Jump to content
LilSisKin

Chaplain's aid prayer policy

Recommended Posts

I don't think Christian is a religion, either, but I recognize that this may be a distinctly Catholic point of view. 

 

You may be correct in this as a lot of what I would refer to as Christian religious groups (Lutheran, Baptist, etc.) back a ways would not have included the Roman Catholic Church or as it was once referred to as THE PAPACY meaning it was more political than religious in composition.  Even concerns of John F. Kennedy's presidency being influenced by his "religious" leader (the Pope) was a campaign issue.  I was there and I was old enough to understand the comments being made.

 

To me the word catholic means universal and so using the Roman Universal Church (meaning it's political center was in Rome) would work just as well as Roman Catholic Church giving it a more spiritual nature with the capitalized C in Catholic.  So if the word universal or catholic is dropped out of the title it would be referring to the Roman Church as differentiated from the Orthodox Church.  Again that was a political split in the collapsing Roman Empire.  France didn't always recognize the Italian Pope, nor did the English with the Church of England breaking away.  The struggle of the Roman Church to retain political power seemed to supersede the religious dynamics of the faith.  This kind of "taxation" imposed by Rome seemed to spark much of the debate with Luther who wanted to revitalize the spiritual nature of the church over the struggling political nature of the church at that time.

 

There are a lot of major linguistic, political, social, historical hurdles to cover come in a discussion like this.  But spiritual/theological isn't a biggie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree.  

 

Catholics believe in Transubstantiation.  My understanding is that Lutherans and most Protestants do not.  This is a biggie.  This is a big, big, biggie.

Edited by David CO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what does Scripture say about it?   Hmmmm, nothing....

 

And I can, if I may, correct your comment.  Only  Roman Catholics believe in transubstantiation.  It is a fact that no other Christian denomination, including Eastern Orthodoxy believe in it.  It is unique to the Latin Church.  It was adopted at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215 AD) and formalized at the Council of Trent (1545-63 AD).  It was reaffirmed at the Second Vatican Council (1962-65 AD).  Unfortunately it has no Scriptural basis to support it's practice in the Church.  This is why Eastern Orthodoxy, Lutheranism and a small number of other liturgical Churches go with consubstantiation indicating the real presence of Christ in the sacrament, but most Protestants simply say it's a symbolic metaphor and the presence of Christ is not really there.

 

It's too bad Jesus spent so much time teaching in metaphors and parables.  It makes it hard to understand as time passes. 

 

So traditionally this may be a big, big, biggie, but theologically it means nothing.  It's kinda like baptismal sprinkling, splashing, dunking, or whatever.  The end result is the person is baptized.  How is irrelevant.  Yet to a Baptist, it is a big, big, biggie to be immersed.

 

Celibacy of the clergy is also unique to the Roman Church but only in later history.  39 Popes were married including Peter, the first pope.  There again, the tradition is totally unfounded in Scripture.

 

While there is nothing wrong with certain traditions, Martin Luther began to question a few of them.  It was not Scripture he questioned nor even its interpretation, it was the traditional practices which were not based in Scripture.that were the issue. Theologically we are the same, traditionally we are different and that is no big, big, biggie.

Edited by Stosh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what does Scripture say about it?

 

Catholics don't believe that Scripture is the only source of Divine Revelation.

 

This is also a biggie.

Edited by David CO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

For example: in my childhood (pre Vatican II) there were Catholics, Lutherans and Protestants.  Today (post-Vatican II) there are only Catholics and Protestants.  Where did the Lutherans go?   :)

 

They got Garrison Keillor to tell tales about Lutherans from Lake Woebegon and tell Lutheran jokes on Public Radio, declared victory, and are quietly enjoying hot dish and lutefisk fundraising suppers.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hadn't thought about this before, but I wonder if there is any correlation between a scouter's religion and his propensity to quote and strictly adhere to BSA guidelines?

 

Are scouters who believe that Scripture is not the only source of Divine Revelation more likely to look beyond BSA guidelines to find the "truth" in scouting?  Do we quote BSA guidelines less frequently?  

 

Does our religious upbringing hard-wire us in our approach to scouting?

Edited by David CO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we track that as a moral obligation to honesty, then one's religious upbringing may come into play.

 

But you're probably right with the "divine revelation" crowd.  There's a lot of those out there who keep adding their version of religion onto the original sources.  Book of Mormon, etc. kinds of things.  Mohamad's writings fall into that as well.  With all this other "stuff" coming down the pike, it's kinda hard to know what the truth is anymore.  I guess it's going to have to be "do your own thing" when it comes to religion.  That's pretty much the stance of the BSA anyway.

 

I think I'm going to worship paperclips today.  Tomorrow's a whole new world.

 

After all Son of Sam said God was talking to him, who's to say it wasn't.

Edited by Stosh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'm going to worship paperclips today.  Tomorrow's a whole new world.

 

Paperclip-worshipers are heretics.  Pastafarianism is where its at.

 

R'amen

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what does Scripture say about it?   Hmmmm, nothing....

 

And I can, if I may, correct your comment.  Only  Roman Catholics believe in transubstantiation.  It is a fact that no other Christian denomination, including Eastern Orthodoxy believe in it.  It is unique to the Latin Church.  It was adopted at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215 AD) and formalized at the Council of Trent (1545-63 AD).  It was reaffirmed at the Second Vatican Council (1962-65 AD).  Unfortunately it has no Scriptural basis to support it's practice in the Church.  This is why Eastern Orthodoxy, Lutheranism and a small number of other liturgical Churches go with consubstantiation indicating the real presence of Christ in the sacrament, but most Protestants simply say it's a symbolic metaphor and the presence of Christ is not really there.

 

It's too bad Jesus spent so much time teaching in metaphors and parables.  It makes it hard to understand as time passes. 

 

So traditionally this may be a big, big, biggie, but theologically it means nothing.  It's kinda like baptismal sprinkling, splashing, dunking, or whatever.  The end result is the person is baptized.  How is irrelevant.  Yet to a Baptist, it is a big, big, biggie to be immersed.

 

Celibacy of the clergy is also unique to the Roman Church but only in later history.  39 Popes were married including Peter, the first pope.  There again, the tradition is totally unfounded in Scripture.

 

While there is nothing wrong with certain traditions, Martin Luther began to question a few of them.  It was not Scripture he questioned nor even its interpretation, it was the traditional practices which were not based in Scripture.that were the issue. Theologically we are the same, traditionally we are different and that is no big, big, biggie.

 

We are not theologically the same.  Not even close.

 

Theology is God's Word.  I understand that you believe God's Word can only be found in Scripture.  Having the same Scriptures, you believe that we must have the same theology.

 

Catholics don't believe that.  

 

I will not presume to lecture you about your religion.  Nor will I attempt to change your mind.

 

My only concern is for other Catholics who might be confused by your posts and misled into making grave errors.  You are not Catholic.  Your opinions are not Catholic.  Your theology is not Catholic.

Edited by David CO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a conversation with Vumbi. He asked me to do a favor and thank everyone in this thread for (I'll paraphrase here) providing another example in support of his (ahem, low) opinion of I&P as a forum. I think I'll leave out the rest of the details.

Favor done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Jew, I don't understand your arguments....  Y'all believe in Jesus as God that makes you Christians IMHO.  I hope everyone can take a deep breath and accept everyone else.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree.  

 

Catholics believe in Transubstantiation.  My understanding is that Lutherans and most Protestants do not.  This is a biggie.  This is a big, big, biggie.

The United Methodist skooch right up to the Transubstantiation line so much that is it almost quasi-catholic. And they believe in the 'Wesley Quadrilateral' which includes reason and tradition as long as guidance in addition to Scripture yet they are (conventionally) designated as Catholics.

 

I am amazed at the diversity of Christianity. How many Protestant denominations are there now ? Hundreds and hundreds. On a recent trip to the Holy Land I was amazed, yes amazed at how many ancient Orthodox and "Catholic" branches still exist. And Orthodox Judaism has a whole constellation of traditions...all with FABULOUS different hats. I am not qualified to figure out the divisions in Islam though I took a course once just on Shiite vs Sunni.

 

Everyone muddling along trying to figure things out....

 

I think in Scouts we need to encourage the boys to explore their family faith traditions and keep wrestling with the issues. The biggest push back I get is from parents with little tradition or past issues who do not like it being brought up at all. 

 

What I do not like is when some on our Committee say we should not let the boys discuss God at all because it will be like this years presidential election..a controversy that will lead to fights. I have told the Chaplain's Aides (who tend to be more of the ernest religious lads) that they can be true their faith, be open and honest about it and not be threatened by others who believe differently. I like the Ghandi quote: “I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the culture of all lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by anyâ€. But I do agree that it can be a slippery slope to "all religions are the same".

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Jew, I don't understand your arguments....  Y'all believe in Jesus as God that makes you Christians IMHO.  I hope everyone can take a deep breath and accept everyone else.

I agree. When I was in Israel the religious disputes were much more in the open and then (most folks) would just get along. I had spirited and unsolicited disagreements with both Muslims (You're a Polytheist!) and Jews (Jesus was just a Man!) on the street. Followed afterward by some nice chitchat and coffee or tea (or a Falafel!!!) It seemed healthier in some ways. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...