Why Does the Vatican Need to Humor Other Religions

[mrdb]

even the title of the question is offensive. I would suggest thatall Catholics stop humoring any other religion. It is time thatwe, as a body, went ou and told all our friends, (in fact any body we can pin hole) that tere is only one true chrch THE ROMAN CATHILC CHURCH AND THAT ULESS THEY ARE FORTUNATELY LICY THEY ATE DOOMED TO SPEND ETERNITY IN WHATEVER HELL IS IN VOGUE NOW. Friends are no concern, They Must be told in nso many emphatric terms that they arein constant danger of losing their immortal soul as are all thoae who believe the way they do. They are foolish for now acepting the true religion as we all know catholicism to be. No only accept ther theology andtenets of the religion but the beliefs also. You are tryuly doeing the a disservuice by not telling them ,. Tell them how wrong they are and how wrong tey have been and thery will be eternallygrateful to you., Agfter all we are gods hosden and its time we told others about it. Ita for their own good

 

[otjm]

Cat:

i have been to many protestant services that even use the same missal that is sitting in a catholic pew.
i went through a period of being lost. left the catholic church for a bit. i attended several services. lutherans, methodists, united church of christ, all had the same service as catholics. i also attended a baptist and an evangelical service. true these were nothing like a catholic service.
i was taught that the novus ordo mass was designed to make protestants feel welcome. in doing so, it made many catholics feel unwelcome. it made them feel like they were participating in something sinister. this caused a split, possibly costing many catholic souls.
before vatican II churches were built decidedly catholic. they had communion rails, saints statues, a choir loft, no one was allowed up at the altar but the priest and servers because laity had their place in witnessing, consecrated wine was not distributed because it was thought to be foolish to risk spilling Christ on the floor when the Holy Eucharist is enough, you could attend a catholic mass anywhere in the world and know what was going on because we had a unified language a unified mass, confession before every mass, beautiful chanting, the smell of incense… so much lost. this is just as small portion… the only thing more sad than these things lost in every mass is that a lot of catholics dont want them back. this baffles and saddens me.

i am truly happy for you. that you have a mass that makes you whole and you feel by attending you made God happy worshiping like a catholic. i really, really, am. but i come from a family that tells me how things used to be. how so much more effort went into catholic symbolisms and catholic worship. now i have the tridentine mass, and it is truly a smack in the face of the reality of what was sacrificed and lost.

so yes i speak of the novus ordo. it did hurt the unity of the catholic church and with its constant drastic changes the novus ordo, after 50 years, is still to this day dividing catholics.

There were some Catholics who left the Church over the Mass; but there were far more who left because they perceived a change in moral law, and many others who left because they decided that the Church was wrong about birth control, and if it was wrong about that, it was probably wrong about other things.

Very few people left to join the SSPX in the US; far more left in France, where the issue was way more infulenced by the last 200 years of politics, and where the changes to the Mass and the issues of Vatican 2 were viewed in terms of their political histoy rather than theologically.

If you werer taught that the Mass was changed to make it friendlier to Protestants, then siorry, someone lied to you.

And I still can attend a Mass anywhere in the world and know what is going on - because I have done so.

 

[Tsuwano]

It’s not a case of humoring other faiths, or somehow compromising or diminishing our own faith in the process. It’s more a matter of reaching out in christ-like love to all other people, regardless of their faith tradition, or lack of it. And wouldn’t Jesus expect that of us Catholics? I think so. I am so glad that the vast majority of Catholics have set aside the old attitude that we’re better than all the rest. If that attitude had been pervasive when I converted, I wouldn’t have converted. When we reach out to others, it forces us to know and understand and explain our own holy Catholic faith even better.

Thank you for your post. I agree with you completely. As a lay missionary, I never feel the need to apologize for my Catholic faith, but neither do I think there is nothing I can learn from the faith experiences of others. The very yearning for God is, within itself, sacred and should be respected even if its form and expression is different from my own. This doesn’t mean that the expressions are equal or that the Catholic faith isn’t the truest expression of God’s relationship with humanity. I believe it is. But it does mean that God can be discovered within other faith expressions and it is the duty of the Church to dialog with those other faiths in order to enhance its own understanding of God among us. We do not diminish our faith in dialog. We polish it and come to understand it more clearly and love it with greater fervor.

 

[otjm]

it was a long time ago but yes i do recall the cover of the missal was exactly the same as the catholic missal… they just skip over the part of the creed some even put a big X over it.

i went to catholic school. we had all notre dame nuns and they taught every class including religion. in high school we had lay teachers and religion was taught by a brother or a precious blood nun. i was taught that the pope had great concern to bring protestants back home to the catholic church and was one of the reasons that started the vatican II council.

i dont care what was built in the 60’s personally. the plans were more than likely already drawn up. today the churches are built like here today gone tomorrow, no big deal. they can sell the property to any other religion and wouldnt have to do any construction. if you dont want to see the churches are slowly looking less and less catholic so be it for you. i see it and will not go back on this. i feel that the catholic churches are being stripped just as Christ’s garments were stripped right before His crucifixion.

Perhaps that is the issue - it has become an emotional issue instead of an itellectual discussion.

 

[ConservativeOne]

The Church is doing what it can to reach out to others for the sake of Jesus Christ, whom prayed that all may be one.

I appreciate what you’re trying to say, and I understand your intent. By no means am I a theologian or a Pope, and I don’t want to insult God, by saying who may have done something right or wrong. But with all due respect, did Our Lord change His Ways to appease the crowd? Or did he walk into the temple and cast out the moneychangers? Our Lord embraced/embraces all who would come to Him. I’ve walked into Churches I’ve known from childhood - that have removed statues (put in the back) - ripped out marble altars (I don’t know where they went) - leaving the Tabernacle standing on what looks like a podium, unadorned. Prayers have been changed to suit other religions - either conforming the Our Father or changing the Consecration to the Sacred Heart, so as not to mention certain religions. Same for Good Friday service.

If we were reaching out to others, they sure didn’t come…The particlar Church I speak of - is empty - you can count on two hands the attendees at Sunday Mass. We not only didn’t bring in new converts - we lost whoever we had before !

It seems that we’ve lost sight of Catholic values, traditions, prayers, way of life - in exchange for modernism and fear of someone not liking the way WE pray. Sorry if I’m on my soapbox here - (God forgive me for almost losing my temper). But the OP’s question begs a question: Do we REACH OUT to other religions? If so - how far do we reach before we fall off the cliff? Where’s THEIR reaching out to US? Has another religion changed their prayers to favor the Catholic Church? Did any changes MAKE a change - for the better? Have you seen the world these days?

 

[weepixie71]

i am sorry that some of you find my question offensive. i do not mean it to be offensive. i mean it as a concerned catholic. as a mother who wants to raise her children to be good strong catholics.

maybe i need to explain why i say humor. it is because we do let other religions state their cause when our pope makes decisions that they do not like. the pope listens and tries his best to keep peace and explains his decisions. Why? why do we owe them explanations? they do not feel the need to explain themselves to us nor do we ask why they choose things that they do.

in the last 50yrs of the catholic church there have been more changes than ever in the history of the church. it would be one thing if all of this change caused a betterment for the church but i dont see it that way. i see pius v and pius x against the catholics that decided to follow the pope. i see traditionalists and modernists bickering who is right and wrong all the time. i hear people talking about attending masses like they are protestant services by way of “if you dont like the mass done this way go to this mass in the next town over”. it was in my lifetime that wasnt allowed. you went to your parish.

since i am 37yrs old and pope john paul II was pretty much the only pope i knew. he was known for working with other religions and i see things done (gosh i have to be careful here) very worldly in the masses today. i have to assume that most of these changes came with his authority. nothing felt stable in my mass i attended because it was always changing. what was seriously wrong one day seemed ok to do the next. so yes, forgive me. between the more protestant like and worldly changes, the bickering, and the time frame it was all done in, i have trouble trusting a lot of the catholic churches decisions.

there is nothing i want to do more, than be able to sit in my pew and fully trusts all the decisions our pope and future popes are going to make. i envy those who can.

 

[weepixie71]

I appreciate what you’re trying to say, and I understand your intent. By no means am I a theologian or a Pope, and I don’t want to insult God, by saying who may have done something right or wrong. But with all due respect, did Our Lord change His Ways to appease the crowd? Or did he walk into the temple and cast out the moneychangers? Our Lord embraced/embraces all who would come to Him. I’ve walked into Churches I’ve known from childhood - that have removed statues (put in the back) - ripped out marble altars (I don’t know where they went) - leaving the Tabernacle standing on what looks like a podium, unadorned. Prayers have been changed to suit other religions - either conforming the Our Father or changing the Consecration to the Sacred Heart, so as not to mention certain religions. Same for Good Friday service.

If we were reaching out to others, they sure didn’t come…The particlar Church I speak of - is empty - you can count on two hands the attendees at Sunday Mass. We not only didn’t bring in new converts - we lost whoever we had before !

It seems that we’ve lost sight of Catholic values, traditions, prayers, way of life - in exchange for modernism and fear of someone not liking the way WE pray. Sorry if I’m on my soapbox here - (God forgive me for almost losing my temper). But the OP’s question begs a question: Do we REACH OUT to other religions? If so - how far do we reach before we fall off the cliff? Where’s THEIR reaching out to US? Has another religion changed their prayers to favor the Catholic Church? Did any changes MAKE a change - for the better? Have you seen the world these days?

BRAVO!!! :clapping:
thank you. ok, i was starting to wonder if i was truly the only person who felt this way. and thank you for writing it better than i did.

 

[Kook]

If you werer taught that the Mass was changed to make it friendlier to Protestants, then siorry, someone lied to you.

Didn’t Archbishop Bugnini and Fr. Gelineau both make comments to the effect that the liturgy should have prayers and practices that would be stumbling blocks for Protestants stripped away?

Even if not, I think there is a bit of an issue with having a committee in the 70s try to come up with something that carries centuries of (name removed by moderator)ut from the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Hence, the comments that the Pauline Mass is a “fabrication” and a “banal, on-the-spot” invention.

 

[otjm]

Didn’t Archbishop Bugnini and Fr. Gelineau both make comments to the effect that the liturgy should have prayers and practices that would be stumbling blocks for Protestants stripped away?

Even if not, I think there is a bit of an issue with having a committee in the 70s try to come up with something that carries centuries of (name removed by moderator)ut from the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Hence, the comments that the Pauline Mass is a “fabrication” and a “banal, on-the-spot” invention.

I am always amused when someone drags out Bugnini as if he were the pope, instead of Paul 6th. Bugnini may have been influential in some of the decisions that were made in terms of the rubrics and prayers of the OF. He was one of many, and one who was quite good at making press for himself. His commentary is just that - his commentary. Comments get made to reporters, and anyone who has ever been interviewed for something that required much more than one comment, will find that what they said is reported out of context, often turned around, upside down, and often comes out in a very frustrating manner: the interviewie had a point they were trying to make but the reporter had a story they were trying to report, and the reporter picks and chooses the comments that supprot their story line - which often was chosen long before the interview. In addition, people are notorious for making comments off the cuff, that when reported don’t come anywhere near encapsulating what that individual believes or professes.

Using Bugnini to beat the OF about the head and shoulders is a game that has been around since not long after the OF came out. People confuse what Bugnini did or did not do with what others subsequently have done or not done. Does the OF need some work? Absolutely. Is it the abomination that some few individuals keep trying to make of it? Then tell me why every pope since it has come out keeps saying it - in particular two of the most brilliant popes this Church has seen in a long time. I am still waiting to hear an answer to that.

We have a whole lot of self-anointed experts spouting off about something they have zilch training in; they rely on other indivudals who say what they want to hear, who are then anointed the real experts. I went to college and graduate school, and one of the things I learned along the way is that just because someone has a PhD doesn’t endow them with common sense or truth. I am willing to bet my salvation on this pope and the last one. I truly believe they have been and are lead by the Holy Spirit.

Interestingly, some disagree with my conclusion. that is fine; I am responsible for my choices ultimately, not theirs.

Note before you fire off an answer to this: I do not say that the OF does not need work. I do not say that it had the organic development from the EF that it should have. But neither is it in and of itself as bad as some insist.

 

[Ottaviani]

I am always amused when someone drags out Bugnini as if he were the pope, instead of Paul 6th. Bugnini may have been influential in some of the decisions that were made in terms of the rubrics and prayers of the OF. He was one of many, and one who was quite good at making press for himself. His commentary is just that - his commentary. Comments get made to reporters, and anyone who has ever been interviewed for something that required much more than one comment, will find that what they said is reported out of context, often turned around, upside down, and often comes out in a very frustrating manner: the interviewie had a point they were trying to make but the reporter had a story they were trying to report, and the reporter picks and chooses the comments that supprot their story line - which often was chosen long before the interview. In addition, people are notorious for making comments off the cuff, that when reported don’t come anywhere near encapsulating what that individual believes or professes.

Using Bugnini to beat the OF about the head and shoulders is a game that has been around since not long after the OF came out. People confuse what Bugnini did or did not do with what others subsequently have done or not done. Does the OF need some work? Absolutely. Is it the abomination that some few individuals keep trying to make of it? Then tell me why every pope since it has come out keeps saying it - in particular two of the most brilliant popes this Church has seen in a long time. I am still waiting to hear an answer to that.

We have a whole lot of self-anointed experts spouting off about something they have zilch training in; they rely on other indivudals who say what they want to hear, who are then anointed the real experts. I went to college and graduate school, and one of the things I learned along the way is that just because someone has a PhD doesn’t endow them with common sense or truth. I am willing to bet my salvation on this pope and the last one. I truly believe they have been and are lead by the Holy Spirit.

Interestingly, some disagree with my conclusion. that is fine; I am responsible for my choices ultimately, not theirs.

Note before you fire off an answer to this: I do not say that the OF does not need work. I do not say that it had the organic development from the EF that it should have. But neither is it in and of itself as bad as some insist.

This doesn’t refute the claim that the Novus Ordo was created to appease Protestants.

 

[Kook]

I am always amused when someone drags out Bugnini as if he were the pope, instead of Paul 6th. Bugnini may have been influential in some of the decisions that were made in terms of the rubrics and prayers of the OF. He was one of many, and one who was quite good at making press for himself. His commentary is just that - his commentary. Comments get made to reporters, and anyone who has ever been interviewed for something that required much more than one comment, will find that what they said is reported out of context, often turned around, upside down, and often comes out in a very frustrating manner: the interviewie had a point they were trying to make but the reporter had a story they were trying to report, and the reporter picks and chooses the comments that supprot their story line - which often was chosen long before the interview. In addition, people are notorious for making comments off the cuff, that when reported don’t come anywhere near encapsulating what that individual believes or professes.

Using Bugnini to beat the OF about the head and shoulders is a game that has been around since not long after the OF came out. People confuse what Bugnini did or did not do with what others subsequently have done or not done. Does the OF need some work? Absolutely. Is it the abomination that some few individuals keep trying to make of it? Then tell me why every pope since it has come out keeps saying it - in particular two of the most brilliant popes this Church has seen in a long time. I am still waiting to hear an answer to that.

We have a whole lot of self-anointed experts spouting off about something they have zilch training in; they rely on other indivudals who say what they want to hear, who are then anointed the real experts. I went to college and graduate school, and one of the things I learned along the way is that just because someone has a PhD doesn’t endow them with common sense or truth. I am willing to bet my salvation on this pope and the last one. I truly believe they have been and are lead by the Holy Spirit.

Interestingly, some disagree with my conclusion. that is fine; I am responsible for my choices ultimately, not theirs.

Note before you fire off an answer to this: I do not say that the OF does not need work. I do not say that it had the organic development from the EF that it should have. But neither is it in and of itself as bad as some insist.

No need to get defensive. It was just a question. Do you have some sources that demonstrate Paul VI’s involvement in drafting the Missal?

I don’t recall saying that the Pauline Mass was an abomination. The quoted words I used were then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s. Can you elaborate on this part? I don’t understand what you are saying in the second sentence.

Is it the abomination that some few individuals keep trying to make of it? Then tell me why every pope since it has come out keeps saying it - in particular two of the most brilliant popes this Church has seen in a long time. I am still waiting to hear an answer to that.

 

[otjm]

This doesn’t refute the claim that the Novus Ordo was created to appease Protestants.

Then let me be more clear: the claim that it was done to appease Protestants needs to be substantiated by more than repeating the same old urban legend. No documentation exists other than some off-the-cuff remark attributed to Bugnini.

And documentation is not the arguments post hoc; it is notes, directions, explanations, and/or other material on which the OF was built, or directly related to those documents.

 

[mrdb]

i m a member of the first congregation sevent daynmormans of shipopee, wisc and I have yet for se any member of the rOMASN cATHOLIC cHURCH MAKRE ANY ALLOWANCES FOR OUR BELIEFS. wHY IS THIS. dO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT OF THE 3500 RECOGNIZED RELIGIONS IN THE WORLD AND OF THE ALMOST7000000000PEOPLE IN THE WORLD (oF WHIC YOU ARE A DEFINITE MINORITY AFTER 2000 YEARS A=OF TRYING) THATyou hold the absolute truth asnf only you. If you said the ssame thing about ploitics, faily=, governmental organization, educationm etc etc etc. you would be called paranois with dleusions of grandeur. so be it

 

[Ottaviani]

Then let me be more clear: the claim that it was done to appease Protestants needs to be substantiated by more than repeating the same old urban legend. No documentation exists other than some off-the-cuff remark attributed to Bugnini.

And documentation is not the arguments post hoc; it is notes, directions, explanations, and/or other material on which the OF was built, or directly related to those documents.

Ok, how about the fact that the NO is basically the same exact liturgy as most Protestant “services”

 

[LilyM]

i m a member of the first congregation sevent daynmormans of shipopee, wisc and I have yet for se any member of the rOMASN cATHOLIC cHURCH MAKRE ANY ALLOWANCES FOR OUR BELIEFS. wHY IS THIS. dO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT OF THE 3500 RECOGNIZED RELIGIONS IN THE WORLD AND OF THE ALMOST7000000000PEOPLE IN THE WORLD (oF WHIC YOU ARE A DEFINITE MINORITY AFTER 2000 YEARS A=OF TRYING) THATyou hold the absolute truth asnf only you. If you said the ssame thing about ploitics, faily=, governmental organization, educationm etc etc etc. you would be called paranois with dleusions of grandeur. so be it

Uggh - you might want to brush up on your typing skills if you want what you say to be taken seriously.

Might I add that we Catholics are either the largest or second largest religious group in the world? Depending on which stats you read.

1.1 billion? Hardly something to sneeze at. Hardly a minority.

Mormons, by contrast, after 150 years, number about 11 million worldwide. If you keep growing at that rate for 2,000 years you’ll reach about 147 million

 

[I_Believe]

i m a member of the first congregation sevent daynmormans of shipopee, wisc and I have yet for se any member of the rOMASN cATHOLIC cHURCH MAKRE ANY ALLOWANCES FOR OUR BELIEFS. wHY IS THIS. dO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT OF THE 3500 RECOGNIZED RELIGIONS IN THE WORLD AND OF THE ALMOST7000000000PEOPLE IN THE WORLD (oF WHIC YOU ARE A DEFINITE MINORITY AFTER 2000 YEARS A=OF TRYING) THATyou hold the absolute truth asnf only you. If you said the ssame thing about ploitics, faily=, governmental organization, educationm etc etc etc. you would be called paranois with dleusions of grandeur. so be it

Our Church was started by Christ. All others were started by men.

Remember, all Christians were called Catholics up until the Reformation. Ask yourself this. Did those who followed Luther away from the Church, who were raised as Catholics, break the Commandment that we honor our fathers and mothers ?

I’d say yes, they did.

 

[I_Believe]

Didn’t Archbishop Bugnini and Fr. Gelineau both make comments to the effect that the liturgy should have prayers and practices that would be stumbling blocks for Protestants stripped away?

Even if not, I think there is a bit of an issue with having a committee in the 70s try to come up with something that carries centuries of (name removed by moderator)ut from the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Hence, the comments that the Pauline Mass is a “fabrication” and a “banal, on-the-spot” invention.

Fr. Gelineau ?

Alluding to the composition of the New Mass, Father Duggan states: "It is enough to compare the text of this Missal (the Missal of 1570) with the Novus Ordo of 1969 to see that there has been a revolutionary change (November AD2000).

Fr Duggan’s contention that the liturgical change is revolutionary is corroborated by Father Joseph Gelineau SJ whose credentials for commenting on the New Mass could scarcely be more authoritative. Fr Gelineau was one of the most influential of Archbishop Bugnini’s Consilium which was charged with composing the New Mass after Vatican II. He was described by the Archbishop as one of “the great masters of the international liturgical world” (The Reform of the Liturgy, page 221). Archbishop Bugnini, it will be recalled, was the principal architect of the Novus Ordo.

In his book Demain la Liturgie (The Liturgy Tomorrow), Fr Gelineau observes: “Let those, who, like myself have known and sung a Latin Gregorian High Mass remember it if they can. Let them compare it with the Mass that we now have. Not only the words, the melodies, and some of the gestures are different. To tell the truth it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists (Le Rite Romain tel que nous l’avons connu n’existe plus). It has been destroyed (il est détruit)” (pages 9-10).

Monsignor Klaus Gamber agrees with Fr Gelineau that the Roman Rite has been destroyed. Monsignor writes: “[A]t this critical juncture the traditional Roman Rite, more than one thousand years old, has been destroyed” (The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, page 99).
ad2000.com.au/articles/2005/feb2005p15_1853.html

 

[I_Believe]

Why does the pope feel the need to make Jews, Moslems, Islams, Buddists, Protestants etc. happy?

Let’s not lay it on Pope BXVI’s shoulders. He’s the best Pope we’ve had in a very long time .

And don’t forget. Since the lifting of he excommunications, the fruits of the post VII ecumenical efforts have become very clear.

Let’s just pray for him as he asked.

 

[Phemie]

Originally Posted by weepixie71 Vie

w Post
Cat:

i have been to many protestant services that even use the same missal that is sitting in a catholic pew.

Is that true? The very same Missal found in the pews of Catholic Churches? The same Missal that uses the same words at the Consecration? The same Missal that ses either the Nicene or Apostles Creed in which we say “We believe in the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”? Amazing that Protestants would use those same prayers!

I attended a Communion Service at the Anglican Church during the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. Other than the timing of of the sign of peace their Communion service and our Mass is almost identical. I kept having to tell myself “that Archbishop celebrant doesn’t have valid orders, I’m not really at a Mass.” I can’t recall that they didn’t use the word ‘apostolic’ in the Creed (Apostles’ Creed same as we use in Mass in Canada).

before vatican II churches were built decidedly catholic. they had communion rails, saints statues, a choir loft, no one was allowed up at the altar but the priest and servers because laity had their place in witnessing, consecrated wine was not distributed because it was thought to be foolish to risk spilling Christ on the floor when the Holy Eucharist is enough,

Communion under only one species was started to fight the heresy that Jesus wasn’t fully present in only one species, not to prevent spilling of the Precious Blood. Since that need to fight heresy no longer existed it was thought prudent to return to Communion under both species in limited circumstances and that list was extended after a few years.

you could attend a catholic mass anywhere in the world and know what was going on because we had a unified language a unified mass, confession before every mass, beautiful chanting, the smell of incense…so much lost. this is just as small portion… the only thing more sad than these things lost in every mass is that a lot of catholics dont want them back. this baffles and saddens me.

What is also sad is reading the same half truths over and over again ad nauseum. There are many Churches built after the 1960’s who do have statues, choir lofts, incense, votive candles, chant and yes indeedy, even the old fashioned confessionial booths. And by the way, Confessions were not always heard before every Mass. Like so much else, it depended on where one lived, the size of the parish and so on.

In that Anglican Church I saw: a Tabernacle with Vigil light burning, altar rail where everyone knelt to receive under both species, crucifixes, etc.

Go to a High Anglican Mass and you’ll see something closer to the EF than the OF, including bells, incense and all the trappings.

Confession before Mass didn’t routinely happen in parishes with only one priest, which was pretty much the norm in all but town/city parishes. Before Vatican II, I could drive 50 miles between one parish with 2 priests and the next parish with 2 priests and drive through 7 or 8 parishes with a single priest in residence. You had scheduled Confession on Saturday afternoon.

 

[otjm]

Ok, how about the fact that the NO is basically the same exact liturgy as most Protestant “services”

You obviously have not been to most Protestant services. There are only two that really come anywhere near matching - High Anglican/Epsicopalian, and High Lutheran.

and I use the term “High” for a reason - they are the two groups that pretty much follow along with the pattern of the OF. Other Lutheran and Anglican/Epsicopalian drift farther away from that.

From there the similarities fall off rapidly.

But then, if you bothered to attend any of these, you would already know that, wouldn’t you?