Catholic discount

[Big RR]

Thanks fir that video meade , but it did seem to indicate genuflecting was some sort of kneeling, which I recall only doing rarely in the Lutheran church; I thought genuflecting was making the cross on oneself--I imagine that has a name as well. But if genuflecting involves kneeling on the right knee, I imagine the left foot would have to be forward. I wonder if anglicans use the left knee?

After you finish your lazy Irish jokes perhaps you can work up to the dirty ones (Where's the best place to hid money in an Irish house? Under the bar of soap.) and continue to the drunk ones (What's the difference between an Irish wake and an Irish wedding? One less drunk).

[Lord Jim]

My personal favorite:

Q: Why was the wheelbarrow invented?

A: To teach the Irish to walk on two legs...

[Bicycle Bill]

After you finish your lazy Irish jokes perhaps you can work up to the dirty ones (Where's the best place to hid money in an Irish house? Under the bar of soap.) and continue to the drunk ones (What's the difference between an Irish wake and an Irish wedding? One less drunk).

Then we can go on to the Polish jokes.
How can you tell who's the groom at a Polish wedding?
He's the guy wearing the clean bowling shirt. (ba-dum-TISH)

-"BB"-

[RayThom]

How gauche.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I always though it sounded nasty - genitals deflected to the floor. I can see though that the Anglican church and Lutherans (both really Roman churches without Rome) will do all the same odd gyrations. I doubt that kneeling on the left knee with right foot forward feels "natural".

All the images I've seen of dubbing a knight show the left forward and kneel on the right

[Bicycle Bill]

How gauche.

Not bad, Ray.  How gauche with you?

-"BB"-

[oldr_n_wsr]

Having been raised Catholic and attending a Catholic grammar school for 8 years, I never heard the term "left footers" let alone as a term for Catholics.

And as far as genuflection, I always had left foot forward and right knee on the floor. Don't remember if I was ever instructed in how to do it. I would guess that if I was doing (or did) it wrong, some steward of the Catholic Faith (aka nun or brother) would have brought it to my attention. They did for every other wrong act I committed (and even some I didn't commit).

[Econoline]

As I recall from my yoot and HS years, genuflection was a "half-kneel" with one knee bent instead of both, and like oldr I don't recall there ever being any right/left right/wrong way.

[Joe Guy]

When I went to Catholic church, it seemed that it was mostly the older people that would genuflect just before entering a pew. They would just touch a knee to the ground and most of them would then cross themselves. I did it sometimes when I was with those old fogies. They were probably in their 30s so I was doing it out of respect and the knowledge that they weren't long for this world.

[Scooter]

They were genuflecting in reverence for the Blessed Sacrament which was reserved in the tabernacle.

Philistines.

[RayThom]

Speaking of archaic catholic rituals (is that an oxymoron?) does anyone remember segments of the faithful bowing their heads and signing the cross as they approach an RC church zone? My crazy aunt Helen was an adherent and used to yell at everyone who failed to recognize a catholic church as we approached it.

[Guinevere]

I can see though that the Anglican church and Lutherans (both really Roman churches without Rome) will do all the same odd gyrations. I doubt that kneeling on the left knee with right foot forward feels "natural".

Since when? I've been an Episcopalian all my life and I've never once crossed myself. The only Episcopalians I know who do are refugees from the Catholic church.

We are NOT Roman. We think for ourselves.

Eta - my Grandmothers were both Lutherans. I never saw them cross themselves, either.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I didn't mention Episcopalian, did I? Fake Anglicans those. All are denominations that arose from the decision to keep the Romish practises but replacing the pope with Henry VIII or the local bigwigs. These days, and more particularly on this side of the water, much of the old crossing and kneeling has been dropped. Got a liturgy? That's Rome for you.

A lot depended on whether or not it there was a belief in true transubstantiation. If there was, then Christ/God "dwelt" in the elements or in a box (the Tabernacle is it?) fixed to the wall that contained same. The kneeling in the Roman church is always while looking at that (for those who know what it is supposed to be).

Your results may vary owing to changing fashions amongst the rebellious youth of the 1930s

[oldr_n_wsr]

I remember blessing myself when passing by a church.

And from what I recall, one was supposed to genuflect when ever crossing or facing the alter. Thus, when you walk down the aisle and before you enter the pew. Or when passing from one side of the church to the other.

[Big RR]

I can see though that the Anglican church and Lutherans (both really Roman churches without Rome) will do all the same odd gyrations. I doubt that kneeling on the left knee with right foot forward feels "natural".

Since when? I've been an Episcopalian all my life and I've never once crossed myself. The only Episcopalians I know who do are refugees from the Catholic church.

We are NOT Roman. We think for ourselves.

Eta - my Grandmothers were both Lutherans. I never saw them cross themselves, either.

Guin--I went to a Danish Lutheran church which is probably different from at least US ECLA Lutherans (the Missouri Synod? Another beast entirely--the services are very different and, to me at least, appear more roman catholic). We never knelt (except at the altar for communion--maybe also for an adult baptism but I don't know), but we would make a cross on ourselves during the service (I don't recall what part, but I'm sure it coincided with a reference to god).

Meade--as I understand it, in the RC tradition the eucharist is revered (because of transubstantiation) and people will genuflect in respect to it, but there also is a belief that god is present in the church as well (as evidenced by the lamp by the altar) which is why respect is shown for the altar. On good Friday and the following Saturday, the altar is tripped and the lamp (and eucharist I believe) is removed to commemorate the death and descent into hell of jesus before the resurrection (the lamp sits in a alar of repose), which probably means one doesn't show that respect those days. After the easter vigil a bonfire is traditionally li in front of the church and the light of god is carried back in, after which god is back in the church.

FWIW, RCs also traditionally kneel and kiss the rings of bishops, including the pope, to show similar respect.

As for protestant denominations, at least for western ones, most are based originally in the RC church, although they have many theological and other differences. Many started out with RC ractices, or split from churches that had such practices.

[rubato]

"... to commemorate the death and descent into hell of jesus before the resurrection ... "

I don't recall ever having heard this belief before; Jesus is believed to have gone to hell?


goodness, what will I hear next?

"... As for protestant denominations, at least for western ones, most are based originally in the RC church, ... "

My word. Don't tell the Huegenots, Waldensies, Cathars, Mennonites, Mormons, Quakers, Puritans, Seventh Day Adventists, &c &c &c.


yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

rubato--I can't vouch for every one of them, but at the time of the reformation there were two primary churches--the roman catholic and the eastern orthodox; there may have been a few smaller ones, such as the Coptic christians as well, but most of these were in communion with one or both of the primary churches. so far as I know, protestantism was a split from the RC church, and most of the protestants forming htose churches were originally RC; some protestant churches split from those, etc., but all trace their heritage back to roman Catholicism so far as I know (I do not think any were splits from the eastern orthodox church). They eschewed a lot of the doctrine and practices of the RC church, but their theology still reaches back to the RC church, as do their practices, such as holidays (so far as I know all of the protest churches celebrate the RC Easter), practices (such as communion), etc. If any of those you mentioned do not, perhaps you can elucidate me.

ETA: their Bibles are also pretty similar to the RC Bible (the Vulgate) with the exception of a few Apocryphal books, and many also recite the Apostle's (and even the Nicene) Creeds.

Again many have rejected a lot of RC teachings, but I am not aware of any protestant group that did not start with those teachings (or another protestant group's revision of them) and then remove the parts they found objectionable.

[rubato]

Oh brother.

There were different christian denominations dating to before the formation of the RC church. The RC church exterminated all that they were able to reach over the centuries, gnostics were early victims (the Cathars were the first genocide) but more appeared. Their understanding of Christianity is not "derived" from RC orthodoxy and "the reformation" is not the beginning of the era of heterodox belief. It merely marks a moment when the political and economic power of the church was curbed by local military and governmental forces in northern Europe who got fed up with the economic corruption of the RC church. Less religious than political.

The Coptic church is older than the RC church by centuries. The Ark of the Covenant has been protected by Ethiopian Coptic priests since the 4th century, hundreds of years before "Christianity" reached Ireland or Scandinavia.



yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

Their understanding of Christianity is not "derived" from RC orthodoxy and "the reformation" is not the beginning of the era of heterodox belief. It merely marks a moment when the political and economic power of the church was curbed by local military and governmental forces in northern Europe who got fed up with the economic corruption of the RC church. Less religious than political.

Perhaps but so what? True, there were different Christian groups in the early church, but the only two that survived to any major degree were the eastern and roman churches, and most of the others were either eradicated, brought into communion with one or the other, or left alone as a distant and small splinter group. Yes, there were other splits from the orthodoxy of either group throughout their history, but few survived until the so-called protestant reformation, which was a split from the RC church, and the genesis of the great number of protestant churches we have today.

And that is what we are talking about--the protestant churches. You set forth a number and suggested that their beliefs were not based in roman Catholicism, and I asked you to show why you think this is true. That they are not Roman catholic churches is obvious. That they have significant theological and practice distinctions from the RC church is obvious. But their theology (such as their ideas of the nature of god) and practices are rooted in roman Catholicism, and it shows in what they have retained, from the days holidays are celebrated, to the version of bible they use, to prayers and creeds they recite, they reflect their roman catholic heritage. But feel free to tell me how this is not true for

the Huegenots, Waldensies, Cathars, Mennonites, Mormons, Quakers, Puritans, Seventh Day Adventists, &c &c &c.

because

Their understanding of Christianity is not "derived" from RC orthodoxy and "the reformation" is not the beginning of the era of heterodox belief

.

Oh brother indeed!

[MajGenl.Meade]

"... to commemorate the death and descent into hell of jesus before the resurrection ... "

I don't recall ever having heard this belief before; Jesus is believed to have gone to hell? goodness, what will I hear next?

"... As for protestant denominations, at least for western ones, most are based originally in the RC church, ... "

My word. Don't tell the Huegenots, Waldensies, Cathars, Mennonites, Mormons, Quakers, Puritans, Seventh Day Adventists, &c &c &c.

What you'll hear next is the total evisceration of your thoroughly incorrect statement.

Big RR wrote (and let's quote ALL of his paragraph instead of curtailing it, shall we?):
As for protestant denominations, at least for western ones, most are based originally in the RC church, although they have many theological and other differences. Many started out with RC practices, or split from churches that had such practices.

He is bound to be correct because there was only the Roman Catholic church at first which, as he mentioned above, split into Western and Eastern parts. All Protestant denominations named by rubato descend from the Roman church. Big RR generously allowed "most". Many did indeed start out with RC practices and every one of rubato's "Don't Tell" list either kept Roman practices or split from churches that had retained them.

Cathars (1143) Roman Catholics who opposed certain Roman practices and theology. Extinguished by Rome by 1330

Waldenses (1191) Roman Catholics who opposed certain Roman practices and theology. Declared to be heretics 1215. Perhaps the seed of the Reformation; aligned with the Reformed church in 1532

Protestant Reformation (1517)

Lutheranism; Roman Catholics who rejected the Pope etc. but kept Roman beliefs and forms including transubstantiation

Anabaptists (1525) – Roman Catholics who opposed certain Roman practices and theology; and later opposed some Protestant beliefs. A key leader was Menno Simons, a Catholic priest who finally left the Roman church in 1536 and whose followers are Mennonites

Calvinism (1536) – pejorative term for the Reformed church movement used by Lutherans; Cathlics who broke with Rome and eventually with Lutheranism over the Eucharist

Huguenots (1550+) – pejorative term by Rome; Roman Catholics inspired by Calvinist theology and missionaries to become part of the Reformed church

Puritans (1559) - members of the Church of England which was a protestant outgrowth of the Roman Church with many of its practices; broke with the Church of England by 1662

Quakers (1650s) – members of the Church of England which was a protestant outgrowth of the Roman Church with many of its practices; broke with the Church of England by 1662

Mormons (1820s) – Protestants who decided not to be Christians after all

7th Day Adventism (1863) – an outgrowth of the Baptist movement (1609) which broke with the Church of England in objection to that denomination's retention of Roman practices and abuses. William Miller in the USA broke with the Baptists and the 7th Day church was formed in 1863 by people who broke with Miller

Unless the members of such movements (those that survived anyway) are totally pig ignorant, it would be no surprise for them to hear Big RR say that they descended from the Roman church or from those protestant denominations who retain Roman practice.


In reference to your first claim of ignorance, 1 Peter 3:18-20 is interpreted by some to mean that Christ descended to Hell. Because Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, to bring you to God, by being put to death in the flesh but by being made alive in the spirit. In it he went and preached to the spirits in prison, after they were disobedient long ago when God patiently waited in the days of Noah as an ark was being constructed.

Those who hold this view regard Ephesians 4:8-9, “When He ascended on high, He led captive a host of captives, And He gave gifts to men.” and verse 9: Now, what does “he went up” mean? It means that first he came down to the lowest depths of the earth as supportive.

In my own church there are those who believe that interpretation and those who don't. It does not matter which is correct since all can agree it is not an essential element of faith.