Alternative Communion

UB Dude

I’m interested in establishing a non-traditional, gospel based, spiritual fellowship that will be open, welcoming, inclusive, liberal, progressive, committed, sincere, profound, engaging, challenging, rewarding, supportive, nurturing, enlightening, inspiring, empowering, and participatory.

By gospel I mean the universal brotherhood of all humanity – one for all and all for one – in the service of the Father Almighty; the Source, Centre, and Destiny of all things, meanings, values, and beings.

I see the traditions out there, hard at work – ministers tending their flocks, singing songs of praise and generally doing their thing but I have yet to find one that feels like HOME. I understand each to their own when it comes to communal religious worship but I have yet to find a fellowship that I could feel a part of, where I could let my guard down, be my self, and enjoy communion with my brethren. I know and believe that we are all one family under God but it is true that birds of a feather flock together and, I guess, I’m looking for my flock.

I am devoted to the Master and his cause but I don’t personally subscribe to many of the teachings of the traditions and that creates challenges. It appears to me that the world of Christendom is subdivided up into various communities whose borders are defined by their respective creeds, and who have made salvation and passage into communion dependent upon the willingness of the prospective member to subscribe to their particular variation of their respective creeds and proscribe and reject everyone else’s; a salvation by right beliefs sort of thing. This issue is further compounded by the tendency of some to externalise their identities. They identify themselves with their creed, code, and cult, and consequently confuse the rejection of some or all of their creed, code, and cult, as somehow a rejection of them and I don’t want to be hurting anyone’s feelings. I just want to sit down, break the bread of spiritual inspiration and share it with my fellows.

I enjoy the company of the followers of Jesus, regardless of their beliefs, but I personally find the atonement doctrine revolting and the call to the hatred and condemnation of homosexuality despicable. If some Christian thinks I’ve just bought a one way ticket to eternal damnation for espousing such opinions, that’s cool too – whatever floats your boat buddy but that’s the sort of thing that creates serious challenges to communion, that and the dreadful worship music that get played in contemporary churches. Don’t get me wrong, I love music; I’m a musician myself but some of the tunes belted out in the churches are like needles in my ears. I just can’t handle them.

So I’m caught on two things: the demand for conformity of beliefs and having to endure [what is for me] terrible music. I understand there’s no accounting for taste. Some like heavy metal, some like country, others classical and opera, and yet others love contemporary Christian worship music. Not me, sorry about that. I will gladly concede that some of the tunes are great, Rich Mullins and other spring to mind but overall quality is pretty low. Maybe one of you good people will educate me.

I’ve got a few like minded friends here in Galway. We have a little fellowship [at least one of which really, really, loves worship music] and I’m wondering if there are any other like-minded souls out there that would be interested in setting something up?

For more on the subject check out this link

Link to Do Something Irish

cattolico

There are 20,000+ protestant communions, I'm sure yours will find its space.

Delirium

cattolico wrote: »

There are 20,000+ protestant communions, I'm sure yours will find its space.

MOD NOTE

Please try keep to the topc.

Thanks for your attention.

UB Dude

cattolico wrote: »

There are 20,000+ protestant communions, I'm sure yours will find its space.

Hi Cattolico,
Thanks for your response. I know it wasn’t clear but I was born and raised in the RC tradition. I've served as a Chaplain and a Retreat Facilitator. I've penned hymns that are sung in my local RC church. I've even written tunes in the style of contemporary Christian worship music. In conformity with the Masters example, he never left his tradition so I won't be leaving mine.
I like the mass (though I’m not a daily communicant); at least, I like it more now that I understand what is going on but it pains me that people attend out of custom. I wince for the priests when it’s so obvious that the congregation no longer know how to follow the liturgy. I feel that it has been reduced to a gathering of strangers, who nod courteously to one another but for whom communion is a word used by “religious people” – which they would never consider themselves to be. As far as I can see, the mass may as well be conducted in Latin for all folk get out of it these days.
My interest in religion and religions go back to my childhood. I find them all fascinating and I enjoy chatting about them and what they can contribute to this journey we call life. I enjoy explaining to the curious the difference between the traditions but, as far as I am concerned, the roots of the ideal of Brotherhood (as Jesus taught and lived it) go FAR deeper than tradition. I personally cannot reconcile the exclusivism of the traditions with the universal brotherhood espoused by Jesus (though I understand that there are those that can) and I was wondering if there was anyone else out there that thought or felt as I do and fancied meeting up and discussing these things.
I’ve encountered a lot of people that feel like they have nowhere to go spiritually. They no longer feel welcome [for one reason or another] or at home in traditions that they were reared in and they don’t have any inclination to join any others but they still have the yearning for spiritual community but not according to the models that have gone before. Something new is required and that’s what I’m looking to get going. I thought Boards.ie might be a good place to start. You’ve made your feelings clear, you won’t be joining me. That’s cool. You found your crew. Good for you.

All I’m looking to establish is a God loving man serving fellowship. As I said before: I want to establish a non-traditional, gospel based, spiritual fellowship that will be open, welcoming, inclusive, liberal, progressive, committed, sincere, profound, engaging, challenging, rewarding, supportive, nurturing, enlightening, inspiring, empowering, and participatory.

By gospel I mean the universal brotherhood of all humanity – one for all and all for one – in the service of the Father Almighty; the Source, Centre, and Destiny of all things, meanings, values, and beings.

That’s not too much to ask for – is it?! :-P

cattolico

The Gospel or εὐαγγέλιον is Christ's teaching. And its just that Christ's teaching. I'm a Catholic. Christ was clear what his mission was and what his message was. The Gospel is firmly rooted in the Church and in Tradition. (I use the work tradition in the catholic Biblical sense, not some arbitrary man made custom).

You can't have communion in the true sense without excepting the true faith.

Effects

cattolico wrote: »

The Gospel is Christ's teaching. Christ was clear what his mission was and what his message was. The Gospel is firmly rooted in the Church and in Tradition. (I use the work tradition in the catholic Biblical sense, not some arbitrary man made custom).

You can't have communion in the true sense without excepting the true faith.

What was Christ's teaching on communion? I can't remember it myself.

Cabaal

cattolico wrote: »

The Gospel or εὐαγγέλιον is Christ's teaching. And its just that Christ's teaching. I'm a Catholic. Christ was clear what his mission was and what his message was. The Gospel is firmly rooted in the Church and in Tradition. (I use the work tradition in the catholic Biblical sense, not some arbitrary man made custom).

You can't have communion in the true sense without excepting the true faith.

What did Jesus specifically say about homosexuals out of curiosity?
From what I've seen the church's view on gay people which is taken from the bible wasn't something Jesus specifically stated and instead comes from words written by generally men.

Just curious given this is clearly something the OP finds unsettling about the church which is perfectly understandable.

UB Dude

cattolico wrote: »

The Gospel or εὐαγγέλιον is Christ's teaching. And its just that Christ's teaching. I'm a Catholic. Christ was clear what his mission was and what his message was. The Gospel is firmly rooted in the Church and in Tradition. (I use the work tradition in the catholic Biblical sense, not some arbitrary man made custom).

You can't have communion in the true sense without excepting the true faith.

Hi again, I've just a couple of questions: what tradition do you know of that is NOT man made? Secondly, the true faith? I was under the illusion that faith in the truth of the gospel/faith in the Son was all that was required to enter into the Kin-dom. To which true faith are you referring? Does it differ from what I've said? All traditions, customs, and institutional structures are man made. Grave spiritual danger attends the exaltation of man made creations to divine status, by such techniques do people descend into idolatry.

Regards

JimiTime

Cabaal wrote: »

What did Jesus specifically say about homosexuals out of curiosity?
From what I've seen the church's view on gay people which is taken from the bible wasn't something Jesus specifically stated and instead comes from words written by generally men.

Just curious given this is clearly something the OP finds unsettling about the church which is perfectly understandable.

Are you looking for a quote from Jesus that specifically says, 'Oh, and btw, homosexuality is wrong' ? Because, if that is a measure on whether he felt something was sinful or not, you would require a specific quote on every deed deemed sinful.
If your goal is to honestly find out what Jesus knew, believed etc, then you start with the fact that he was a Torah observant Jew, which would include prohibitions against many behaviours, one of which was sex with ones own gender. There were also prohibitions against things like beastiality, which Jesus also did not mention specifically. 'Sexual Immorality' was a catch all term that everyone understood in the context of the Torah. So this included fornication, adultery, sex with ones own gender, beatiality etc etc.
Jesus actually takes these things to an even higher level, when he says about sins in ones heart.
Its all well and good to say you disagree with things like considering fornication sinful, but you cannot with any credibility say that you are a follower of Christ in the same breath.

cattolico

JimiTime wrote: »

Are you looking for a quote from Jesus that specifically says, 'Oh, and btw, homosexuality is wrong' ? Because, if that is a measure on whether he felt something was sinful or not, you would require a specific quote on every deed deemed sinful.
If your goal is to honestly find out what Jesus knew, believed etc, then you start with the fact that he was a Torah observant Jew, which would include prohibitions against many behaviours, one of which was sex with ones own gender. There were also prohibitions against things like beastiality, which Jesus also did not mention specifically. 'Sexual Immorality' was a catch all term that everyone understood in the context of the Torah. So this included fornication, adultery, sex with ones own gender, beatiality etc etc.
Jesus actually takes these things to an even higher level, when he says about sins in ones heart.
Its all well and good to say you disagree with things like considering fornication sinful, but you cannot with any credibility say that you are a follower of Christ in the same breath.

Thanks JimiTime. one of the best posts I have seen on this forum.

UB Dude

Hi, in my original post I provided two links, one of which connected to an article of mine that offers my reflection on the teachings of Jesus on this subject. Not everyone's cup of tea but it is spiritually significant.

Regards

looksee

JimiTime wrote: »

Are you looking for a quote from Jesus that specifically says, 'Oh, and btw, homosexuality is wrong' ? Because, if that is a measure on whether he felt something was sinful or not, you would require a specific quote on every deed deemed sinful.
If your goal is to honestly find out what Jesus knew, believed etc, then you start with the fact that he was a Torah observant Jew, which would include prohibitions against many behaviours, one of which was sex with ones own gender. There were also prohibitions against things like beastiality, which Jesus also did not mention specifically. 'Sexual Immorality' was a catch all term that everyone understood in the context of the Torah. So this included fornication, adultery, sex with ones own gender, beatiality etc etc.
Jesus actually takes these things to an even higher level, when he says about sins in ones heart.
Its all well and good to say you disagree with things like considering fornication sinful, but you cannot with any credibility say that you are a follower of Christ in the same breath.

That is an interesting point. Do we take it then that you would consider Christians should be subject to Jewish dietary rules, given that Jesus was a Jew and never mentioned that the rules were now defunct, so presumably Christians are supposed to follow them. And get boys circumcised - he didn't say you don't have to do it, and women covering their hair, that has gradually got lost over the centuries, and not working on the Sabbath - when did he say that the Sabbath should move to Sunday rather than Saturday? Goodness, things have suddenly got complicated for Catholics!

homer911

looksee wrote: »

That is an interesting point. Do we take it then that you would consider Christians should be subject to Jewish dietary rules, given that Jesus was a Jew and never mentioned that the rules were now defunct, so presumably Christians are supposed to follow them. And get boys circumcised - he didn't say you don't have to do it, and women covering their hair, that has gradually got lost over the centuries, and not working on the Sabbath - when did he say that the Sabbath should move to Sunday rather than Saturday? Goodness, things have suddenly got complicated for Catholics!

Circumcision and diet are addressed in the New Testament, just not by Jesus, same with the move from Saturday to Sunday to mark the resurrection of Jesus

galljga1

homer911 wrote: »

Circumcision and diet are addressed in the New Testament, just not by Jesus, same with the move from Saturday to Sunday to mark the resurrection of Jesus

So it is ok for 'man' to make changes as he sees fit but just whatever suits man at a particular point in time.

Cabaal

galljga1 wrote: »

So it is ok for 'man' to make changes as he sees fit but just whatever suits man at a particular point in time.

Basically...yeah,
When it suits they can change the "rules",

Give it enough time and the catholic church will be fine with marriage equality, it might take 100's of years but give it time and the church will move on and agree with it.

hinault

cattolico wrote: »

The Gospel or εὐαγγέλιον is Christ's teaching. And its just that Christ's teaching. I'm a Catholic. Christ was clear what his mission was and what his message was. The Gospel is firmly rooted in the Church and in Tradition. (I use the work tradition in the catholic Biblical sense, not some arbitrary man made custom).

You can't have communion in the true sense without excepting the true faith.

Exactly.

There is only one Communion and that Communion is part of the Holy Mass as promulgated by the Church.

looksee

communion
kəˈmjuːnjən/Submit
noun
1.
the sharing or exchanging of intimate thoughts and feelings, especially on a mental or spiritual level.
"in this churchyard communion with the dead was almost palpable"
2.
the service of Christian worship at which bread and wine are consecrated and shared.
"Communion was celebrated once a month"
synonyms: Eucharist, Holy Communion, Lord's Supper, Mass
"he believed in Christ's presence among the faithful at Communion"

Just because (some) Catholics think they have a monopoly on Communion doesn't mean that they do.

hinault: There is only one Communion and that Communion is part of the Holy Mass as promulgated by the Church.

That should read 'It is my opinion that there is only one Communion and that Communion is part of the Holy Mass as promulgated by the Church'.

hinault

looksee wrote: »

That should read 'It is my opinion that there is only one Communion and that Communion is part of the Holy Mass as promulgated by the Church'.

Incorrect.

Whether my opinion is in agreement with, or in disagreement with, doesn't add to or detract from that same truth, namely there is only one Communion and that Communion is part of the Holy Mass as promulgated by the Church.

JimiTime

looksee wrote: »

That is an interesting point. Do we take it then that you would consider Christians should be subject to Jewish dietary rules, given that Jesus was a Jew and never mentioned that the rules were now defunct, so presumably Christians are supposed to follow them. And get boys circumcised - he didn't say you don't have to do it, and women covering their hair, that has gradually got lost over the centuries, and not working on the Sabbath - when did he say that the Sabbath should move to Sunday rather than Saturday? Goodness, things have suddenly got complicated for Catholics!

All those ceremonial laws, given specifically to the nation of Israel, who were a nation set apart, were fulfilled in Jesus. This is why he was the fulfilment of the law, rather than its abolisher. Unfortunately, a lot of ignorance, wilful or otherwise, continues to exist in this realm. The famous Dr Laura letter etc.
The fact is, the moral law was separate from the ceremonial, and simply reading it, rather than some commentator with an axe to grind would reveal it to anyone honestly seeking the truth of the matter.

All the sexual decrees in Leviticus 18, are followed by the following verses:

“‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.”

So while God was decreeing that Israel obeyed the ceremonial laws, such as the dietary laws etc, he tells us in the verses above, that THE NATIONS WERE BEING JUDGED in relation to these sexual laws. They were UNIVERSAL pronouncements. He did not say that the fact that the nations ate pork, they were defiled and being vomited out of the land.

looksee

Why are you talking about Leviticus, and homer was talking about the NT. I thought the discussion was specifically about what Jesus said?

JimiTime

looksee wrote: »

Why are you talking about Leviticus, and homer was talking about the NT. I thought the discussion was specifically about what Jesus said?

This was a question of yours:

Do we take it then that you would consider Christians should be subject to Jewish dietary rules, given that Jesus was a Jew and never mentioned that the rules were now defunct, so presumably Christians are supposed to follow them.

It has been questioned, that because Christians don't follow the ceremonial laws of the Torah handed specifically to Israel and fulfilled in Jesus, that they are being inconsistent by following the moral laws. My post puts that line of reasoning to bed.

looksee

JimiTime wrote: »

It has been questioned, that because Christians don't follow the ceremonial laws of the Torah handed specifically to Israel and fulfilled in Jesus, that they are being inconsistent by following the moral laws. My post puts that line of reasoning to bed.

I think my brain just fried. I can see where the OP is coming from, good luck OP.

galljga1

hinault wrote: »

Incorrect.

Whether my opinion is in agreement with, or in disagreement with, doesn't add to or detract from that same truth, namely there is only one Communion and that Communion is part of the Holy Mass as promulgated by the Church.

Again, your opinion. And what exactly is "the Church"?

hinault

looksee wrote: »

I think my brain just fried

The concept explained to you is rather straight forward.

Yet your brain fried.:o

looksee

It was a polite(ish) way of saying I could not be bothered figuring out all that stuff about Jewish laws and ceremonies and old testament and new testament and what this one said and what that one said and what Jesus didn't say and so on. And I can entirely sympathise with the OP wanting to do something that doesn't get as bogged down with it.

And the pure arrogance of saying 'my Communion is better than your Communion, in fact yours isn't one at all'. Jesus said 'where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I also'. He also broke bread with his friends and said 'do this in remembrance of me'. Simple as that.

hinault

looksee wrote: »

It was a polite(ish) way of saying I could not be bothered figuring out all that stuff about Jewish laws and ceremonies and old testament and new testament and what this one said and what that one said and what Jesus didn't say and so on. And I can entirely sympathise with the OP wanting to do something that doesn't get as bogged down with it.

And the pure arrogance of saying 'my Communion is better than your Communion, in fact yours isn't one at all'. Jesus said 'where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I also'. He also broke bread with his friends and said 'do this in remembrance of me'. Simple as that.

There is only one Communion, and that Communion is part of the Holy Mass.

If folk attending non-Catholic religious "services" - in denominations derived from Luther and his ilk - insist on referring to communion therein, that's their problem.

galljga1

hinault wrote: »

There is only one Communion, and that Communion is part of the Holy Mass.

If folk attending non-Catholic religious "services" - in denominations derived from Luther and his ilk - insist on referring to communion therein, that's their problem.

Oh dear, the arrogance displayed in this particular post is only exceeded by the ignorance displayed. You may not be aware that the main 'protestant' church (church of Ireland) in this country is actually a catholic church. The distinction is actually protestant vs roman rather than protestant vs catholic.

Absolam

galljga1 wrote: »

Oh dear, the arrogance displayed in this particular post is only exceeded by the ignorance displayed. You may not be aware that the main 'protestant' church (church of Ireland) in this country is actually a catholic church. The distinction is actually protestant vs roman rather than protestant vs catholic.

The Church of Ireland is a catholic Church, not the Catholic Church. A rather relevant distinction when hinault is talking about 'non-Catholic', not 'non-catholic'. Were you ignorant of the distinction, or simply too anxious to belabor someone for their arrogance to acknowledge it?

galljga1

Absolam wrote: »

The Church of Ireland is a catholic Church, not the Catholic Church. A rather relevant distinction when hinault is talking about 'non-Catholic', not 'non-catholic'. Were you ignorant of the distinction, or simply too anxious to belabor someone for their arrogance to acknowledge it?

Oh, I am well aware of the significance of the big C having been brought up in the loving bosom of said religion, none of which detracts from the arrogance of the post to which I was replying.

Absolam

galljga1 wrote: »

Oh, I am well aware of the significance of the big C having been brought up in the loving bosom of said religion, none of which detracts from the arrogance of the post to which I was replying.

In which case you own post demonstrated extraordinary arrogance in upbraiding the poster for ignorance you were well aware wasn't present.

galljga1

Absolam wrote: »

In which case you own post demonstrated extraordinary arrogance in upbraiding the poster for ignorance you were well aware wasn't present.

Not at all. Ignorance has many meanings, foolishness being one. I consider it pretty foolish to make a statement like

"If folk attending non-Catholic religious "services" - in denominations derived from Luther and his ilk - insist on referring to communion therein, that's their problem"

not to mention how foolish your post is.

Absolam

galljga1 wrote: »

Not at all. Ignorance has many meanings, foolishness being one. I consider it pretty foolish to make a statement like
"If folk attending non-Catholic religious "services" - in denominations derived from Luther and his ilk - insist on referring to communion therein, that's their problem"
not to mention how foolish your post is.

Funny how you had to point that out by attempting to deride a supposed failure to comprehend the difference between catholic and Catholic then

galljga1

Absolam wrote: »

Funny how you had to point that out by attempting to deride a supposed failure to comprehend the difference between catholic and Catholic then

I never attempted to deride a supposed failure to comprehend the difference between catholic and Catholic.

Absolam

galljga1 wrote: »

I never attempted to deride a supposed failure to comprehend the difference between catholic and Catholic.

Of course not. When you 'corrected' Hinaults distinction between Catholic and Protestant with your "The distinction is actually protestant vs roman rather than protestant vs catholic." jibe you were assuredly only deriding his foolishness... right?

galljga1

Absolam wrote: »

Of course not. When you 'corrected' Hinaults distinction between Catholic and Protestant with your "The distinction is actually protestant vs roman rather than protestant vs catholic." jibe you were assuredly only deriding his foolishness... right?

I never corrected anything in Hinault's post. I was just providing the dear fellow with information of which he may not have been aware.

Absolam

galljga1 wrote: »

I never corrected anything in Hinault's post. I was just providing the dear fellow with information of which he may not have been aware.

Of course you were! I'm sure it was his use of a capital C that tipped you off... Oh wait! That would have indicated he was aware, eh? Dear me.

galljga1

Absolam wrote: »

Of course you were! I'm sure it was his use of a capital C that tipped you off... Oh wait! That would have indicated he was aware, eh? Dear me.

Of course I was not. Are you making assumptions by any chance? The capital C could have been a typo. Dear me.

Absolam

galljga1 wrote: »

Of course I was not. Are you making assumptions by any chance? The capital C could have been a typo. Dear me.

What could have been would certainly be an assumption. Sounds like you're back to your old habits!

galljga1

Absolam wrote: »

What could have been would certainly be an assumption. Sounds like you're back to your old habits!

Oh I made no assumption. I did say could have been. On the other hand, it may not have been. Hence, I provided the additional information, just in case.
Would you say that you are making assumptions about the meaning of my posts?

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

I thought only Mary made Assumptions...

robdonn

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

I thought only Mary made Assumptions...

When you assume you make an ass of u and me.

hinault

Absolam wrote: »

What could have been would certainly be an assumption. Sounds like you're back to your old habits!

You should consider using the ignore options with that one.

Those "old habits" are as tedious as they're misinformed.

galljga1

hinault wrote: »

You should consider using the ignore options with that one.

Those "old habits" are as tedious as they're misinformed.

Oh my good buddy Hinault. Adding someone to the ignore list is your only option when your your posts are shown to be extremely inaccurate. It seems to be a regular occurrence. How many are now on the ignore list?

Absolam

galljga1 wrote: »

Oh I made no assumption. I did say could have been. On the other hand, it may not have been. Hence, I provided the additional information, just in case.
Would you say that you are making assumptions about the meaning of my posts?

You felt you needed to point out, based on the assumption he had mistakenly used a capital C and therefore inadvertenly made an informed post, and had actually intended to use a small c to make a misinformed post, he might not have been aware of that Protestant Churches are catholic. But failed to point out that if his use of a capital C was as he intended, there was no flaw in what he said, since Protestant Churches aren't Catholic. We probably all owe you a very big thank you then; you must be very very busy helping people to understand what they would have said wrong if they had said something other than what they actually said, and it's very kind of you to take the time to come and help hinault with what he could have been doing wrong if he had hadn't actually said what he did say.

You could however save yourself and everyone else lots of time by asking "Did you mean what you posted? Because if you meant something different I can point out what's wrong with a different post. Just not the post you made."

Jellybaby1

hinault wrote: »

There is only one Communion, and that Communion is part of the Holy Mass.

If folk attending non-Catholic religious "services" - in denominations derived from Luther and his ilk - insist on referring to communion therein, that's their problem.

How insulting and arrogant you are!

This is typical of all the threads in the so-called ‘Christianity’ forum which start out with one subject matter and end up in disarray due to our differences. To this day I still wonder why when I requested separate RC and CoI Forums that I was completely ignored. The two can never be one as long as such ignorance and arrogance exists, and no matter how much the hierarchy from the religions pretend things are ok, when obviously things are very much not ok between us.



Someone here questioned me when I said that the RC and Anglican Bibles were different. Well obviously this teaching is very different in each religion and is at the core of all this dissention, and to blame for the many problems which still exist in this country today.



Did anyone here catch this Songs of Praise programme on All Saints Day from Rome? Fast forward to 27:44, to hear what the Anglican Bishop of Shrewsbury said about the Eucharist in St. Peter’s Basilica.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGNTh55_xyM


This problem is fixable. The Pope should fix it. Stop pretending.

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

You could however save yourself and everyone else lots of time by asking "Did you mean what you posted? Because if you meant something different I can point out what's wrong with a different post. Just not the post you made."

Speaking of saving yourself and everyone else's time...

looksee

I think, Jellybaby, that the differences you describe are exaggerated in this forum because a few people shouting very loudly drown out the voices of reason. There are no doubt many people who would feel the same way as the post you quoted, but they would be more likely to express it in a civil way, showing respect for the beliefs of others, yet without compromising their own beliefs.

In spite of the unloving and belligerent attitudes of the few, it would not be a good idea to separate Catholic from CofI as then there would be less to discuss and less opportunity to share beliefs. Most significant though, what would happen to 'the rest'. Those people who are neither Catholic nor CofI - how would they be represented? Surely in the spirit of Christianity this should be a forum to share and discuss beliefs, not to allow the extremes of Religion to tear people apart.

Jellybaby1

Understood Looksee. Problem is, a lot of posts end up with griping against each other anyway. I did feel there was good reason to have separate forums because on so many posts 'the church' means 'Roman Catholic Church' and 'Archbishop' means the Roman Catholic Archbishop. Even on RTE who are supposed to be non-religious now, still use these descriptions as if only one church exists. There is little consideration for others. And why not separate forums for other religions anyway, there is one for Islam, one for Bhuddism, for Atheists etc. There are forums for every conceivable subject here on Boards, for Finance, for Parents, for Farmers, even one for Facial Hair, and another for Mustard. I agree, it's not good to have situations where we are torn apart, but the only people tearing us apart here.....are Christians! So sad, so heartbreakingly sad.

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

Speaking of saving yourself and everyone else's time...

I know, I know! But I've never been able to agree that ignoring a problem is a solution

galljga1

Absolam wrote: »

You felt you needed to point out, based on the assumption he had mistakenly used a capital C and therefore inadvertenly made an informed post, and had actually intended to use a small c to make a misinformed post, he might not have been aware of that Protestant Churches are catholic. But failed to point out that if his use of a capital C was as he intended, there was no flaw in what he said, since Protestant Churches aren't Catholic. We probably all owe you a very big thank you then; you must be very very busy helping people to understand what they would have said wrong if they had said something other than what they actually said, and it's very kind of you to take the time to come and help hinault with what he could have been doing wrong if he had hadn't actually said what he did say.

You could however save yourself and everyone else lots of time by asking "Did you mean what you posted? Because if you meant something different I can point out what's wrong with a different post. Just not the post you made."

What a load of absolute waffle.

galljga1

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

How insulting and arrogant you are!

This is typical of all the threads in the so-called ‘Christianity’ forum which start out with one subject matter and end up in disarray due to our differences. To this day I still wonder why when I requested separate RC and CoI Forums that I was completely ignored. The two can never be one as long as such ignorance and arrogance exists, and no matter how much the hierarchy from the religions pretend things are ok, when obviously things are very much not ok between us.



Someone here questioned me when I said that the RC and Anglican Bibles were different. Well obviously this teaching is very different in each religion and is at the core of all this dissention, and to blame for the many problems which still exist in this country today.



Did anyone here catch this Songs of Praise programme on All Saints Day from Rome? Fast forward to 27:44, to hear what the Anglican Bishop of Shrewsbury said about the Eucharist in St. Peter’s Basilica.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGNTh55_xyM


This problem is fixable. The Pope should fix it. Stop pretending.

How can you say such things?
Absolam, please sort this person out.