You would be very welcome at any Catholic service as long as you don't shout out 'I don't believe in transubstantiation' If you shouted out 'it's a pious fiction' most people wouldn't understand what you were talking about.
You would be very welcome at any Catholic service as long as you don't shout out 'I don't believe in transubstantiation' If you shouted out 'it's a pious fiction' most people wouldn't understand what you were talking about.
Anyone who shouted out "I don't believe in transubstantiation" would have this RC nodding in agreement.
There are other ways of understanding the Real Presence that don't fall into the 'trans' or 'con' categories. The Orthodox way isn't to dogmatise 'how' it happens or the mechanics of it - and some would say the RC view is too Aristotelian for us - but we believe it happens.
I don't think you'd be 'unwelcome'. People often come to suss us out or to see what we get up to. If they stick around and want to know more, great. If they prefer to go elsewhere then fine, they have free will.
@Alan29 my point was more about not 'shouting out'. I may be wrong but I think it is considered to be a crime to disturb a religious service.
Many people attending RC Mass these days would hardly know the word 'transubstantiation' and fewer still know what is meant by 'pious fiction'.
@Alan29 my point was more about not 'shouting out'. I may be wrong but I think it is considered to be a crime to disturb a religious service.
Many people attending RC Mass these days would hardly know the word 'transubstantiation' and fewer still know what is meant by 'pious fiction'.
Our parish deacon is very keen on the doctrine and thinks it is the sine qua non of RC beliefs. I hesitate to point out to him that the Council of Trent whish adopted it officially, said no more than the transformation is, "by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation." It didn't say that this doctrine is the only way of explaining the real presence, or that it was necessary to accept it, just that it was a suitable and proper way of explaining it.
You would be very welcome at any Catholic service as long as you don't shout out 'I don't believe in transubstantiation' If you shouted out 'it's a pious fiction' most people wouldn't understand what you were talking about.
Heh. If I shouted out every thing that made me cross my fingers in a service of any denomination I'd probably be under psych evaluation.
Bumping this thread to note that I had occasion, for reasons I may post about in another thread, to take a look at the website of the American Baptist Association, an association of Landmark Baptist churches.
In the section of the ABA website on “What We Believe,” these is this about “Church Ordinances”:
We believe that there are two pictorial ordinances in the Lord’s churches: Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Scriptural baptism is the immersion of penitent believers in water, administered by the authority of a New Testament church in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The Lord’s Supper is a memorial ordinance, restricted to the members of the church observing the ordinance.
A few things are worth noting here, picking up on themes on this thread. One is the term “pictorial ordinances,” emphasizing the view that the ordinances do not confer anything, but rather only depict or illustrate something,
Another is the clause that “Scriptural baptism” is “administered by the authority of a New Testament church.” What is meant by “a New Testament church” is another Landmark Baptist church. So if someone baptized by immersion as an adult in, say, a Southern Baptist church sought to join an ABA church, that baptism would not be accepted.
And then there is the practice of “Restricted Lord’s Supper” which means that participation in Communion is restricted to the members of the local church observing the ordinance. Visitors, even if they are members of another ABA church, may not participate.
When I was in Mississippi, I was surprised to hear of many Baptist people who received multiple baptisms if they left one congregation and joined another.
Landmarkism is, as I understand it, a movement native to the American South, though being Missionary Baptists (as opposed to Primitive Baptists), Landmark Baptists have spread it to other places.
It’s not representative of mainstream Baptists here.
They would - of course - generally want to re-baptise those who were baptised as infants (which means in the UK context a theoretical doubting of the baptism of the ministers they often partner with).
In addition to the Wikipedia article to which @chrisstiles and I linked, which doesn’t directly address this question, the following from this article on Landmarkism provides information:
The Landmark name came from [James Madison] Pendleton’s 1854 “An Old Landmark Reset” essay. Pendleton took the concept from two passages in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, Proverbs 22:28 and Job 24:2, which reference landmarks. The Proverbs passage cautions against removing landmarks set up by previous generations, while the passage from Job states that only wicked people remove landmarks. The landmarks referenced were property boundaries, and Pendleton, Graves, and others adopted the idea as a metaphor for faith traditions and practices that were true to those established by the ancient church. Adding to the emphasis on believers’ baptism, Pendleton’s essay stressed the importance of having only Baptist ministers who had undergone a believer’s baptism by immersion preach in Baptist congregations.
For reference:
Proverbs 22:28—“Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.”
Job 24:2—“Some remove the landmarks; they violently take away flocks, and feed thereof.”
Comments
I treat -substantiations, be they trans- or con- as pious fictions.
I suspect I'd be unwelcome at Catholic or Orthodox alike.
Anyone who shouted out "I don't believe in transubstantiation" would have this RC nodding in agreement.
I don't think you'd be 'unwelcome'. People often come to suss us out or to see what we get up to. If they stick around and want to know more, great. If they prefer to go elsewhere then fine, they have free will.
Many people attending RC Mass these days would hardly know the word 'transubstantiation' and fewer still know what is meant by 'pious fiction'.
Our parish deacon is very keen on the doctrine and thinks it is the sine qua non of RC beliefs. I hesitate to point out to him that the Council of Trent whish adopted it officially, said no more than the transformation is, "by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation." It didn't say that this doctrine is the only way of explaining the real presence, or that it was necessary to accept it, just that it was a suitable and proper way of explaining it.
Heh. If I shouted out every thing that made me cross my fingers in a service of any denomination I'd probably be under psych evaluation.
In the section of the ABA website on “What We Believe,” these is this about “Church Ordinances”: A few things are worth noting here, picking up on themes on this thread. One is the term “pictorial ordinances,” emphasizing the view that the ordinances do not confer anything, but rather only depict or illustrate something,
Another is the clause that “Scriptural baptism” is “administered by the authority of a New Testament church.” What is meant by “a New Testament church” is another Landmark Baptist church. So if someone baptized by immersion as an adult in, say, a Southern Baptist church sought to join an ABA church, that baptism would not be accepted.
And then there is the practice of “Restricted Lord’s Supper” which means that participation in Communion is restricted to the members of the local church observing the ordinance. Visitors, even if they are members of another ABA church, may not participate.
It’s not representative of mainstream Baptists here.
What's the significance of the name?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmarkism
They believe the Baptist Church is the one true church.
For reference:
Proverbs 22:28—“Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.”
Job 24:2—“Some remove the landmarks; they violently take away flocks, and feed thereof.”