to think that your religion can't be that important to you

[theevildead2]

if you can just "switch to catholicism" when it suits you?

There is a bit on the news at the moment about women maybe being allowed to be bishops. Apparently some of our local priests will be leaving the church if women get this right???

Basically, people have been uneasy about it for as long as it's been a doctrine. These particular people thought it was an absurdity - if Christ were there, you'd be able to see Him. And there's an argument that if Christ were in the bread and wine, then every time we ate the Host we'd be performing a bizarre kind of cannibalism and shitting out God-refuse.

There is a reason that cannibalism was usually the first charge to be laid against Christians whenever the Romans wanted to crack down on them....

LittleRedDragon - I'm interested in what you say about Wycliffe and the Lollards. Do you think there was a particular reason why Wycliffe's ideas began to attract support at the end of the 14th century/beginning of the 15th? (By this, I mean that, even though W was denounced as a heretic, the very fact we can even name him today must mean that his ideas were not completely laughed out of court.) Had the corruption of the church (which surely existed before his time) just become too much to ignore by then? Was he a bolt from the blue, or were there other, similar protesters before W's time whose names/protests have simply faded from popular memory over the centuries?

And, on the Continent, did Jan Hus's ideas spring from Wycliffe's? Or have I got that the wrong way round ... ?

(And I know my previous posts were a bit muddled, but I think I was right on my definition of consubstantiation, and on Luther and Calvin debating this point?)

Princess - Yes, I'm sure you're right about consubstantiation and Luther/Calvin (haven't studied Luther since A Level though, so I am a bit foggy. ).

If you really want to know (I'm rubbish at writing succinctly, sorry!):

I'd guess Wycliffe's ideas became popular partly because they coincided with an increasingly book-using public, who were interested in theories?

I don't think it was so much to do with church corruption - I was at a lecture by someone who is a leading expert on Wycliffe, and she was arguing that Wycliffe's views were much more supported by mainstream religious academics than anyone used to think, for a lot of his career. Certainly, a lot of Wycliffite writings were owned and read by people who we know were absolutely devout and non-heretical - they were just interested. For example, Henry VI (a very devout Catholic) owned a copy of the banned Wycliffite Bible in English. One assumes he just liked to read it, and knew he could ignore the ban.

I think before Wyclif there probably were always some people who had heretical ideas, but they were just seen as ignorant or criminal, rather than part of an organized movement. You see, it was only during the twelfth century that the Church even started to think it was important for lay people to understand their religion. Prior to that, it was perfectly acceptable for lay people not to know very much at all about religion - that was a priest's job. In that context, you probably wouldn't think someone who said something heretical was being deliberately irreligious - you'd just assume s/he was uneducated.

It's the coincidence of Wycliffe's ideas with an increasingly literate, religiously educated laity that made them so powerful and dangerous for the established Church, I think.

Mind you, for all the Lollards, there were thousands of people who were still very devoted to the Church and who were paying money for Masses and saints' statues and all the things the Lollards opposed - right up to the Reformation.

I think Hus did use some of Wycliffe's writings, but I'm not sure whether he formulated his own ideas before or after that ... Eucharistic controversies are pretty common throughout Christian history, I think. I wish I knew more about this.

LittleRedDragon - thanks for replying.

I'm a bit puzzled by your suggestion that 'Wycliffe's ideas [may have become] popular partly because they coincided with an increasingly book-using public, who were interested in theories', as Wycliffe died in 1384 and the first known book to be published in England was in 1477. Maybe you are suggesting that Wycliffe's supporters kept his ideas alive for 100 years and then published them? (Even then, surely very few people would have had access to expensive printed books?)

But I entirely agree that 'Wycliffe's views were much more supported by mainstream religious academics than anyone used to think, for a lot of his career'. This would certainly explain how Wycliffe, and his ideas, survived.

Am also interested that Henry VI (born 1421, 36 years after Wycliffe died; died 1471, 6 years before the first known printed book in England) 'owned a copy of the banned Wycliffite Bible in English'. I have never heard of a Wycliffite Bible, which I assume must have been copied out by hand for H6 to read. Was this the first known version of the Bible to be translated into English? Who banned it?

I still think that a well-spring of the Reformation was criticism of church corruption. How else to explain the complaints of Chaucer, say, or the (admittedly much later than Wycliffe) writings of Erasmus?

I agree that long after the start of the English Reformation there were lots of people who persisted in their beliefs in the intercession of saints, mariolatry, etc. I believe that even Henry VIII (died 1547) left instructions in his will for his soul to be prayed for in chantry chapels. And a century later there was much upset when Cromwellian troops smashed stained glass windows and tore statues of the saints from their niches in various parish churches.

Finally, I am intrigued by your assertion that during the 12th century the church started to pay attention to lay people's understanding of their religion. Why so, and why then, do you think?

(Sorry this is so long - I am really interested in this discussion!)

MaryMungo - I was intrigued by the use of the word trogo to mean eat in this passage, as you are correct that it generally means something like 'crunch up' or 'munch noisily' when eating. I would have thought that fago would have been much more appropriate here, unless Christ was trying to tell his followers to munch him up! Can someone give me the reference so that I can look it up for myself?

LittleRedDragon - Could the alethoos in your sentence be 'truly'? I really need a ref to check all of this though! (I know it doesn't add much to your post, but I am a bit of a grammar geek!)

And thanks for the article on the Eucharist beliefs. I had no idea there were all these differences!

Princess - Was it not the Church that banned the Wycliffe Bible, as they did a number of other books?

It seems that Henry VIII wanted to keep his Catholic beliefs but just didn't want the authority of the Church, and wanted the revenue to go to him, of course.

I think before Wyclif there probably were always some people who had heretical ideas, but they were just seen as ignorant or criminal, rather than part of an organized movement.

I think that at any stage of history there would have been more sceptics and dissenters than might appear from the records as in the early days their views would not have been represented by the authorities and therefore not recorded, and after books became available and heretics began to be identified and burned, it was best to keep your mouth shut. Right up to and including David Hume during the Enlightenment.

Even now, we athiests don't say what we think for fear of upsetting the religious, Messrs Dawkins and Hutchins excepted!

alex - yes, I think truly is more accurate, but my Greek is rusty so if someone else knows more that'd be great. I don't know anything about the two verbs for eat, except I suppose NT Greek and ancient Greek might use different ones (and I've only studied ancient). Just guessing really.

princess - I think talking about books being 'published' is an anachronism. Caxton printed the first books in English, that's true. But for centuries before that, people had copied and sold books in English. There are around 250 manuscripts (ie., hand-written copies) of the Wycliffite Bible that survive from the late Middle Ages. This makes it the most popular English-language book by numbers surviving today - though that may be because people kept Bibles rather more carefully than other books. And in 1400, it would be very normal for a wealthy person to own his or her own psalter (in Latin, maybe with English or Anglo-Norman explanations of the prayers). Even lots of quite ordinary people owned their own English books.

It's hard to say whose was the 'first' English translation of the Bible. Wycliffe's translation was the first systematic, complete version in Middle English. But people would have been familiar with common passages and quotations, from sermons and religious writing, as these were translated. In addition, the Book of Psalms was considered a good thing for a lay person to learn to read - even if that meant just sounding out the Latin words without understanding. Some people had translations of the Psalms in English, and the ban on translating the Bible into English didn't apply to these.

So, I think even after the ban, quite a lot of ordinary people would have had some familiarity with the well-known bits of the Bible in English. And of course, anyone who was an academic or a clergyman could potentially read the Latin to himself, if his Latin were good enough.

The ban was concerned with people getting their hands on a complete translation of the Bible and thinking they could understand it without any clerical interpretation - which was a dangerous idea socially, and very different from letting people hear snippets and extracts carefully explained in sermons.

Sorry ... I've realized even in that rambling post I didn't finish answering! [

princess - I see what you're saying about corruption in the Church motivating the Reformation. I agree lots of people were fed up, to put it mildly - but then, compare to now. Lots of people are fed up with the Anglican Church, but even more angry at the idea of leaving it and joining a completely new Church. Maybe people always complain?

Henry VIII leaving money for his soul to be prayed for is an interesting one - he was training to be a priest before his brother died, which is an odd thought really.

Btw, the 12th century thing is this: in 1215 the Church held a council and one of the things they decided should happen was that lay people should make confession regularly. That meant lay people had to be educated, to learn what to confess. As this spread into England, you get lots of clerics who're very eager to write religious instruction manuals in the vernacular for their people.

The seven sacraments are at the heart of the Anglican faith. Every Anglican priest has to be ordained, and that is a a sacrament. It doesn't matter how low church that priest considers himself to be.

That is ultimately what makes the Anglican church different to the Methodists, Baptists and so on. The Anglican church is a sacramental church, like the Catholic church. The transubstantiation/consubstantiation difference is of little importance when both churches still teach that all of the sacraments are an outer sign of an inner grace - the Grace of God.

Anglo-Catholicism is also still a major part of the C of E. Two of the major theological colleges are Anglo-Catholic.

I agree about the sacraments being crucial; I don't agree the difference between transubstantiation and consubstantiation isn't.

But that is the point, surely? Different people are going to find different elements of the denominations right or wrong, significant or insignificant. If someone is an Anglo-Catholic, there are going to be some elements of the Anglican church that they agree with and some elements of Roman Catholicism that they agree with. Very few people agree with every teaching of one denomination.

Yes, sorry, that was a really unhelpful post.

What I mean is, I find it bemusing that anyone can take Eucharist as an incidental issue, whether they're Catholic or Anglican. I can understand some Anglicans saying they're not sure which it is and don't mind being unsure, but that doesn't mean it's not a crucial question, just that it's a hard one to understand, surely?

I just don't really see how someone who believes in God could say, 'oh yes, is Christ really here or not - I don't know, it's not significant to me'.

But to both Anglicans and Catholics Christ is really there, as a spiritual being, in the bread and wine. Whether or not the physical body of Christ is there seems rather secondary to his physical presence.

And many Catholics don't believe in transubsantiation, while many Anglicans do. So it isn't that people don't know or don't care, it is that they don't think it is a deciding factor.

Women bishops are a much more major factor because they can ordain male priests. That means that no Anglican can know, when they receive a sacrament from a male Anglican priest, if Apostolic succession has been broken or not. It also damages church unity with the RC church.

That should have been, rather secondary to his spiritual presence.

I think the crucial difference can be found by asking "Would you kneel down and worship the consecrated host of your particular denomination." If you asked a Baptist that they'd be appalled! I honestly don't know what a Anglo-Catholic's response would be.

The point being, that people who have gone so far as to decide that there exists a God who cares about what they believe, need to exert a little effort in thinking about what they believe.

If you are disagreeing with aspects of your particular denomination, you owe it to yourself to look at whether you ought to be believing it at all. It's not logical to just pick what you're comfortable with, and then ignore the implications of what you're not comfortable with.

If you have been brought up Anglican, but are very uncomfortable with the idea of female priests, you shouldn't stick around just because the vicar is nice, your kids go to the school, and you're in charge of the cake stall.

Likewise, if you have been brought up Catholic and are truly upset with the idea that the homosexual act is fundamentally disordered, you shouldn't ignore that feeling because you truly enjoy Christmas Mass, you wouldn't want to explain giving it up to your parents, and maybe the Pope will come to his senses one day.

Really interesting thread, very educational.

I find religious language very hard to understand - the way it effortlessly slips from truth claim to metaphor and back (like the picture of the rabbit and a duck..)

I think I see the internal logic of what you are saying MaryMungo, it makes some sens to me as an atheist in the way a complex other-world science fiction novel does.

But then sometimes your explanation cross into the real world, and then then it stops making sense. I guess the bread & wine/blood and body thing is one of those junctions, but a bit too esoteric for me to get my head around.

But when you say 'there was a historic Adam' I have to ask what on earth does this mean (in real world terms, not metaphors, how could there have been no entropy before the fall ( when there is no evidence of a complete change in the laws of physics a few million years ago..) What do you mean by this? How is the sin passed down through generations?

Yes, Anglo-Catholics will use a monstrance and kneel down and worship. The consecrated host has to be locked away, in a tabernacle or aumbry at other times.

The thing is, if 99% of Catholics in the pew disbelieved in transubstantiation, it wouldn't change the fact that transubstantiation is occurring up on the altar. And if 99% of Anglicans believed in transubstantiation, if their priest is not properly ordained- it's just not going to happen.

Belief has very little to do with the fundamentals of religion. If Richard Dawkins, as a joke, poured water over an infants head, saying "I baptise you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" that baby would be baptised! And if an ordained priest dipped a babies bum in the font and said "I baptise you in the name of the Creator and of the Liberator and of the Sustainer," that child would not be baptised. It's happened, and then they have to go back and baptise people properly!

Brilliant - Anne Widdicome will be well shafted then!!!!!!! (having converted to Catholicism when CoE ordained female clergy)

(Not read all 7 pages of thread)

MM, again though that depends on the perspective of the individual. Some Anglican priests will believe that they are properly ordained priests due to apostolic succession, others will nott.

As for baptism, anyone can baptise a child; it does not have to be a priest. A child baptised in the Anglican church cannot be rebaptised in the Catholic church.

Himalaya-

People tend to think of the material and spiritual as something sharply divided. They think "Man was created material, and then the Spiritual God grafted a spiritual soul onto him." In reality, God is as beyond the material and spiritual as He is beyond time.

When God created Adam, he created a whole being, matter and spirit indivisible. When Adam denied God's authority over him, it thus brought death for matter and spirit alike. He passed this spiritual death to his children just as he passed cellular degeneration.

As to his place in history, well there's a couple things you need to consider, foremost the implications of an omnipotent God. Say God created an oak tree yesterday, in the middle of a forest. Today a botanist walks by and examines it. There would be nothing about that tree to distinguish it from one grown from an acorn. The scientist could take a sample and determine it had been planted fifty years ago, and undergone this many dry seasons, and that many wet, and no one could prove him wrong.

So it is with the universe as a whole, right down to its physics. God could have created the universe at any point up to the existence of self-aware Man, and we would have no way to tell the difference. This is not God trying to fool us, or fake us out, it's a simple consequence of the act of omnipotent creation.

So, at some point in time after creating the universe, God created Adam in Eden. Pet theory warning again- I personally believe Eden was an extra-dimensional plane from which every part of the Earth was accessible and, in some way, disconnected from time (time being a function of entropy); this is how Adam could easily have contact with all the beasts of the world- Pet theory done .

Adam is not subject to death yet, he could have existed in Eden for thousands, or even millions, of years before the whole tree thing happened. We don't even know at which point in time Eve was created. This is all stuff that, barring divine revelation, we can never truly know.

After the Fall, every aspect of creation was fundamentally corrupted, because God had made Adam master of His Creation, and Adam effectively abdicated to Satan.

It isn't, though Milly. If you honestly believe that the absolute reality of religion depends on any one person's perspective, there's not much point to believing a particular religion at all. One is as good as another and you might as well be discussing who has the better footie team.

From a Catholic perspective something tangible happens at a valid ordination that confers specific abilities and responsibilities. Just believing that you had a valid ordination doesn't make it so. The proper form, the proper intention, must be there, or it's all just so many words lost to the aether.

MM, this thread isn't about the absolute reality of religion. It is about why human beings make certain decisions based on what they believe. Many Anglican priests do believe that their holy orders are valid. Many Anglican priests believe their orders are not valid and want to be reordained as Catholics. Whether or not any of these people are right or wrong in some absolute sense is irrelevant to the process by which they make the decision to go to Rome. Once they have gone to Rome, it is up to RC administration to assess the situation and make a decision; at that point the person's belief becomes irrelevant. But this thread asked why people convert, not about why RC accepts these converts and allows them to become priests.

The Catholic church is not interested in the validity of Anglican orders in general; it is interested in the orders of the people who come across, and how to organise that. It seems to have decided to organise it so that these priests and bishops come into full community with the Catholic church having been re-ordained, but are a separate part of the Catholic church that will keep some Anglican traditional liturgy and spiritual practice yet be under the authority of the pope.