Protestant Has a Few Questions About Cathedrals
Mar 27th, 2004, 01:40 AM
#81
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have learned a huge amount about the history of the predominant church in Scotland over the last few days. Every time something comes up I go and read up more. I will, however, now have to buy a bokk
(Cries of outrage from my spouse, who wants to buy shares in Waterstones)
I found quite a diatribe on a Catholic site, about how the CoS pretends to be independednt but isn't really. Thus far in my researches on the subject it would appear that the Church drew up and governs its own Constitution but it is recognised by Parliament; the Church enjoys complete independence from the State in spiritual matters. and considers itself to be both an "established" and a "free" Church. (no change there, then
.
The Queen has no formal place in the Church of Scotland - Jesus Christ is its sole king and head - but she is represented every year at the General Assembly by a Lord High Commissioner, appointed by the Queen on a recommendation from the Prime Minister. The Queen has occasionally attended the Assembly in person but the role of the Sovereign is purely formal.
I never realised that the 1843 split was over the relationship between Church and State. So thanks for bringing all this up.
(Cries of outrage from my spouse, who wants to buy shares in Waterstones)I found quite a diatribe on a Catholic site, about how the CoS pretends to be independednt but isn't really. Thus far in my researches on the subject it would appear that the Church drew up and governs its own Constitution but it is recognised by Parliament; the Church enjoys complete independence from the State in spiritual matters. and considers itself to be both an "established" and a "free" Church. (no change there, then
. The Queen has no formal place in the Church of Scotland - Jesus Christ is its sole king and head - but she is represented every year at the General Assembly by a Lord High Commissioner, appointed by the Queen on a recommendation from the Prime Minister. The Queen has occasionally attended the Assembly in person but the role of the Sovereign is purely formal.
I never realised that the 1843 split was over the relationship between Church and State. So thanks for bringing all this up.
Mar 27th, 2004, 02:09 AM
#82
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sheila:
Two other points on whether the Kirk was (and I did say 'was' not 'is) Established:
1. The connections between Church and State have always varied between the Established Churches. Even the Church of Ireland, when it was Established, didn't have the same relationship with the State as its sister Church in England. And other Established Churches, like Holland's and Sweden's, had even different relationships.
2. Establishment isn't just about the influence the State has on the Church. The system for several centuries in which Scotland gave the Kirk (but not the unEstablished Churches) control over all marriages and birth registrations had no parallel south of the border: in that sense the Kirk was more Established than the Church of England.
Smueller:
It's not clear what point you're making. If you're simply unaware there are cathedrals in Reformed Churches, this thread should disabuse you.
If, however, you're making the arcane and offensive claim that non-Catholic cathedrals aren't real cathedrals, you're not just talking nonsense, but you're in grave heresy. The Catholic Church does indeed dispute the Apostolic Succession - and therefore the validity of orders, and of the rank of bishop - in Reformed Churches. Trivially though, Holy Mother Church does NOT dispute the right of Anglicans to call St Paul's or York Minster cathedrals: the obnoxious claptrtap Sister Mary Imelda used to ram down our throats about this at Our Lady Scourge of Heathens Junior Mixed and Infants School was plain wrong.
Less trivially, the Church cannot, and does not, dispute the validity of Orthodox orders or bishoprics. And has emphasised repeatedly over the centuries that Orthodox priests and bishops enjoy the Apostolic Succession, and can adminster all the Sacraments (including Ordination). No-one, unless they reject the Pope's authority, (by definition a heretic) can challenge the claim that the splendid cathedrals of Russia, Bulgaria and Greece (as well as the multiplicity of Orthodox cathedrals in many Western cities) are indeed cathedrals - the seat of validly-ordained bishops.
More importantly still, if you on your deathbed recant this disgraceful heresy, you'll be able to avail yourself of the services of any Orthodox priest to hear your Confession and absolve you of your sins.
Two other points on whether the Kirk was (and I did say 'was' not 'is) Established:
1. The connections between Church and State have always varied between the Established Churches. Even the Church of Ireland, when it was Established, didn't have the same relationship with the State as its sister Church in England. And other Established Churches, like Holland's and Sweden's, had even different relationships.
2. Establishment isn't just about the influence the State has on the Church. The system for several centuries in which Scotland gave the Kirk (but not the unEstablished Churches) control over all marriages and birth registrations had no parallel south of the border: in that sense the Kirk was more Established than the Church of England.
Smueller:
It's not clear what point you're making. If you're simply unaware there are cathedrals in Reformed Churches, this thread should disabuse you.
If, however, you're making the arcane and offensive claim that non-Catholic cathedrals aren't real cathedrals, you're not just talking nonsense, but you're in grave heresy. The Catholic Church does indeed dispute the Apostolic Succession - and therefore the validity of orders, and of the rank of bishop - in Reformed Churches. Trivially though, Holy Mother Church does NOT dispute the right of Anglicans to call St Paul's or York Minster cathedrals: the obnoxious claptrtap Sister Mary Imelda used to ram down our throats about this at Our Lady Scourge of Heathens Junior Mixed and Infants School was plain wrong.
Less trivially, the Church cannot, and does not, dispute the validity of Orthodox orders or bishoprics. And has emphasised repeatedly over the centuries that Orthodox priests and bishops enjoy the Apostolic Succession, and can adminster all the Sacraments (including Ordination). No-one, unless they reject the Pope's authority, (by definition a heretic) can challenge the claim that the splendid cathedrals of Russia, Bulgaria and Greece (as well as the multiplicity of Orthodox cathedrals in many Western cities) are indeed cathedrals - the seat of validly-ordained bishops.
More importantly still, if you on your deathbed recant this disgraceful heresy, you'll be able to avail yourself of the services of any Orthodox priest to hear your Confession and absolve you of your sins.
Mar 27th, 2004, 09:50 AM
#87
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not only religious marriages aren't recognized in France, but they're even *forbidden* if a civil marriage didn't take place before (and it's actually enforced...the priest will check your legal documents).
I would add by the way that the civil marriage is a ceremony in itself (not just signing papers in a back office), performed by the mayor (in villages) or one of his deputies (which is generally the case in towns)hence by an elected official not by a random civil servant, who generally pronounce some speech, etc.... In the countryside, it's usually followed by a little reception ("vin d'honneur"
for locals who aren't personnally invited to the party.
However, it seems to me that in the US, a religious marriage isn't exactly "as valid" as a civil marriage. It's only that some people (amongst them priests, pastors, etc....but not necessarily only religious figures..you could, AFAIK, get your own license to marry people) are allowed to perform marriages and handle the paperwork.
IOW, the right to legally marry people is sort of delegated to the churmen (and by the way, you could get your own license to marry people, even if you're not a churman...I remember someone stating he did so just in order to celebrate *one* marriage, at the bride's request).
This I gathered from reading another not travel-related site.
I would add by the way that the civil marriage is a ceremony in itself (not just signing papers in a back office), performed by the mayor (in villages) or one of his deputies (which is generally the case in towns)hence by an elected official not by a random civil servant, who generally pronounce some speech, etc.... In the countryside, it's usually followed by a little reception ("vin d'honneur"
for locals who aren't personnally invited to the party.However, it seems to me that in the US, a religious marriage isn't exactly "as valid" as a civil marriage. It's only that some people (amongst them priests, pastors, etc....but not necessarily only religious figures..you could, AFAIK, get your own license to marry people) are allowed to perform marriages and handle the paperwork.
IOW, the right to legally marry people is sort of delegated to the churmen (and by the way, you could get your own license to marry people, even if you're not a churman...I remember someone stating he did so just in order to celebrate *one* marriage, at the bride's request).
This I gathered from reading another not travel-related site.
Mar 27th, 2004, 01:25 PM
#88
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 13,194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Laws vary from state to state on the <i>legality</i> of who can officiate at a marriage, or so I suspect. We have investigated this for our daughter's upcoming wedding (November). Only a "clergyman" ? - (minister, priest, rabbi, other definitions? - - are they licensed?) or judge or magistrate can officiate. Any lawyer <i>qualified</i> <b>to be</b> a judge (i.e., admitted to the Indiana bar, in good standing) can be appointed a "judge pro tem" <i>for the day</i>. I actually grouse at this a little bit; there are several other people our family would rather choose than a lawyer, but I guess we are not going to try "to fight city hall" over it.
Mar 30th, 2004, 04:40 PM
#89
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,589
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About Irish history, thanks to OReilly about relaying the fact that there was indeed a thriving Christian culture before the Roman church came along. One can stand in the midst of Glendalough and get a feel for how this and other abbeys were important religious centers until about the 12th century. In fact, before the time of the Viking settlements of Dublin, Waterford, Limerick, etc. these monastic centers were the nearest the Celtic folks had to any town.
Bill [email protected]
Bill [email protected]
Mar 31st, 2004, 08:30 AM
#92
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In response to the question directed at me in a post above, I don't know, nor do I care about, the difference between the Catholic Church and the Reformed Church. It is all a bunch of superstitious nonsense as far as I'm concerned.
My "point" was simply that if you look the word "cathedral" up in a dictionary, most definitions mention the words Bishop and Catholic. Call me a heretic, or worse a fundamentalist, but I believe in the literal interpretation of Webster.
My "point" was simply that if you look the word "cathedral" up in a dictionary, most definitions mention the words Bishop and Catholic. Call me a heretic, or worse a fundamentalist, but I believe in the literal interpretation of Webster.
Mar 31st, 2004, 03:13 PM
#94
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 24,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone interested in excellent novels (verging toward mysteries) set in 6th-century Ireland should grab a copy of the books by Peter Tremaybe. There's a great deal of history of the early church in the books.
