Reflections of a stormy petrel

Does the UK and Europe have the same Protestant phenomenon of church communities renting in movie theaters, malls, and, as we see here, school auditoriums?

I think it all comes down to Protestants not having a true grasp of sacred space.

From:

tibba.livejournal.com

There are quite a few Christian communities in my city which just rent out big halls. Or they have their own buildings which look like modern Catholic architecture and thus don't differ much from the halls anyway.

But then near me is a Catholic "parish" that rents out a Protestant church each Sunday and whose parish priest a few years back threw a party to celebrate the 25 years that he and his girlfriend had been living together. So I guess nothing is quite normal here.

From:

Let me guess: Austria?

From:

Even worse - the Netherlands.
(But from what we heard about Austria, I would say the country is overdue a good long visitation.)

From:

Since there has been a movement within Catholicism to Protestantize Catholic worship, that doesn't surprise me that there would be such incidents.

From:

Well, no, cohabitating priests are and always have been a great scandal in the Church. They predate Protestantism by centuries.

From:

Ahahaha, whoops. I somehow missed the "25 years with the girlfriend" part of the comment entirely. I don't know how. My brain parsed it as "25 years sharing the space with the Protestant church."

I've just moved cross-continent so my brain is still muddled with lack of sleep and jet-lag, I guess.

But yes. That is not one due to Protestantizing of liturgy, lol!

From:

Although some historians argue that Luther's experience of out-of-control lust as an Augustinian canon, and his resulting decision to marry Catherine von Bora (herself an ex-nun) had much to do with his decision to revolt and the development of his views.

From:

I'm not sure about the rest of Europe, but in Ireland that would not be the case. Churches are not exactly in short supply.

Your final comment strikes me as rather broad and sweeping. My experience is that Protestants have a fairly clear idea of what sacred space means. I can recall a conversation about this with my Minister many years ago. I was asking why one particular place was set aside for worship, why would God care that we went to Church, rather than worshiping elsewhere?

His answer impressed me, he asked me to look at it another way, in his view there was nothing inherently special about a Church building, the 'sacredness' came from the decision of the worshipers to set a special place aside for worship. As such the place should be respected, but not worshipped.

From:

Ask him whether God has any hand in sacraments.

From:

I'm not in contact anymore, and, I have to be honest, I'm not sure I quite understand the question.

I think he would have said that God has a hand in everything, but that sacraments are special because they are the times we make declarations or promises directly to, or explicitly, before God. I would never have discussed the issue in those terms, but I do recall conversations about the difference between Church and State marriages and the purpose of baptism.

Is that different in the Catholic Church? Indeed I now realise that i'm not even sure exactly what all of the sacraments are.

From:

In general, Catholics and, I think, Orthodox, recognize seven sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Confession, Priestly Ordination, Marriage, Last rites. Most Protestants tend to admit only two, Baptism and Marriage. But the really serious and important distinction is one that goes to the core of the difference between the two: that is, that to Catholics, Orthodox, and Eastern churches (Armenian, Copts, etc.), the Sacrament is an action that begins with and centres upon God. The Eucharist is the presence of God Himself in the Host, as the Host, and it is centred upon Jesus' words at the Last Supper: "Take, eat: this is My Body which is given up for you. Take, drink: this is My Blood". The other sacraments likewise go back to God, with the priest acting only as His agent. That is why the space which is dedicated to these sacraments is objectively sacred - rather than, as your pastor said, subjectively held sacred by the use the faithful make of it. You will see in the entrance of some Catholic, Orthodox or Eastern church building, a variant on Jacob's words at Shiloh: "How terrible this place is! This is the house of the Lord." Protestants, on the other hand, place all the emphasis exclusively on prayer. They reject the notion that there is an objective presence of God (although the Lutherans do have a variation on the idea, which I believe they call Consubstantiation) and place the whole emphasis on prayer. That is why the Pope said that Protestant communities cannot be properly called Churches, but rather "communities of prayer". They do not accept one of the cornerstones of Catholic, Orthodox and Eastern theology. That is not to say that their prayer is not acceptable to God - "Wherever two or three of you are gathered together in My name, I am there among you" - but, in the Catholic view, they are cut off from the most powerful and efficacious means of Grace and deification.

From:

To put it another way, the Sacraments, instituted by Christ, aren't merely signs or human acts, but the means by which God directly effects particular graces. They are the tangible aspect of particular spiritual realities. This is not out of absolute necessity; God is in no way limited to the Sacraments as means for conferring grace. However, the Sacraments, simultaneously material and spiritual, are the means most fitting our nature as simultaneously material and spiritual beings, and God has therefore made them the normative means for the reception of the graces associated with them.

(FWIW, these days, Extreme Unction/Last Rites is more typically termed the Anointing of the Sick, at least in the United States, as it is used more widely than it used to be, in situations which do not necessarily involve the immediate danger of death.)

From:

Thanks for this. I always thought Communion was described as a sacrament in the Church I attended.

I'm fascinated that you say that Protestants do not believe in the objective presence of God. I'm aware that at communion it was not believed that we were eating the flesh of Christ, or drinking his blood. But i'm equally aware that there was a general belief that God was there, that he was listening. Indeed there was a belief, often stated, that he was everywhere.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by objective?

From:

The universal presence of God is not something anyone - or at least any Christian - disagrees with. My point is however that, yes, the older Christian churches (bear in mind that this not a Catholic peculiarity) do hold that the consecrated wafer and wine really are God, His flesh and blood. That is what He said and that is what we believe. That was, incidentally, what caused the final break between Luther and Calvin at the notorious Marburg conference. Luther kept repeating: "This-is-my-body!" and argued that if Jesus' words could be held to contain a different meaning than their own plain one, then you might as well read them to mean: "The fox ate the hedge-sparrow".

From:

To clarify this, when Jesus walked in Galilee, He was God, in the full meaning of the word; "I and the Father are one"; "he who has seen Me has seen the Father". At the same time, you cannot say that God was not, at one and the same time, universally present as He always is; or that, by being incarnate in one physical human body, He had ceased to be everywhere. However, He was also present in a specific place and in a specific way. In the same way, we believe God to be the Host and the Wine, in the manner in which He was (and is) the man Jesus of Nazareth.

From:

One final (some hope,,,) question on this. When you say you believe God to be the Host and the Wine (capitals are used because this is now God we are speaking of?) does that mean that the host physically changes into flesh and the wine into blood, or that it stays the same physically but is now (this is very difficult to put) somehow a part of the substance of God?

The wine still tastes like wine and the wafer like wafer, for example?

From:

Thomas Aquinas has made a famous philosophical investigation of the concepts involved, which is at the core of Catholic teaching on the issue - other churches may not agree on it, though, the Orthodox certainly don't. I do not feel up to dealing with the whole concept, but I would say that, yes, the Bread and Wine are God incarnate in them, just as the man Jesus, body and faculties and individuality and all, was also and at the same time God. If you think about it, the one thing is not much more unlikely than the other.

From:

Indeed, it makes more sense than what I was told the Catholic Church believed.

Thanks for taking the time, it is appreciated.

From:

maglors-finch.livejournal.com

Sorry for barging in (I occasionally read your weblog): the two sacraments most Protestants admit are Baptism and Eucharist. I can't think of any Protestant Church that considers Marriage a sacrament.

Interesting discussion, by the way.

From:

Yeowchh!!!
You are right, of course. Pure stupid carelessness on my part. My apologies to all Protestants.

From:

His answer impressed me, he asked me to look at it another way, in his view there was nothing inherently special about a Church building, the 'sacredness' came from the decision of the worshipers to set a special place aside for worship. As such the place should be respected, but not worshipped.

This is pretty much exactly what I meant by "not having a true grasp of sacred space," lol. Basically the "we are church" mentality where we bring the sacredness with us wherever we worship. If that's the case, why not have it in a mini-golf pavillion, or on a rooftop of a nightclub? And there are Protestants who would read this and think "Yeah! Great idea! Bring God to the peoples!" And that's exactly what I mean. So... yeah.

From:

Then there is the confused idea that holding something sacred independently of what we bring to it (that is, to hold it actually sacred) would constitute worship of the sacred space or object: "...the place should be respected, but not worshiped." As though the worship of church buildings were a common error.

From:

All is clear. "not having a true grasp" means 'have a view different to yours'. I'll try to remember not to express such laughable views in the future.

I also have to say that the idea that Church Buildings, or more often items in Church Buildings, were worshiped in the Catholic Church was a common perception in my community growing up. It was an interpretation, (or misinterpretation), which now seems to have faded away since the clergy in Northern Ireland have started to speak to each other.

Some of the things which were believed by each community about the other in the sixties and the seventies were totally bizarre.

Edited Date: 2009-04-29 09:22 pm (UTC)

From:

All is clear. "not having a true grasp" means 'have a view different to yours'.

Given mutually exclusive positions (i.e. whether sacredness is objective, with its basis in divine sanction, or subjective, with its basis in popular assent), one or the other must be true.

Some of the things which were believed by each community about the other in the sixties and the seventies were totally bizarre.

Although Ireland in the 60s and 70s no doubt represented something of an extreme, the basic confusion between sacred objects and objects of worship is inherent to Protestantism, producing phenomena like Protestant iconoclasm. That is not to say that all (or even nearly any) Protestants are as bad as the full extension of Protestant ideas.

From:

Deleted my own earlier self-reply. I guess what I'm trying to get at is this: let's try not to personalize the disagreement, and I particularly don't want to drag in the Irish conflict, by the end of which both sides had an awful lot to answer for.

From:

Agreed. I was irritated by one statement, or more accurately by one small part of one statement, and hit back.

However I am not meaning to drag in the Irish conflict into this in any tit-for-tat, or blame game way - the conflict had almost nothing to do with theology. And I suspect that most of the active 'combatants' had little understanding of the teachings of their Church.

I mention it only because I am trying to put in context the misinformation that I was given about the beliefs of the Catholic Church.

I hope I have never criticised anyone else's belief, or their understanding of any belief I may hold.

My purpose in joining these discussions is to learn something, precisely because the view I was given of the beliefs of the Catholic Church growing up are so out of line with what I have heard on Fabio's Journal.

I did get irritated at the comment "This is pretty much exactly what I meant by "not having a true grasp of sacred space," lol" Mainly because of the lol, but that was an emotional response after a bad, bad week at work, I took the comment, perhaps incorrectly, to be mocking and it made me angry.

To be more sensible about it, I do take issue with the statement and with your defense of it "Given mutually exclusive positions (i.e. whether sacredness is objective, with its basis in divine sanction, or subjective, with its basis in popular assent), one or the other must be true."

I don't take issue with what you say, it is a logical statement, but to my mind does not get to my probvem with the original statement.

To say of someone who holds a different position to yours, that they do not have a true grasp of sacred space, or any other issue, is, in my mind at least, arrogant. They may well fully grasp the concepts and the ideas and have reached different conclusions. Saying - you don;t understand can only be a way of avoiding discussion.

By the way, mentalguy, I was in no way irritated or made angry by anything you said, so I hope it does not appear that I was personalising anything I said in response to your comments.

(I am now interested in knowing what your deleted reply said...)

From:

(I am now interested in knowing what your deleted reply said...)

It was a reference to the Irish conflict which I seriously doubt you would have found offensive, but which constituted a rabbit hole in the discussion I really didn't want to start down. I only mentioned deleting it since (if anyone noticed its disappearance), I wanted to be clear that I had removed it and not Fabio.

By the way, mentalguy, I was in no way irritated or made angry by anything you said, so I hope it does not appear that I was personalising anything I said in response to your comments.

That's good to know. I didn't take anything you said personally. Mainly I was concerned that you might have taken dustthouart's comment more personally than necessary.

I did get irritated at the comment "This is pretty much exactly what I meant by "not having a true grasp of sacred space," lol" Mainly because of the lol, but that was an emotional response after a bad, bad week at work, I took the comment, perhaps incorrectly, to be mocking and it made me angry.

To be honest, I had much the same reaction she did; at least in my case (and I strongly suspect in hers) it wasn't so much mockery as frustration. During the 60s and 70s in particlar, a large swath of the Catholic world internalized a number of Protestant ideas in this area which over the ensuing decades utterly devastated the Church, leading to monstrosities which I expect even a lot of Protestants would be appalled by. Some regions were more affected than others, hence the knowing comments above regarding the Netherlands and Austria; my impression is that Ireland was comparatively untouched. (Of course, as fpb noted, that isn't to say that all the Catholic problems are the consequence of Protestant imports.) At this point, we're just beginning the long task of picking up the pieces and putting things back together. So there is a certain underlying frustration there. Then there's the issue that what your minister described isn't even what many people consider the term sacred to mean, so it's kind of like ... where to even begin?

(I'll give it a shot in another reply, though.)

From:

To say of someone who holds a different position to yours, that they do not have a true grasp of sacred space, or any other issue, is, in my mind at least, arrogant. They may well fully grasp the concepts and the ideas and have reached different conclusions.

On the basis of what he said, I don't think your former minister did grasp the concept. (Not that the fault lies with him in particular; it is something that goes back all the way to the Protestant Reformers.) But you do deserve an explanation of why I think so.

In one respect, the issue is much broader than Christianity specifically. At least in the West and near East, outside of Protestantism and movements descended from Protestantism (e.g. neopaganism), a sacred person or thing is one which is understood to belong to or be given to God (or a god, in pagan contexts) and is therefore set apart from common life. This sense is still reflected in some dictionaries, at least the ones I consulted online.

In a specifically Christian context, see for example the imposition of hands mentioned in the first and second letters to Timothy, or the various practices of the ancient Churches (not just the Catholic Church) which are called consecration. Of course there is also the consecration of Samuel in the Old Testament, and of the Temple, and so on.

The Reformation represented a break from that basic understanding of the sacred; no longer were objects blessed or priests or bishops consecrated with the laying on of hands in a line all the way to the Apostles; new church buildings were no longer consecrated. The break is not entirely absolute; some Protestant groups will still "dedicate" (but not consecrate) a building, just as most Protestants still bless food before they eat it. But as Luther put it, in his view three things made a church building: the assembly of Christians, the hearing of the Word, and the reception of the sacraments (as he understood them). That is, the building is set apart because of what Christians do there, not because it has been consecrated to God, as such. (Unsurprisingly, Luther also added a characteristically unnecessary caution that the building must not be approached as a medium salutis.)

At any rate, to be sacred means to belong specifically to God. Rejecting the possibility of such consecration by definition excludes an understanding of the sacred. This is reflected in the progressive loss in the Protestant world of even intuitive distinctions in this area, epitomized in the United States by the rise of megachurches which employ almost entirely secular and commercial forms.

From:

Sorry it took me so long to reply, but

mentalguy pretty much made the point I want to make, which is of course, that I am not a moral or theological relativist. Therefore I made the statement in much the same way that I would describe someone who claimed that Chinese characters are pictographs as not having a true grasp of linguistics.

Well, we adore the Eucharist, which is usually kept reserved within church buildings--hence the pious custom of removing one's hat if male and crossing oneself when passing by a church. I do the latter only, not being male.

From:

thefish30.livejournal.com

Well, I hope they don't teach sex ed at that school.

From:

blue-sky-day.livejournal.com

It's an elementary school, so it's a safe bet that if they do teach any form of sex ed, it's probably very toned-down.

From:

You'd be surprised. The shower that passes for a government in these islands have recently decided that, since sex ed in high school has been an obvious failure (Britain having the highest rate of teen-age pregnancy and sexual disease in Europe), the thing to do was to introduce it to primary school. You just can't argue with logic like that.

From:

blue-sky-day.livejournal.com

That's not exactly salient, considering that the school in question is in Florida.

From:

And that's another planet? What I was saying is that folly is contagious. Today it happens here, tomorrow someone will think it a smart move to import it there.

From:

blue-sky-day.livejournal.com

I'm not talking about what could, or even what probably might happen eventually. I'm talking about present and past. It's not likely that an American elementary school teaches comprehensive sex ed.

From:

I sincerely hope you're right.

From:

jfacemyer.livejournal.com

While it seems like a far stretch to a logical mind, there is actually pretty scary sex "ed" happening in some of our US elementary schools.

For example, readers which talk about a kid and his two "daddies", etc.

While I can only provide anecdotal evidence (remembered from a news article a while back), I'm certain that we are not aware of everything that happens in today's classrooms.

Which is why I cannot, in good conscience, put my children in an institutional school. But that's another matter :)

From:

It depends on what you mean by elementary school. I know I had sex ed in 5th grade--mostly to prepare the girls for our approaching menarche, of course, but sex was certainly mentioned.

We were segregated by gender so I don't know what the boys were learning about, but I remember the conference room in my elementary school where I attended the class very clearly--and the little travel case containing tampon and pad samples provided to us by, IIRC, Kotex. No condoms, lol. And I vaguely remember the book which contained a lot of diagrams done in that strange vector art style.

This was a public elementary school in eastern Pennsylvania circa 1997.

From:

OH! And we watched a video about a girl who got her first period at a sleepover, and her friend's mom made a model of the uterus, ovaries etc... in pancake batter. Like, she was making pancakes for breakfast, and the girl was like "So what is a uterus anyway?" and the mom took the pancake batter and poured it into the pan and made this uterus shaped pancake--don't ask me how, they didn't show the technique, only the uterus and ovary pancakes happily sizzling in the pan.

SO BIZARRE. I haven't thought about that video in years!

From:

On a whim, I dug up the actual posting from their web site about their ~~sermon~~ lecture series:

Great Sex for You

Is your sex life a bore? A chore? Feeling like you want more? Is sex supposed to leave you feeling guilty? Frustrated? Insecure? Empty? It’s supposed to be fun, right? So why does it seem like everyone else is having all the fun? Why are men and women’s desires so different? So incompatible?

Discover answers to all these questions and more at Great Sex For You, a new teaching series at New Hope Church beginning this Sunday at 11am. You’ll learn how to have the Great Sex that God created you to enjoy! You’ll discover how to find the right partner, how to affair proof your marriage, how to fan the flames of romance, and how to ensure that your marriage and love life gets better year after year. Don’t miss this life-changing message!

Every Week at New Hope:

Come early and enjoy FREE Krispy Kreme Donuts and FREE Starbucks coffee!
We dress casually, so come as you are.

From:

jfacemyer.livejournal.com

Wow, it's amazing what selfishness will do to a person.

Really, if you're just trying to get pleasure out of sex, you'll never be satisfied. A healthy sex life is part of a balanced (and much, much broader) rest-of-life. And it is only "satisfied" when it's content with helping the other person to be happy.

That's why you're not happy with your sex, people.

Of course, along with that (and more importantly), a loss of the sense of the sacred in a sexual relationship has the same effect as it does on a spiritual relationship. If a family (which has as its core a man and woman who are united before God) does not have sacred boundaries, then anything goes and nothing brings happiness. It's really the same problem as the protestant problem.

And, like the myriad split of protestant churches, we'll continue to have myriad fracturing of "intimate" relationships as long as we're only looking for our own satisfaction and not recognising and protecting the sacredness of our relationships.

From: