Picking on Brits a Bit

[MisterBadger]

I think C.O.E. (We call its worldwide version "Anglican" in the US since it's also here in the form of the Episcopalian Church) counts as Protestant, not "Catholic" because it changed its theology strongly in a Protestant direction and also split from the "Catholic Church."

C.O.E., Methodists, and Lutheran are two of the closest Protestant Churches to the Catholic Church, although in different ways. With the C.O.E., a lot of ritual and importance of Holy Tradition is retained from Catholicism. But with Lutheranism, you get the continuation of the role of the supernatural more than in the C.O.E., particularly with the Lutheran belief in Christ's bodily objective direct presence in the Eucharist. I also get the impression that Lutheran communities got along better with the Catholics. Germany's princes made an arrangement where Germany's princedoms divided along religious lines instead of making Germany officially Protestant or Catholic.

Clearly different countries have good and bad practices, so you don't have to defend the bad ones. But you can either make those practices make sense or else give an insider perspective.

To give a US "insider" POV: Out of the 13 founding US colonies/states, 9 of them were founded by communities that faced religious repression by England: New England (6 "Reformed Prot." states), PA and southern NJ (Quakers), and Maryland (Catholics). So to a significant extent, emigration from England to find Religious Freedom is a founding part of the US narrative and national consciousness.

But as a teenager, I became alittle more skeptical about part of this narrative, namely, the extent to which New England's Protestant Reformed wanted religious freedom. They created a society in the Massachusetts colony that seemed more strictly theocratic than that of contemporary England because the 17th century MA colony hanged some Quakers, probably for openly professing Quakerism, a pacifist Protestant denomination. Then they had the Salem Witch trials. Nathanael Hawthorne wrote about this Puritanic period in New England history. So, the C.O.E. was repressive, but the New England Puritans were repressive too.

Yes... nontheless the Anglican Communion still professes belief in 'The Holy Catholic Church" in the Creeds. The worshipper can of course interpret that privately as meaning the universal Church... Bavaria, I think, was officially Catholic until is subsumation into the German Reich in 1871.

Lutherans, I know, believe in Consubstantiation and the Real Presence, whereas the official Anglican line - implicit in Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer - is receptionist; but the doctrine has always been kept deliberately vague, like Queen Elizabeth 1's answer to her sister Mary, who was (understandably) anxious for her sister's conversion:

"'Twas God the Word that spake it,
He took the bread and brake it;
And what the Word did make it;
That I believe, and take it."

My parish priest confided to me once that he really didn't care to think what most of his parishioners actually thought they were doing when they came up to receive Holy Communion, as he wasn't optimistic, and it doesn;'t do to ask too many searching questions, especially to 'cradle-Catholics').

Puritans, now: no sooner was the Presbyterian party in England in power, having all but won the Civil War, then in 1644 they decided to impose a universal order of service on the country ('The Directory For Public Worship'), which displaced the Book of Common Prayer until the monarchy was restored in 1660: just as in New England, those passionate advocates for freedom of religious worship, once in a position to, said you could have all the religious freedom you liked - as long as it was their own.

Now - to drag this back to having a retaliatory pop at Americans: the freedom of Native Americans to practice their ancestral religious beliefs was, I believe, not recognized in federal law until 1978. E=ven though those lads are Deists, like the Founding Fathers were. Tut, tut, is all I can say to that

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Now - to drag this back to having a retaliatory pop at Americans: the freedom of Native Americans to practice their ancestral religious beliefs was, I believe, not recognized in federal law until 1978. E=ven though those lads are Deists, like the Founding Fathers were. Tut, tut, is all I can say to that

I really did enjoy the history lesson. Lately, why we have so many denominations has been on my mind. But, to bring up a fundamental difference between Americans and British... as to atrocities done by our forefathers, we don't feel connected to them. Maybe it's a sense of apathy, that stems from, I am here now, in this situation. Not, I am bearing the burden of my grandparents, nor even really my father. I am not carrying on some tradition given to me by birth. I just happened to have been lucky to be born who I am in the place where I am at. I have no connection to the Civil War, Revolutionary War, or the atrocities committed by them. Hell, my family wasn't even here during slavery and the Civil War.

I can't imagine hanging onto what a group of people on the other side of the island did to my people on this side 200, 300, 800 years ago. It is kind of neat. But, very different to me.

My dad had a passionate hate for the electric company. He also didn't like his neighbor who put up a fence that was one foot over on our side of the property line. But, it's not like it was bestowed upon me to carry on my dad's hatred of the power company, nor to continue throwing our dog crap over to his neighbor's side of the fence. I was just born with no How To books attached to me, and I have to figure out my own opinions of the world around me as it is now.

 

[MisterBadger]

I really did enjoy the history lesson. Lately, why we have so many denominations has been on my mind. But, to bring up a fundamental difference between Americans and British... as to atrocities done by our forefathers, we don't feel connected to them. Maybe it's a sense of apathy, that stems from, I am here now, in this situation. Not, I am bearing the burden of my grandparents, nor even really my father. I am not carrying on some tradition given to me by birth. I just happened to have been lucky to be born who I am in the place where I am at. I have no connection to the Civil War, Revolutionary War, or the atrocities committed by them. Hell, my family wasn't even here during slavery and the Civil War.

I can't imagine hanging onto what a group of people on the other side of the island did to my people on this side 200, 300, 800 years ago. It is kind of neat. But, very different to me.

My dad had a passionate hate for the electric company. He also didn't like his neighbor who put up a fence that was one foot over on our side of the property line. But, it's not like it was bestowed upon me to carry on my dad's hatred of the power company, nor to continue throwing our dog crap over to his neighbor's side of the fence. I was just born with no How To books attached to me, and I have to figure out my own opinions of the world around me as it is now.

I am wholly with you regarding the absurd, recent fashion for latter-day heads of this or that organisation making (or being required to make) global public apology (sometimes, even on our behalf) for awful things done by their (or our) predecessors centuries ago - if not to actually make financial compensation to those connected with the quondam victims who are around now but are demonstably not suffering anything like the same injustices now.

But I put it to you, that despite what you say here, you have clearly inherited (or acquired by cultural contagion) that national inferiority complex which seeks to assert its superiority over Brits by ridiculing their foibles whilst ignoring their own (you may perhaps recall that you started this thread). You know perfectly well there are many south of the Mason-Dixon line (regardless of where their ancestors might have been at the time) who want a rematch of your last Civil War (the first, being the one your historical propagandists refer to as the Revolutionary War). Then there's the Hatfields and the McCoys, Remember The Alamo, the Ku-Klux Klan (see Second American Civil War), and I'm sure I could cite a few more examples of inherited grudge-bearing if my knowledge of American history was better. So there

 

[cosmicfolklore]

that national inferiority complex which seeks to assert its superiority over Britain by pointing out its people's foibles whilst ignoring their own

Not exactly... I don't think that we are better than anyone else. Obviously, you guys aren't dying from dish soap poisoning. Our dictionary is no better, nor worse than anyone else's in the big picture. One of the things that I really enjoy about travel is meeting new cultures and their little differences that make me realize how we do things is not necessarily the best way, just different. Seeing things done differently, make me appreciate and "think"
about how we do it, which would have gone otherwise unappreciated.

There are some people... yes, even some family's of British loyalist, maybe still bent out of shape about the Revolution. And, unfortunately some people glamorize the Confederacy, without realizing that their great, great grandpa was probably forced to fight for a cause that he probably didn't believe in. Most don't realize that half of Alabama's soldiers fought for both sides at some point. Losing a battle and made to fight for the other, and then back to the other side. This was actually very common in Alabama history. Poor people fighting for the cause of the wealthy land owners. Racism here is fueled by politicians wanting to use popular hate to get elected, like Wallace who stood in the U of A's doorway one day for segregation, and then championing the fight for better black schools the next. This is why I don't believe in politics. say what is necessary to use people to get elected. Both sides. Liars.

My grandfather was a vet of WW2, and was a sailor in the Navy against Japan. Even in his dementia on his deathbed, he spouted off racists stuff against the Japanese. He had survived a Kamikaze strike on the USS Manila Bay, and kept this deep seated hatred his whole life. But, to the rest of us, it just seemed weird, especially in the 90's.

But, don't take this thread as any serious attack against the British. If anyone seriously thinks that how mainstream America handles their eggs makes them superior to the British, then they have some major hang ups.

:::sigh::: but it would be nice if you guys could overdub your really good series in English, so that the American audience could understand what you're saying. Jk

 

[Infantry23]

No, we make one word out of two words, so inter net becomes internet, tooth brush becomes toothbrush. Think of all the ink you'd save by leaving out the space

Please do try to keep up.

Jay.

I might actually be ahead.... I've NEVER met an American that makes two words out of those words. Perhaps you're thinking of our newest state, Canada??

Anywho, I can only imagine the ink one saves by not leaving a space

 

[Infantry23]

Not exactly... I don't think that we are better than anyone else.

Our dictionary is no better, nor worse than anyone else's in the big picture.

Wait, what?! Have I missed the point of this nationalist, superiority-complex-driven thread?

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Wait, what?! Have I missed the point of this nationalist, superiority-complex-driven thread?

I think... I mean, I hope you're kidding. If I actually, thought that I was better than the Brits, I wouldn't actually say it out loud. But, I probably wouldn't let my kids read any book in their silly language.

 

[Infantry23]

They don't frighten us with their silly knees-bent running around advancing behavior!

 

[MisterBadger]

But, don't take this thread as any serious attack against the British. If anyone seriously thinks that how mainstream America handles their eggs makes them superior to the British, then they have some major hang ups.

:::sigh::: but it would be nice if you guys could overdub your really good series in English, so that the American audience could understand what you're saying. Jk

Please don't take anything I say here too seriously, either. Like @mawnansmiff, I come from a Northern subculture where you insult people you like.

You know, many (if not most) Brits from the South can't follow Rab C Nesbitt (if you haven't seen that show I recommend you have a hunt on YouTube. If you can manage to follow anything that's going on there, you qualify as an Advanced Scots speaker).

 

[beefeater33]

My dad had a passionate hate for the electric company.

He had survived a Kamikaze strike on the USS Manila Bay, and kept this deep seated hatred his whole life. But, to the rest of us, it just seemed weird, especially in the 90's.

I can understand your Grandfather's hatred............... That war was a hellhole for many Vets, and he probably suffered some (back then, undiagnosed) PSTD. Doesn't seem weird.

Now what I can't understand is your Dad's passionate hate for the electric co??? Please elaborate a litte, as I find that kind of fascinating. I've never heard of anyone hating a utility company---- bitching about the rates, yes, but most I know are grateful for the service they provide.........
Seems weird.

 

[Infantry23]

Please don't take anything I say here too seriously, either. Like @mawnansmiff, I come from a Northern subculture where you insult people you like.

Same. That's how I grew up with my father.

 

[sablebrush52]

Please don't take anything I say here too seriously, either. Like @mawnansmiff, I come from a Northern subculture where you insult people you like.

I insult everyone whether I like them or not. It’s simpler that way.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

I can understand your Grandfather's hatred............... That war was a hellhole for many Vets, and he probably suffered some (back then, undiagnosed) PSTD. Doesn't seem weird.

Now what I can't understand is your Dad's passionate hate for the electric co??? Please elaborate a litte, as I find that kind of fascinating. I've never heard of anyone hating a utility company---- bitching about the rates, yes, but most I know are grateful for the service they provide.........
Seems weird.

My father, that I talk about, adopted me when he married my mother. He was a racecar driver and worked for 3M until a barrel of adhesive fell on him and broke his back. He used the lawsuit money to get an art degree and became a master jeweler and built up a string of stores across the state. He didn’t drink, and his only vice was cigarettes. Totally normal guy, till lightning storms. He would stand at the meter and time the revolutions. When lightning striked, he said that the meter jumped astronomically. He had lightning rods on our house and where every wall met the ground.
He would also measure the speed of revolutions of the meter every time he would buy and plug in a new electronic thing.

He spent hours on the phone arguing with the electric company. This was late 70’s-early 80’s. I have no idea what set this off with him, but he was certain that he was always getting screwed by them. They would reduce bills and give in to his arguments. But, we’re talking a bill that was like $20 a month back then. It didn’t make sense, except to his sense of fairness. He wasn’t thrifty. He was a member of every organization in town, Rotary, Kiwanis, JCs, all of them. He gave money to every organization. But, it would piss him off to no end to have to give the electric company a dime that he thought they didn’t deserve.

When he was in the nursing home in his last days with cancer and hepatitis and bone disease, i went three times a day to take him outside to smoke. I was the only one who thought it was cruel to keep him from smoking. I mean, he was already in his last days of a life sentence with cancer. But, I would hold the cig to his mouth and he would try to inhale. On one of his last days, it was raining and lightning. I saw a bank of power meters next to where I took him out back to smoke. I asked him if he wanted to go watch the meters. He blinked his eyes to signal yes. And I wheeled him over to watch the meters jump when lightning struck. And, I know in his mind that he was saying, “fuck them assholes.”

 

[Egg Shen]

What do you mean that we have yet to master them? In the afternoon I typed on my keyboard to use the internet before using a toothbrush to clean my teeth.

Seriously, wtf is he going on about? lol Totally made-up stuff that doesn’t happen in any region.

 

[rakovsky]

Yes... nontheless the Anglican Communion still professes belief in 'The Holy Catholic Church" in the Creeds. The worshipper can of course interpret that privately as meaning the universal Church...

Presbyterians, Calvinists, Lutherans, and other Protestants also profess belief in what they refer to as the catholic church either vocally during services or as part of their teachings. Catholic means whole, entire, universal.

But "Catholic" and "Protestant" in the context of what you talked about earlier- evaluating whether a Church belongs to either category is different. The "Catholic Church" there refers to the institutional Church based in Rome, whereas Protestant Churches would be ones that split off from that "Catholic Church" and had Protestant theology, rejecting multiple institutional "Catholic" doctrines.

Lutheranism is probably the most foundational "Protestant" Church, and in its wake other, more "radical" Protestant churches appeared. In different ways Lutheranism and Anglicanism are each more "Catholic" or "Protestant" than the other.

One example is the collection of books in the Old Testament. If you go to both the early Church period and the pre-Reformation period, there was no full Church consensus on all books belonged in the Bible. Some books that theologians differed on, especially in the early centuries were books like Esther (OT), Tobit (OT), and John's Revelation (NT). As a result, the Orthodox Church as a whole doesn't have a clear full dogmatic list of the Biblical canon either.

Luther took a pretty dogmatic position that some books like Esther and Revelation were "canon" and other books like Tobit were outside the Biblical "canon." Then in reaction the Catholic Church held the 16th century Council of Trent that took a dogmatic position listing the books of the "canon", and it put Tobit and some others in the canon too. The Anglican Church made its own dogmatic-type decision in irs Articles of Religion, giving the canonical books' list as matching Luther's list. The Articles of Religion say that the canonical books are those that all theologians from the earliest times agreed were canon. But as I mentioned earlier, some of those theologians from 1000+ years before the Reformation did not consider certain books in the Lutheran/Anglican Biblical "canon" to be be canonical, yet some counted certain other books as canon.

Lutherans, I know, believe in Consubstantiation and the Real Presence, whereas the official Anglican line - implicit in Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer - is receptionist;

From what I could tell from the Articles of Religion it either wasn't clear or consistent whether they supported Objective Presence/Consubstantiation or Receptionism. It seemed in at least one place to support Consubstantiation and in another to support Receptionism.

Commonly when readers find ambiguity in a text, they look to the authors' intent. But the authors in this case were a collective with opposing positions and intentions. Bishop Guest supported the Lutheran idea of an objective presence, and his position was a minority among the authors of the Articles. He wrote that he added the words about the Body of Christ being "given" in #28 of the Articles of Religion to reflect this idea instead of Receptionism. That is, with Receptionism, the reception of the Body is only in a spiritualistic and metaphorical sense, so it depends on whether the recipient has faith. I suppose that Bp. Guest wanted to contradict Receptionism by saying that the body was also "given" and thus wasn't just a matter of the recipient's faith.

Now - to drag this back to having a retaliatory pop at Americans: the freedom of Native Americans to practice their ancestral religious beliefs was, I believe, not recognized in federal law until 1978. E=ven though those lads are Deists, like the Founding Fathers were.

The US Constitution guaranteed Freedom of Religion, so I would take it that even before any specific federal law on the topic like the 1978 one that the Natives had that freedom as a matter of law.
Native tribes and their religious ideas were varied enough that they included Henotheism, not just Deism AFAIK.

 

[beefeater33]

He spent hours on the phone arguing with the electric company. This was late 70’s-early 80’s. I have no idea what set this off with him, but he was certain that he was always getting screwed by them.

Thanks for the explanation. I think that I would hate them too under those cirumstances!

 

[dd57chevy]

Man , this theology discussion is approaching Mariana Trench depth !
I just hope I don't catch consubstantiation , I didn't get a vaccination !

I'm just thankful for the King James Bible . Beautiful , eloquent , comforting gift from above . Via Great Britain .

 

[fireground_piper]

On one of his last days, it was raining and lightning. I saw a bank of power meters next to where I took him out back to smoke. I asked him if he wanted to go watch the meters. He blinked his eyes to signal yes. And I wheeled him over to watch the meters jump when lightning struck. And, I know in his mind that he was saying, “fuck them assholes.”

Just a fantastic and admirable level of being pissed off at something. I love it.

 

[rakovsky]

I really did enjoy the history lesson. Lately, why we have so many denominations has been on my mind.

I'm still new here. How much does this forum allow us to debate religion?

How you evaluate the issue depends on how much importance you give to institutional unity and authorities. The short answer is that it started either with the 16th century Reformation, or else with Reformed Protestant groups that formed in the wake of Luther's denomination.

The longer answer chronologically begins this way:

Spoiler: Historical discussion on Church unity, writings, authority, and councils

In 30 AD, differences over organization and doctrinal questions were clearer-cut because you had Jesus who was the obvious head and could just answer questions directly. In John 6:60-66, some of Jesus' disciples didn't like that He told them that they would have to eat His body, so they stopped following Him. For the future, Jesus appointed apostles who oversaw the Church and gave them his teachings.

In the rest of the 1st century, the apostles led the Church. They used councils like the one in Acts 15 to solve problems. The main splitoff from that period that comes to mind was gnostics like Simon Magus who conflicted with Peter in Acts. To care for the Church after them, the apostles appointed "episcopoi" (ἐπίσκοποι/bishops/overseers/supervisors), and put down basic teachings in the form of the NT, along with oral traditions and customs.

Then from the 2nd century until today, you have a succession of these episcopoi/bishops overseeing the church. They finalized the NT in about the turn of the 1st-2nd century AD, and passed down traditions outside of what's specified in the Bible. They have also used councils to solve disagreements.

In the mid-2nd to late 2nd century a disagreement called the Quartodecimian Controversy arose over the date for celebrating Paskha/Easter. I recall that the main bishop in Rome, the Pope, had the idea that the church in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) should accept the Pope's position because of Rome's importance. But the other Christian bishops in Asia Minor ended up agreeing with the Pope's position without the controversy reaching a head and having to test whether the Pope actually had authority over the rest of the Church.

From the late 2nd century onwards, I see increasing deference given in the Western Christian Church's writings and traditions to the idea of the bishop of Rome holding supreme authority over the rest of Christendom, and the extent of the proposed authority increased as well.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

I'm still new here. How much does this forum allow us to debate religion?

As a moderator back on the old format, religion was not to be discussed. But, recently I noticed that the rules don’t mention religion anymore. But, it could be that I am missing the rule.

Honestly, I don’t feel comfortable discussing actual beliefs on a pipesmoking forum. But these tidbits of historical information are intriguing.