I remember being petrified with fear of being left. Boy was I surprised when I read the Catholic views on the book of Revelation.

Hope to hear some stories

God Bless

EC

 

[SonofMonica]

Dear SonofMonica,

It seems to me that your posts in the last couple days have been slightly (but increasingly) over-the-top, in terms of attacking what others believe; and #221 (the last, for me – I haven’t read what you’ve posted since then) was really “out there”. I don’t think I’m going to participate in this particular discussion any further.

Sincerely,

Peter, I have done nothing uncharitable, and Reverend Oliver [O.S. Luke] has indicated on this thread that he understood I was not being trite or uncharitable. I have not attacked what anyone believes, and nothing I said was over the top, unless you mean using extreme examples to prove a point of what happens when you coin someone else’s phrase and repeat it back to them, yet meaning something entirely different.

And the point is, for a protestant [reminder: I am still one] to come to a Catholic forum and say “we also believe in the Real Presence” is intellectual dishonesty, if only on a semantic level–I never said that O.S. Luke was a dishonest person. I’ve never even said that Methodist beliefs or O.S. Luke’s beliefs are wrong–I grew up Methodist. I haven’t called him any weird names or refused to identify him as a member of the clergy. I have not questioned his Orders (although he accused me of such). I’ve done nothing like that.

He lamented being unable to receive a Catholic eucharist because he “also” believes in the Real Presence, and I’ve demonstrated, along with others, that he does not–or at least that Methodists do not. He has, in fact, admitted that he does not believe what Catholics believe about the Eucharist, but continues to insist he “also” believes in the Real Presence.

I’ve only tried to correctly enunciate what Methodists do in fact, officially believe, in a way that a Catholic would understand it. It would be unfortunate for a Catholic to see “Methodists believe in the Real Presence, too” and think that he means the Catholic dogma and doctrine of the Real Presence. So I don’t think it’s a fair usage of the term. Nor would it be charitable for me, who does hold Catholic belief about the Eucharist, to let someone believe that Catholics consider him someone who “also” believes in the Real Presence.

It’s just incorrect and at least semantically irresponsible to say that you also believe in the Real Presence on a Catholic forum to people of Catholic belief, whenever you don’t really mean that you believe what Catholics believe about the Eucharist.

 

[Peter_J]

Roy5,

So basically, when you say that you’re “ecumenical”, what you really mean is that you’re very friendly toward Muslems, Hindus, etc., but not too friendly toward the Catholic Church?

 

[Peter_J]

Hi SonofMonica. I don’t have a lot to add to what I said in post #237, except that I’m even more convinced now of what I said then. Sincerely,

 

[SonofMonica]

Hi SonofMonica. I don’t have a lot to add to what I said in post #237, except that I’m even more convinced now of what I said then. Sincerely,

So you’re just going to level an accusation at me, and not clarify what you mean by it? If I’ve done something un-Christian or unbecoming of this forum, I’d like to know what you think it is. You clearly think it’s important enough to say something about. I wish you would consider my feelings and reputation as important enough to clarify what you mean.

 

[Peter_J]

So you’re just going to level an accusation at me, and not clarify what you mean by it? If I’ve done something un-Christian or unbecoming of this forum, I’d like to know what you think it is. You clearly think it’s important enough to say something about. I wish you would consider my feelings and reputation as important enough to clarify what you mean.

Oh give me a break.

I stand by my statement that your posts have been “over-the-top, in terms of attacking what others believe”. How about …

And the point is, for a protestant [reminder: I am still one] to come to a Catholic forum and say “we also believe in the Real Presence” is intellectual dishonesty, if only on a semantic level

Now please leave me alone.

 

[Roy5]

Peter J.

Actually, I do respect all faiths, even when I disagree with them. For example, I spent some time in India and have lots of problems with different expressions of Hinduism, but the Hindu family I knew well was very educated and open-minded. The father, in fact, wanted me to provide him a picture of Jesus to add to his home altar, already full of pictures of Hindu deities.

  In talking with him, however, he was a monotheist - well, perhaps pantheist is apprropiate, too - and he saw all these gods both as symbols but also as part and parcel of his rich Hindu culture. And he wasn't the least bit interested in making a Hindu out of me. But he did share with me parts of the Vedas and other Sanskrit writings which were beautiful and true in his eyes.

  Now, as for Catholicism, it is - in my opinion - a sister (or brother?) Christian body that I happen to be very interested in, in part because I like to follow other faiths (and write about them) but also because my paternal side was Catholic before they became Protestant. One of my ancestral uncles, for example, was an archbishop in Quebec. 

   My main complaint about Catholicism is not so much its doctrines, some of which I accept, some I don't, but its claim to be the one true apostolic church. Not to boast, but I have become quite familiar with scripture and the Church Fathers and much more over the years, which has led me to study heresies (even like those of Origen and Tertullian) and all sorts of modern movements - from the Polish National Catholic Church to the Mormons to the Two-Seed-in-the Pod Presbyterians - and, as I've said in an earlier posting, I really don't believe humankind can grasp the huge and eternal truths. We're like ants trying to understand a piano. 

   But enough already....I must turn to pressing matters rather that be tempted further to engage in conversation that probably isn't going anywhere.

   Still, God bless you - and everybody.

 

[SonofMonica]

Oh give me a break.

I’ve given you one, by explaining myself, and only asked for the same in return. Yet you refuse to provide it.

I stand by my statement that your posts have been “over-the-top, in terms of attacking what others believe”. How about …

That was not an attack on what O.S. Luke believes. It was a description of the act of him saying what he said. Most others on here have understood the difference. Standing by your statement is not the same as explaining it. I will simply take it that you cannot or refuse to for reasons apart from anything I did.

Now please leave me alone.

This is a public forum. I am not harassing you–you are the one who spontaneously leveled an accusation against me. You don’t have to keep reading this thread, but I am not going to stop defending myself or the need for intellectual honesty in ecumenism simply because of your derogatory remarks, Peter. I remain

Yours in Christ,

SonofMonica

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I’ve been following this back and forth for several days. I find the entire thing simply ironic. On the one side we have a man who has been an ordained pastor of the Methodist church for 30 years trying to explain his faith’s doctrine regarding the real presence.

On the other hand we have several Roman Catholics (not all by any means), who have no stated expertise (at least that they have alluded to) telling him he doesn’t know what his own church believes, what he in fact does at the consecration, and that they are such experts as to explain that RC’s definition of real presence is different. ’

The clear point is to show that the RC “real presence” is somehow the “real” real presence and no other is. A complete novice would come and expect any RC to rejoice that others in different faiths believed in the real presence of Jesus under the bread and wine. They would hope that upon such a thing, true reconciliation might be build. It would be a great place to start.

Instead we find but another example of “no this is ours, it belongs to us.” Now we have people claiming that "the phrase “real presence” is ours. Adding to a long list of “ours” such as the creeds, the bible, and goodness knows what else. It is akin to a child who has not learned the meaning of sharing.

This seems always the end result when radicalism sets it. We see it in every religion on earth.

I have a blog as some of you might know. My guests are Catholic, Protestants of all flavors, and atheists. I have visits from Muslims, and occasionally Hindus and Buddhists. Probably there are others. We discuss religion and politics. We don’t fight. We don’t always agree on everything, but we are civil, friendly, and respectful. Our atheist friends poke fun at us in the most gentle of ways. We tease them about their unbelief. We ask about each other’s practices, and we rejoice in the similarities we find.

And the truth is, that this is the way most interfaith dialog occurs. Most Catholics are not as represented here. That is probably true of other faith traditions as well. What seems to happen here is a complete and utter loss of any recall of what Christ taught. Nobody turns the other cheek, nobody forgives, nobody is compassionate. At least few are to be sure, and I fault both sides equally.

Somehow a radical segment has concluded that they are under attack and meets every post with suspicion and a readiness to do battle. There is a paranoia afoot that is truly sad to see. Radical rightwing religion is being rejected in this country I think. It’s simply becoming irrational in it’s concern that it’s under attack. People say, “I’m here to defend my faith,” when I can not see much attack very often. People are merely saying what they believe about theirs, and somehow this translates into “you must mean mine is wrong.”

If you look at the Politics 2009, why you think you’ve left the planet and journeyed to a land of OZ. I can but laugh at the paranoia that is exhibited there.

Each thread starts out occassionally rationally and then it devolves into the same old thing—your priesthood is a sham, your Eucharist is meaningless, you worship saints, —and what it amounts to is nothing more than "a church teaches this, and you reguritate it as some “truth”. The church, any church is not the object of worship, it is not the forum which decides for us what to believe. It is there to assist us in our faith life and provide us with a spiritual community. It is there to guide, not dictate. It is a horrifying idea that we are to check our brains at the door and let something else think for us, and merely spew it forth like robots.

We are humans, endowed with the Spirit of God, in that sense in his very likeness. We are the vehicle by which God works in the world. Our minds and hearts are the tools by which we reach out to the God we believe in. Please can’t we stop this? Am I asking too much?

End of rant. Sorry, I just get tired of the same rancor every time I come here.

 

[racing59]

I’ve been following this back and forth for several days. I find the entire thing simply ironic. On the one side we have a man who has been an ordained pastor of the Methodist church for 30 years trying to explain his faith’s doctrine regarding the real presence.

On the other hand we have several Roman Catholics (not all by any means), who have no stated expertise (at least that they have alluded to) telling him he doesn’t know what his own church believes, what he in fact does at the consecration, and that they are such experts as to explain that RC’s definition of real presence is different. ’

The clear point is to show that the RC “real presence” is somehow the “real” real presence and no other is. A complete novice would come and expect any RC to rejoice that others in different faiths believed in the real presence of Jesus under the bread and wine. They would hope that upon such a thing, true reconciliation might be build. It would be a great place to start.

Instead we find but another example of “no this is ours, it belongs to us.” Now we have people claiming that "the phrase “real presence” is ours. Adding to a long list of “ours” such as the creeds, the bible, and goodness knows what else. It is akin to a child who has not learned the meaning of sharing.

This seems always the end result when radicalism sets it. We see it in every religion on earth.

I have a blog as some of you might know. My guests are Catholic, Protestants of all flavors, and atheists. I have visits from Muslims, and occasionally Hindus and Buddhists. Probably there are others. We discuss religion and politics. We don’t fight. We don’t always agree on everything, but we are civil, friendly, and respectful. Our atheist friends poke fun at us in the most gentle of ways. We tease them about their unbelief. We ask about each other’s practices, and we rejoice in the similarities we find.

And the truth is, that this is the way most interfaith dialog occurs. Most Catholics are not as represented here. That is probably true of other faith traditions as well. What seems to happen here is a complete and utter loss of any recall of what Christ taught. Nobody turns the other cheek, nobody forgives, nobody is compassionate. At least few are to be sure, and I fault both sides equally.

Somehow a radical segment has concluded that they are under attack and meets every post with suspicion and a readiness to do battle. There is a paranoia afoot that is truly sad to see. Radical rightwing religion is being rejected in this country I think. It’s simply becoming irrational in it’s concern that it’s under attack. People say, “I’m here to defend my faith,” when I can not see much attack very often. People are merely saying what they believe about theirs, and somehow this translates into “you must mean mine is wrong.”

If you look at the Politics 2009, why you think you’ve left the planet and journeyed to a land of OZ. I can but laugh at the paranoia that is exhibited there.

Each thread starts out occassionally rationally and then it devolves into the same old thing—your priesthood is a sham, your Eucharist is meaningless, you worship saints, —and what it amounts to is nothing more than "a church teaches this, and you reguritate it as some “truth”. The church, any church is not the object of worship, it is not the forum which decides for us what to believe. It is there to assist us in our faith life and provide us with a spiritual community. It is there to guide, not dictate. It is a horrifying idea that we are to check our brains at the door and let something else think for us, and merely spew it forth like robots.

We are humans, endowed with the Spirit of God, in that sense in his very likeness. We are the vehicle by which God works in the world. Our minds and hearts are the tools by which we reach out to the God we believe in. Please can’t we stop this? Am I asking too much?

End of rant. Sorry, I just get tired of the same rancor every time I come here.

I am in agreement with you. I come here to fellowship with others and to learn things from others, God knows I do not know it all. I just wish people could be kind to one anothers differences. I wish to learn from people of all walks of life and I have learnt many beautiful things from non-Christians. I just wish I could learn the same from others and have others respect differences as not an attack on their faith.

 

[emeraldcoast]

Thanks, Kalt. Just to clarify, no one thinks Rev. Oliver is dishonest. But we do agree that the usage of the term Real Presence to mean anything but Catholic doctrine of Real Presence is, itself, intellectually dishonest on a Catholic forum.

SonofMonica,
I believe in the Real Presence. This is from the Episcopal Catechism on page 859 in the BCP.

The Holy Eucharist

Q. What is the Holy Eucharist?
A. The Holy Eucharist is the sacrament commanded by Christ for the
continual remembrance of his life, death, and resurrection, until his
coming again.

Q. Why is the Eucharist called a sacrifice?
A. Because the Eucharist, the Church’s sacrifice of praise and
thanksgiving, is the way by which the sacrifice of Christ is made
present, and in which he unites us to his one offering of himself.

Q. By what other names is this service known?
A. The Holy Eucharist is called the Lord’s Supper, and Holy Communion;
it is also known as the Divine Liturgy, the Mass, and the Great Offering.

Q. What is the outward and visible sign in the Eucharist?
A. The outward and visible sign in the Eucharist is bread and wine, give
and received according to Christ’s command.

Q. What is the inward and spiritual grace given in the Eucharist?
A. The inward and spiritual grace in the Holy Communion is the Body and
Blood of Christ give to his people, and received by faith.

Q. What are the benefits which we receive in the Lord’s Supper?
A. The benefits we receive are the forgiveness of our sins, the
strengthening of our union with Christ and one another, and the
foretaste of the heavenly banquet which is our nourishment in eternal
life.

Q. What is required of us when we come to the Eucharist?
A. It is required that we should examine our lives, repent of our sins, and
be in love and charity with all people.

God Bless!

 

[SonofMonica]

I’ve been following this back and forth for several days… Please can’t we stop this? Am I asking too much?
…
Sorry, I just get tired of the same rancor every time I come here.

I appreciate your general sentiment, and do wish Christians would act charitably toward one another. Believe me, I have given up on this site before.

However, I do take issue with the way you claim we say the Real Presence and other such ideas are “ours.” It’s God’s church, not ours. God truly effects the sacraments, not us. God defines what the Eucharist is in scripture and through the councils of his Church. We truly believe that. We cannot change that. We are able to be in communion with the Church by subscribing to that belief, not owning the belief or bringing it to the table with it as though it is ours or as though we came up with it.

On that note, I would ask you to at least recognize that for a Catholic, Real Presence, as a term, is different than the simple phrase “real presence” as used in the sentence “I believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.” I think you’re failing to take that into account in what you’ve said. Real Presence is an actual dogmatic term with a specific meaning. No one has tried to convince the Methodist pastor that his beliefs about the real presence are wrong or that we have the only “real” real presence.

Instead, I think if you’ll read the thread again, you’ll see that people are not attacking others for believing the wrong thing at all. No one has told anyone their priesthood is a sham or that they don’t have a valid Eucharist. People are just pointing out what other denominations actually do believe about the Eucharist, and asking people to be honest about that. What is wrong with that? We should not pretend to hold things in common which we do not.

One more thing, then I’ll go back to praising your general sentiment, and that’s the fact that when we are asked to turn the other cheek, it’s because someone has inflicted harm upon us. But Jesus Christ and the Faith Once Delivered are not us and we would do well not to turn the other cheek. Holy men and women died for the faith and for Christ, when they could have denied Him and the Faith, and chosen to tease each other and simply integrate themselves into secular society and just “get along” about it. We do harm to Christ and his Church when we deny him. We can “share” those things that we possess-like good little children, but some things belong to God, and are not ours to compromise.

Now, as promised, I will say that I enjoy your posts, and having read your blog before, I find your political commentary quite enjoyable. And I agree we can all use a dose of realization of how much we actually do have in common. For instance, we share a love of the beauty of Anglican liturgy.

 

[emeraldcoast]

I’ve been following this back and forth for several days. I find the entire thing simply ironic. On the one side we have a man who has been an ordained pastor of the Methodist church for 30 years trying to explain his faith’s doctrine regarding the real presence.

On the other hand we have several Roman Catholics (not all by any means), who have no stated expertise (at least that they have alluded to) telling him he doesn’t know what his own church believes, what he in fact does at the consecration, and that they are such experts as to explain that RC’s definition of real presence is different. ’

The clear point is to show that the RC “real presence” is somehow the “real” real presence and no other is. A complete novice would come and expect any RC to rejoice that others in different faiths believed in the real presence of Jesus under the bread and wine. They would hope that upon such a thing, true reconciliation might be build. It would be a great place to start.

Instead we find but another example of “no this is ours, it belongs to us.” Now we have people claiming that "the phrase “real presence” is ours. Adding to a long list of “ours” such as the creeds, the bible, and goodness knows what else. It is akin to a child who has not learned the meaning of sharing.

This seems always the end result when radicalism sets it. We see it in every religion on earth.

I have a blog as some of you might know. My guests are Catholic, Protestants of all flavors, and atheists. I have visits from Muslims, and occasionally Hindus and Buddhists. Probably there are others. We discuss religion and politics. We don’t fight. We don’t always agree on everything, but we are civil, friendly, and respectful. Our atheist friends poke fun at us in the most gentle of ways. We tease them about their unbelief. We ask about each other’s practices, and we rejoice in the similarities we find.

And the truth is, that this is the way most interfaith dialog occurs. Most Catholics are not as represented here. That is probably true of other faith traditions as well. What seems to happen here is a complete and utter loss of any recall of what Christ taught. Nobody turns the other cheek, nobody forgives, nobody is compassionate. At least few are to be sure, and I fault both sides equally.

Somehow a radical segment has concluded that they are under attack and meets every post with suspicion and a readiness to do battle. There is a paranoia afoot that is truly sad to see. Radical rightwing religion is being rejected in this country I think. It’s simply becoming irrational in it’s concern that it’s under attack. People say, “I’m here to defend my faith,” when I can not see much attack very often. People are merely saying what they believe about theirs, and somehow this translates into “you must mean mine is wrong.”

If you look at the Politics 2009, why you think you’ve left the planet and journeyed to a land of OZ. I can but laugh at the paranoia that is exhibited there.

Each thread starts out occassionally rationally and then it devolves into the same old thing—your priesthood is a sham, your Eucharist is meaningless, you worship saints, —and what it amounts to is nothing more than "a church teaches this, and you reguritate it as some “truth”. The church, any church is not the object of worship, it is not the forum which decides for us what to believe. It is there to assist us in our faith life and provide us with a spiritual community. It is there to guide, not dictate. It is a horrifying idea that we are to check our brains at the door and let something else think for us, and merely spew it forth like robots.

We are humans, endowed with the Spirit of God, in that sense in his very likeness. We are the vehicle by which God works in the world. Our minds and hearts are the tools by which we reach out to the God we believe in. Please can’t we stop this? Am I asking too much?

End of rant. Sorry, I just get tired of the same rancor every time I come here.

Amen, sister!

God Bless!

 

[Peter_J]

SpiritMeadow,

I hope this helps …

As a Catholic, I value tradition, and I also value doctrinal development: The Real Presence is a very ancient traditional Christian belief, and is still agreed upon by Catholics, Orthodox, and some other groups despite our separation. At the same time, as a Catholic I must respect the doctrinal development that occurred regarding the “how” of the Real Presence – specifically, I’m obliged to explain it by Transubstantiation (cf. the Council of Trent). I can’t – as a Catholic, mind you – just say “No one was required to believe in Transubstantiation before the Council of Trent; so I don’t have to believe in it, just as long as I believe in the Real Presence.”

Does that mean that I do not rejoice that others in different faiths (the Orthodox, PNCC, etc.) believe in the real presence of Jesus under the bread and wine? No by means! (Granted I would rejoice even more if they also had the right way of explaining it, i.e. Transubstantiation.) Do I hope that true reconciliation might be build on our shared believe in the Real Presence? You bet I do!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I thank those of you who responded. I am sorry for the tirade, but I like others just get fed up occasionally. I’m over it, and offer blessings to all of you who so thoughtfully answered. Somehow, I am of the opinion that God is not this rule oriented, but in the end, I know no more than anyone else. I’m glad to see that there are those who come here in a spirit of real interaction and learning.

 

[Peter_J]

I thank those of you who responded.

No problem.

BTW, if you want to give a response to my response, feel free.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

As you know, my husband and I have always sent our children to private school and would not want it any other way. I understand that you don’t grasp this being a Public School Teacher, but we like having an (name removed by moderator)ut on our children’s education and we find that we have a little more control in the private schools. The area that we live at now has an Episcopal School, an hour away.

**I have no issues with any of your post, Jane, but I take issue with this rude and nasty statement. You don’t know me well enough to make such an assertion. My son IS IN A PRIVATE SCHOOL!!? I will be sending all three of my kids to private school despite my working in public? So you can turn down the elitist volume a bit, thanks.

Your original statement, that I thought was arrogant as heck, was that your kid is in a Catholic private school and you were appauled that your poor son had to suffer through not receiving holy communion from us Catholics. Duh? That’s the policy of Roman Catholicism? You used to be a Catholic in a former life. Your dad and mom are Catholic, you know we believe that one must be Catholic to receive communion? So you put your son in a Catholic school only to feel hurt when he couldn’t receive. Then you went on to tell him that at least you rejoice in a caring, loving, open, and wonderful liberal Episcopal Church wherein your son could see how real, open folks give the sacraments to anyone.

That just sounds banal and bizarre to me. Why would you send your son to a place that you disagree with theologically and feel he’s excluded? If I sent my son to a Lutheran school, I wouldn’t be hurt when he couldn’t receive communion because I know what I’m getting into. I would also respect their beliefs and tell my son to do the same. I wouldn’t put us on a pedestal as open vs. these close-minded, dim-witted folks.

Also, nobody ever said you were a bad person or that you don’t have Christ. You imply I say as much. I’ve never said that. You and SpiritMeadow and the other people in here with whom I disagree are NOT devoid of Christ. I think the Episcopal Church is seriously defective and dangerous in theology. That is why I personally would not put my children in one of their schools. I wouldn’t have a problem with the Anglican school here as it is conservative and broken away from the liberal Episcopal group nationwide.

Like I said, I take serious issue with your nasty comment about me being a public school teacher. I don’t disrespect your husband’s military career. I applaud it. I would also hope that you respect how I take in children into my class from broken homes, divorces, foster care, ADHD, children of all races, and I teach my butt off, Jane. I teach my kids to California state standards which are more stringent than most private schools. We have the toughest standards in the U.S. bar none. I teach to the standards. I use every learning modality you can come up with. Right now we’re studying Ancient Rome, the mystery cults of Isis, Magna Mater, Mithras, and Christianity. I teach Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, theology, you name it, all state standards. I do it in depth. My kids go FAR in math and my test scores kick butt year after year. I have kids coming back to see me from high school, junior high, you name it, every single week. I make a difference in my kids’ lives. For you to imply that I’m some aloof baboon that hates private schools is pure nonsense. While many public schools are full of rich, spoiled kids that get an education from folks who don’t even have credentials, many private schools are demanding, full of well-educated teachers, and high expectations.

I come home with hours and hours of work when I leave school. I work through my vacations on projects for the kids, power points, making rubrics, lesson plans, analyzing standards, and doing item analyses from software like Edusoft, etc. etc. I’m always working for my kids. More importantly, I give them a place of belonging and I’m there for them, period.

And as for the “having more control in private schools,” that’s horse-pucky. Ask any of the parents in my school if they lack control. They practically run the place! Our principal is on a leash from the parents.

Please don’t imply that I’m closed-minded to public or private or charter school education. I know education far better than you do. I’ve been in the public system going on twelve years taking my lumps and working to be better every day. I take my hat off to teachers in any system, public or private. I “grasp” things very well and I resent your implication that I don’t.**

 

[Peter_J]

As you know, my husband and I have always sent our children to private school and would not want it any other way. I understand that you don’t grasp this being a Public School Teacher, but we like having an (name removed by moderator)ut on our children’s education and we find that we have a little more control in the private schools.

**I have no issues with any of your post, Jane, but I take issue with this rude and nasty statement. You don’t know me well enough to make such an assertion. My son IS IN A PRIVATE SCHOOL!!? I will be sending all three of my kids to private school despite my working in public? So you can turn down the elitist volume a bit, thanks.

Your original statement, that I thought was arrogant as heck, was that your kid is in a Catholic private school and you were appauled that your poor son had to suffer through not receiving holy communion from us Catholics. Duh? That’s the policy of Roman Catholicism? You used to be a Catholic in a former life. Your dad and mom are Catholic, you know we believe that one must be Catholic to receive communion? So you put your son in a Catholic school only to feel hurt when he couldn’t receive. Then you went on to tell him that at least you rejoice in a caring, loving, open, and wonderful liberal Episcopal Church wherein your son could see how real, open folks give the sacraments to anyone.

That just sounds banal and bizarre to me. Why would you send your son to a place that you disagree with theologically and feel he’s excluded? If I sent my son to a Lutheran school, I wouldn’t be hurt when he couldn’t receive communion because I know what I’m getting into. I would also respect their beliefs and tell my son to do the same. I wouldn’t put us on a pedestal as open vs. these close-minded, dim-witted folks.

Also, nobody ever said you were a bad person or that you don’t have Christ. You imply I say as much. I’ve never said that. You and SpiritMeadow and the other people in here with whom I disagree are NOT devoid of Christ. I think the Episcopal Church is seriously defective and dangerous in theology. That is why I personally would not put my children in one of their schools. I wouldn’t have a problem with the Anglican school here as it is conservative and broken away from the liberal Episcopal group nationwide.

Like I said, I take serious issue with your nasty comment about me being a public school teacher. I don’t disrespect your husband’s military career. I applaud it. I would also hope that you respect how I take in children into my class from broken homes, divorces, foster care, ADHD, children of all races, and I teach my butt off, Jane. I teach my kids to California state standards which are more stringent than most private schools. We have the toughest standards in the U.S. bar none. I teach to the standards. I use every learning modality you can come up with. Right now we’re studying Ancient Rome, the mystery cults of Isis, Magna Mater, Mithras, and Christianity. I teach Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, theology, you name it, all state standards. I do it in depth. My kids go FAR in math and my test scores kick butt year after year. I have kids coming back to see me from high school, junior high, you name it, every single week. I make a difference in my kids’ lives. For you to imply that I’m some aloof baboon that hates private schools is pure nonsense. While many public schools are full of rich, spoiled kids that get an education from folks who don’t even have credentials, many private schools are demanding, full of well-educated teachers, and high expectations.

I come home with hours and hours of work when I leave school. I work through my vacations on projects for the kids, power points, making rubrics, lesson plans, analyzing standards, and doing item analyses from software like Edusoft, etc. etc. I’m always working for my kids. More importantly, I give them a place of belonging and I’m there for them, period.

And as for the “having more control in private schools,” that’s horse-pucky. Ask any of the parents in my school if they lack control. They practically run the place! Our principal is on a leash from the parents.

Please don’t imply that I’m closed-minded to public or private or charter school education. I know education far better than you do. I’ve been in the public system going on twelve years taking my lumps and working to be better every day. I take my hat off to teachers in any system, public or private. I “grasp” things very well and I resent your implication that I don’t.**

Before this escalates any further, might I suggest taking a deep breath and reviewing how it escalated at far as it already has?

 

[kalt]

On the other hand we have several Roman Catholics (not all by any means), who have no stated expertise (at least that they have alluded to) telling him he doesn’t know what his own church believes, what he in fact does at the consecration, and that they are such experts as to explain that RC’s definition of real presence is different. ’

This is hogwash. The Eucharist in the Methodist Church (and other Protestant churches, if I remember right) has been misrepresented when a few people have said "I **also **believe in the real presence, when responding to a statement about the Catholic Eucharist.

This is a very simple concept (it’s plain English) that the Protestants on this thread don’t want to accept.

The clear point is to show that the RC “real presence” is somehow the “real” real presence and no other is. A complete novice would come and expect any RC to rejoice that others in different faiths believed in the real presence of Jesus under the bread and wine. They would hope that upon such a thing, true reconciliation might be build. It would be a great place to start.

If the beliefs are different, they are different. Believing in the real presence, as defined by the Catholic Church, is not an option in the Catholic faith.

Saying the same words and having the same faith are two different things. If you want to be reconciled to the Catholic faith, you have to be reconciled to the Catholic Faith. Another simple concept.

Instead we find but another example of “no this is ours, it belongs to us.” Now we have people claiming that "the phrase “real presence” is ours. Adding to a long list of “ours” such as the creeds, the bible, and goodness knows what else. It is akin to a child who has not learned the meaning of sharing.

I don’t know what others have said, but I said that anyone can use the term “real presence” if that’s what they call what they believe in. But to use the words 'too" and “also” to compare this belief, which is not the same, to the Catholic Church’s belief is dishonest. As I said in an earlier post. It makes no sense. You can’t “also” believe in something that you don’t believe in.

This seems always the end result when radicalism sets it. We see it in every religion on earth.

Now we’re radicals?

I have a blog as some of you might know. My guests are Catholic, Protestants of all flavors, and atheists. I have visits from Muslims, and occasionally Hindus and Buddhists. Probably there are others. We discuss religion and politics. We don’t fight. We don’t always agree on everything, but we are civil, friendly, and respectful. Our atheist friends poke fun at us in the most gentle of ways. We tease them about their unbelief. We ask about each other’s practices, and we rejoice in the similarities we find.

And the truth is, that this is the way most interfaith dialog occurs. Most Catholics are not as represented here. That is probably true of other faith traditions as well. What seems to happen here is a complete and utter loss of any recall of what Christ taught. Nobody turns the other cheek, nobody forgives, nobody is compassionate. At least few are to be sure, and I fault both sides equally.

This seems to be a debate board. It might not have started out that way, but it’s been that way since before I started posting. If you want to debate, join in. If not, quit playing wounded warrior and holier-than-thou.

Each thread starts out occassionally rationally and then it devolves into the same old thing—your priesthood is a sham, your Eucharist is meaningless, you worship saints, —and what it amounts to is nothing more than "a church teaches this, and you reguritate it as some “truth”. The church, any church is not the object of worship, it is not the forum which decides for us what to believe. It is there to assist us in our faith life and provide us with a spiritual community. It is there to guide, not dictate. It is a horrifying idea that we are to check our brains at the door and let something else think for us, and merely spew it forth like robots.

You may not believe that there is such a thing as objective truth. Fine. Most Catholics believe in truth. They know that there is such a thing as objective truth. God is truth, I think you will agree. If God is truth, then there is truth about God. About His church. About the world he created. About us!

We are humans, endowed with the Spirit of God, in that sense in his very likeness. We are the vehicle by which God works in the world. Our minds and hearts are the tools by which we reach out to the God we believe in. Please can’t we stop this? Am I asking too much?

A little honesty (about using the words too and also) by Protestants when discussing the real presence in other churches as compared to the Catholic Eucharist would go a long way to accomplishing that goal on this forum–all the more because it is on a Catholic board. FWIW, and what no one has picked-up on, this is true of all churches’ Eucharists. If two Protestant churches don’t believe the same thing about the Eucharist, you can’t say that you too believe in the real presence when comparing your belief to the other church’s. That statement would make no sense."

End of rant. Sorry, I just get tired of the same rancor every time I come here.

Rant? It sounded more like preaching.

 

[kalt]

REAL PRESENCE, PRESENCE, METHODISTS AND NONSENSE

Okay. Methodists believe in the 'real presence' of Christ in communion just as they believe in the real presence of Christ everywhere. "Lo, I am with you always...."  But the effort of O. S. Luke somehow to hitch this up to the Roman Catholic dogma is quite far-fetched.

 I am a Protestant very interested in ecumenism. I am a Protestant mainly because I insist upon and enjoy the freedom to think independently of any church. I listen to pastors preach and may agree or disagree with their particular interpretation of scripture. In recent years I have worshiped in over 175 churches (and temples) of every variety, Christian and non-Christian, eager to learn different ways of worship and varying belief systems. 

 **My basic position is that religion should serve as a bridge** between people and not as a barrier. This is my main objection to any faith - Roman Catholicism, certain Protestants, Muslims, etc. - which claims to have a monopoly of the truth. I might be called a 'Christian agnostic', which I define as one who accepts the Christian view of the world generally but also knows that no religion even begins to understand the fundamental nature of God, of creation, etc. I don't even know what's going on at this moment in the house across the street; how can I begin to know about the full reality of maybe a million or even a billion solar systems? We are like ants trying to explain a piano. It takes plenty of pride to think that I comprehend or belong to the only group which alone has complete access to spiritual truth. So, we need to live by symbols and such, and I'm content to do that. Meanwhile, I have plenty of faith in an eternal, loving God who wants us to live in mutual respect and doesn't care very much whether we believe in the 'real presence' as defined my way or the Roman Catholic way. This sort of dogmatism has led to so much evil over the centuries and promotes insufferable pride as well as bigotry even today (though we have progressed since Vatican II, thanks to blessed John XXIII).

 **As for the Order of St. Luke** - forgive me O. S. Luke - but this trend toward routine prayerbook (and boring) religion within Methodism is part of the explanation that Methodism has lost its zeal in recent decades. Methodism flourished when Circuit Riders rode across the country, caring very little about the "niceities' (sp?) of worship, far more interested in spiritual vitality than whether ministers wore certain vestments and bowed this way or that. This, in my view, is superficial religion, of absolutely no concern to Jesus. It puts the emphasis on form rather than substance. It is a negative influence within Methodism. Sorry, but that's how this ecumeniac feels. That helps explain why evangelicals with their enthusiasm (and too often closed minds, sadly) have made so much progress in recent years. They continue the old Methodist emphasis upon 'warm hearts' rather than sterile formality.

** I would like to see an ecumenical trend toward:** (1) big tent faith with tolerance for varying views re doctrine so that the mind can feel free to explore all sorts of ideas; (2) a return to more spontaneity and less regimentation, lectionary compliance, fancy robes, and other formalities in worship; and (3) less partisan politics but plenty of ‘social concern’ when it comes to such issues as peace and equal justice for all. I like it when preachers preach what is on their hearts and not be restricted by specified readings ‘of the day’ from scripture. That’s what was true when I was much younger. Now if I attend a Catholic Church on Saturday and most mainline Protestant churches on a Sunday I hear the same scriptures and often even the same sermon and/or sermon illustrations. It may be easier for clergy but it is far less creative and more often dull as dishwater.

 Sorry to be so long. I know that traditionalist Catholics will scold me for pride - in putting my own views ahead of those revealed through the one true church, and many evangelical Protestants will say that I must submit my mind to every word in the Bible. No, I couldn't believe - for example - that God commanded King Saul to murder every last Amalekite. My God would never order such an atrocity. 

  God bless the whole world. No exceptions.

No scolding. Just the observation that your views of what religion should be are as adamant as any “traditionalist Catholic’s”.