It's Pretty Much All about Transubstantiation, Really.

[MineralMan]

All that denominationalism. Or so it seems to me, sometimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

Symbolism or mysterious transformation? Who can say. Luther hedged his bets on it by incorporating a sort of trinitarian approach to the host and wine. My old church, the First Presbyterians, gave the whole thing only lip service and celebrated the Eucharist very rarely. Purely symbolic for them. It's a mystery, I tell you...a mystery, to be sure. If you think about it, though, it is a thread that runs through denominationalism in one way or another.

Of course, there's the whole predestination thing, but that's mainly a Protestant issue. Very divisive, though.

And, then, there's the immersion or non-immersion question...Uff da!

But once you get split by one doctrine issue, the subsequent splits become easier and easier, and get based on smaller and smaller issues. Is there a finite number of issues of doctrine that can be used to split a denomination? I think not. Eventually, every Christian will have his or her own denomination.

So, the Lutherans become ELCA, LCMS, Wisconsin Synod, and maybe some more, and those groups split further over ordination of LGBT folks or some other deal, and the beat goes on.

How many Baptist denominations are there now? I lost count ages ago.

[Loudmxr]

1. I had transubstaniation figured out as an alter boy.

If the substance is transformed it should taste different.

It doesn't. Nice ritual but

That is why I am not a trinitarian. They lied.

[HereSince1628]

2. As far as the eucharist goes it's all about taboos and cannabalism to me.

And I am perfectly fine with it. WHAT could possibly be more mystical than the notion of having your god and eating him, too?

[MineralMan]

3. It's a mystery, to be sure.

I gave it all up for Lent in 1965.

[Democrats_win]

4. LOL. Liberal education means freeing the mind.

People get frustrated and give it up---thus freeing the mind.
I always wondered why various Popes said they hated liberalism--now I know why. Nevertheless, a lot of this is about people's interpretation of "christianity." If they truly loved God and one another, it would all be irrelevant. Just love God (and be a liberal).

[Cirque du So-What]

12. Mystery, eh? I have a different term for it: FM

Fucking Magic.

[rug]

5. 16th century Europe was more about nationalism and protocapitalism than theology.

You should know better.

[dmallind]

6. Not really originally

I've read the 95 theses - the original lever for the start of the big split. They are frankly tedious, turgid, unfocused and repetitive even by the standards of the day. It's a testament to 16th century clerical educational rigor that they even finished the bloody things. Best I can come up with his major beefs were:

Good works are better than financial or rote intercession like indulgences (indulgences crop up a LOT)

The Church doesn't control what happens to the dead

No man is of a kind greater than another - priests are only intercessory

The Pope shouldn't grub after money (also gets mentioned a lot)

Bread and wine don't get a look in at the start.

[MineralMan]

7. That's true. Luther figured that one out later,

sort of. It took a couple of tries.

[Tyrs WolfDaemon]

8. My favorite story about the Eucharist

This was about a woman in Pre-Vatican 2 days. Back then you were only allowed to partake in receiving the Eucharist once a day. These days you can partake so long as you attend the mass (so no sneaking in at communion time).

So, there was an elderly woman that went to every mass at her church. That meant several times a day on Sundays and special days while the other days would have at least one. She made it a point to recieve the Eucharest at each one she attended. Obviously, if getting one is good, then several made you

Her priest tried to explain to her that getting a Eucharist multiple times a day was not allowed, but she ignored him. If he tried to not give her one, she would begin to make a scene, so he would give in just to get through the mass. Then one day he got an idea. He cut a small peice of rubber to look like a Eucharist and hid it.

The next mass, when she came up to recieve the wafer, he popped the rubber piece into her mouth. She went back to her seat, chewing and chewing, trying to get the wafer down. A woman next to her told her that she should not chew the body of Christ, the old woman replied, "You may have gotten his body, but all I got was fat."


My dad (a Catholic Deacon) told me that story ages ago. I'm sure I screwed up some details, but it is still worth a smile.

[SamG]

14. Never heard that one before! Marvelous story! n/t

[Cirque du So-What]

9. Salvation through faith vs. works is a biggie

but I'm hardly in the mood to delve into the matter presently. Just wanted to mention one of the major sticking points among denominations.

[longship]

13. Yup, that's the biggest, but...

...nearly all the fundementalist Protestant sects are into the faith argument. Of course there's the predestinationalist Calvinists, world headquarters here in MI (Grand Rapids, home of AmWay and Black Water), the works do you good Catholics, and many other sects who if put in a single room would certainly come to chair throwing in no time, maybe over the number of angels that could sit on the head of a pin.

What silly arguments these all are!

I'm for religious freedom. If you want to believe that space aliens screwed your grandmother -- are you paying attention David Eick? -- that's fine with me. Just keep your mealy fingers out of government unless you can set aside all your beliefs and recognize the undeniable fact that the world has many religious beliefs, including those who choose no religion.

Otherwise, stay home and fiddle with your holy beads, your magic crystals, or read your holy books, but keep the fuck out of other peoples' lives.

[Cirque du So-What]

10. Lest we forget...

the first schism - the one predating the protestant movement by roughly 500 years: the division of the church into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. As is the case with practically any so-called 'religious war' you can name, I tend to believe such events are due more to economics (greed) than actual theology, but the reasons usually cited for the schism are as follows:

Prominent among these were the issues of "filioque", whether leavened or unleavened bread should be used in the Eucharist, the Pope's claim to universal jurisdiction, and the place of Constantinople in relation to the Pentarchy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism

The 'filioque' mentioned above serves as a truly trivial basis for dividing a church:

Filioque (Ecclesiastical Latin: [filiˈɔkwe]), Latin for "and (from) the Son", is a phrase found in the form of Nicene Creed in use in the Latin Church. It is not present in the Greek text of the Nicene Creed as originally formulated at the First Council of Constantinople, which says only that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father":

??ὶ ?ἰ? ?ὸ ???ῦ?? ?ὸ Ἅ????, ?ὸ ?ύ????, ?ὸ ??????ό?, ?ὸ ἐ? ??ῦ ????ὸ? ἐ??????ό?????
(And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, from the Father proceeding).

The Latin text speaks of the Holy Spirit as proceeding "from the Father and the Son".

Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum, et vivificantem: qui ex Patre Filioque procedit
(And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and giver of life, who from the Father and the Son proceeds).

Together with papal primacy, differences over this doctrine have been and remain the primary causes of schism between the Western and Eastern Orthodox churches.[1][2] The Filioque has been an ongoing source of conflict between the East and West, contributing, in part, to the East-West Schism of 1054 and proving an obstacle to attempts to reunify the two sides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque

[rug]

15. The Eastern Orthodox view of the Eucharist is more spiritual and mystical than the Roman view.

"The Eastern Orthodox Church has never described exactly how this occurs, or gone into the detail that the Roman Catholic Church has with the doctrine of transubstantiation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_theology#Orthodox_Church

Interestingly, the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the authenticity of the Orthodox Eucharist even though they do not share the precise same philosophical formulation.

[FarCenter]

11. The Reformation was fairly recent

Before that there were Monophysite, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Nestorian, etc split off churches. Then there was the great schism that split the Roman Catholic from the Orthodox churches, mostly over the primacy of the pope.

Most of the eastern churches were converted by Islam, and apparently the conversion was not as big a step for some of them.

Anabaptists, Lutherans, Calvinist, and Anglican flavors of Protestantism did not so much split off from each other as originate about the same time under different political situations in different countries.

Henry VIII was not so much theologically opposed to the Pope as he was opposed to certain inconveniences that the Pope imposed. So he nationalized the local subsidiary of the Roman Catholic church.

The Peace of Westphalia nationalized the rest of the Northern European susidiaries. Splinter groups not part of the national churches, e.g. Quakers, baptists, etc., still had a hard time until more recently.

[rug]

16. One correction.

Henry was quite orthodox in his theology and considered himself Catholic to his death. Before the split he wrote a refutation of Luther's theology for which he was awarded the title Fidei Defensor (Defender of the Faith) by the Pope. It's a title still held by British monarchs.



The split was over control of the English Church.