The CBB
http://www.the-cbb.co.uk/

Separating for prayers
http://www.the-cbb.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7268
Author:  Selena [ Fri Jan 29, 2010 8:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Separating for prayers
I've always wondered about the difference between Catholic and C of E prayers (as all non-Catholic CS girls were C of E, of course :roll: ).

I know some of the differences between the two denominations, but I would have thought girls of any Christian denomination would have been able to attend the same morning or evening prayers.

As I went to a day school that was not a church school the only thing we had was morning assembley with a couple of hymns and an occasional prayer.

I'm assuming CS prayers were a bit more "full on"? What prayers would they have said & how long would they have lasted?
Author:  ammonite [ Fri Jan 29, 2010 8:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Maybe they did emphasise the diffeence between the two religions more in prayers as they didn't spilt up for religious education, so this was the time to put the individual religions 'spin' on the teachings?

I don't know about the different prayers but they may have used different prayer books?
Author:  cal562301 [ Fri Jan 29, 2010 8:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Our school was not a denominational one either. However, I remember that when I was at Uni in the 70s, whenever we had a combined service of all the Christian societies, the Catholic society had their own altar/communion. Not exactly the same, but I wonder whether there's a connection somewhere.

I think they would definitely have had different prayer books and possibly different hymn books, though I seem to recall reading somewhere that CS had its own hymn book built up over the years from a variety of sources and languages.

ETA They may even have used different translations of the Bible, as there is one which Catholics use.
Author:  fraujackson [ Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Before Vatican 2 Catholics were actually forbidden from attending non-Catholic services (it's political and goes back to the Reformation, IIRC); so you couldn't, even when you wanted to. I definitely remember CoE Joey going to Catholic services, (which would have been permitted) but can't remember an opposite case.

The RC Bible has about 7 extra books (mostly if not all OT but I can't remember without looking) that Luther took out when he translated it - the so-called Apocrypha - so probably at the CS there would have been different editions for the denominations. Before the 1960s the RC Mass would have been in Latin as well.

Cal, maybe the Catholic society had their own altar because it's normal to have a relic laid into the altar stone. They'd have to have their own communion because of the doctrine of transubstantiation (the bread and wine literally becomes the Body and Blood of Christ at the consecration), and if the other denominations didn't accept that doctrine the communion wouldn't be valid/certain for RCs. Technically the post-Reformation churches are in schism, as well, so RCs couldn't share in their communion.

Sorry - that all makes it sound as if I think I know it all. :oops: (Learned it in instruction when I converted, and it's stuck, somehow !)

My mum remembers the RC girls going out of assembly before the prayers (1950s-60s.) They were also allowed to wear a crucifix, which the CoE girls weren't. I've got no idea why this was - unless you were routinely given one when you were confirmed in those days, so it was regarded as not-jewellery...
Author:  Kathy_S [ Fri Jan 29, 2010 11:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Also, at the time the CS books were written, most of the Catholic girls would have been encouraged to use the Latin as well as (or sometimes instead of) the English versions of prayers and hymns -- e.g. Ave Maria for Hail Mary, and Pater Noster for Our Father. This would have been very handy in an international setting. At least that's what we were always taught: that we could go anywhere in the world and be understood. (Latin accents turn out to vary remarkably, though!) I have no idea whether C of E would have used the Latin as well.

I'm afraid it's also true that large parts of the Catholic church were still vehemently against Catholics attending other services. This is one reason the relative ecumenism of the CS seemed so amazing, and more in keeping with what I'd learned in the family than what I met elsewhere. Our nuns were less liberal, and certainly forbade Protestant Bibles, though less on the basis of their translations than because they either left out some of our books entirely or dubbed them "Apocrypha," numbered the psalms differently, and so forth. Some books also had different names. One of the more confusing involved the Protestant versions labeling what we had as 1-4 Kings as 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings. I wonder how the CS handled the dual Bible problem in general scripture classes. (They must have had these, given "Daniel bit the lions" and so forth. Daniel certainly differed between Bibles, since ours had the Susannah story while the Protestant one didn't.)
Author:  Alison H [ Sat Jan 30, 2010 12:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
It always sounded rather OTT to me that they separated for prayers. However, "prayers" in assembly at our school (where there were many different religions, and only about 50% of pupils belonged to any branch of Christianity) were brief and very "neutral", whereas I'd assume that at the CS they were much longer.

It never actually says so anywhere, but the idea of sending children to a school run by a Protestant in such a deeply Catholic society as rural Tyrol in the 1920s/1930s may well have raised some questions, so maybe Madge introduced the separate prayers idea - we see Madge taking prayers for Protestants and Mlle Lepattre for the Catholics from very early on - to reassure parents that there weren't going to be issues in that area.

All that marching off to different rooms and then one group marching back in for the announcements and having to scatter throughout the hall to sit with their own forms so that each form could march off together afterwards must've wasted a lot of time, though :roll: .
Author:  ammonite [ Sat Jan 30, 2010 12:01 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Quote:
My mum remembers the RC girls going out of assembly before the prayers (1950s-60s.) They were also allowed to wear a crucifix, which the CoE girls weren't. I've got no idea why this was - unless you were routinely given one when you were confirmed in those days, so it was regarded as not-jewellery...


That was the one piece of jewellery that we were allowed at school in the 90s/00s.

Quote:
I wonder how the CS handled the dual Bible problem in general scripture classes. (They must have had these, given "Daniel bit the lions" and so forth. Daniel certainly differed between Bibles, since ours had the Susannah story while the Protestant one didn't.)


Maybe Miss Annersley encouraged them to discuss the differences - or probably EBD never thought about the Bible differences despite her conversion or maybe one set just had to put up with it, or another maybe -maybe they alternated Bibles with the years!
Author:  Kathy_S [ Sat Jan 30, 2010 12:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Or maybe they used books of "Bible stories" instead of actual Bibles? Do we see references to using a Bible in class? They were told at one point to open their New Testaments, which wouldn't have had discrepancies beyond what you'd expect from translation differences -- which they'd have had anyhow, with the three languages.
Author:  ChubbyMonkey [ Sat Jan 30, 2010 11:32 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
I like the idea of there being two or more denominations in the school but still being able to work together. Of course, it would have to be broad-minded parents who sent their children there for the most part, and I can't imagine such a school running as well in RL during that time, but at the same time it's nice to think that they got on so well. Also because it isn't made a huge deal of - right down to EBD not always being sure which mistresses she has to use for taking prayers :roll: - I don't think that as a child I ever saw it as a problem in any way. Interesting discussion, though!
Author:  fraujackson [ Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Alison H wrote:
It never actually says so anywhere, but the idea of sending children to a school run by a Protestant in such a deeply Catholic society as rural Tyrol in the 1920s/1930s may well have raised some questions, so maybe Madge introduced the separate prayers idea - we see Madge taking prayers for Protestants and Mlle Lepattre for the Catholics from very early on - to reassure parents that there weren't going to be issues in that area.


I don't know so much about the situation in Austria (except that it's generally 'more Catholic'), but in Germany there's not such a big psychological divide between RC and Protestant as there is in the UK, I think because the relative populations of each denomination are nearly equal, and there's never been any long-term serious discrimination in the history. Part of the 'problem' of perceived difference in the UK spreads from its having been illegal to be Catholic for so long after the English Reformation that anything even faintly non-Protestant looking got treated with suspicion. So maybe the non-English parents didn't mind as much as the English ones might. I remember Joey being allowed to go to Mass because Madge is 'broadminded in that area' (or some such phrase), rather than, say, Frieda being allowed to go to an English school because her parents are progressive. And it was part of the attraction for the Continental parents to send their daughters to a school 'run on English lines.'

Just a thought. I'm enjoying this thread.
Author:  MJKB [ Sun Jan 31, 2010 1:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
The ecuminism of the CS was amazing for its time. My memory of the post Vatican 60's in Ireland was of total condemation of parents who would risk their child's faith by sending them to a 'non Catholic' school. The Archbishop of Dublin at that time, John Charles McQuaid, threatened to excommunicate parents who sent their children to interdenominational or Protestant schools. I don't think people are aware now of the deep divisions there were between the major Christian sects.
Author:  Pado [ Sun Jan 31, 2010 3:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
I was raised Catholic in the US and vividly remember resisting going along to pick up my friend from choir practice in the Lutheran church next to our school because I was certain that stepping foot into a Protestant church would condemn me to eternal damnation.

I'm over that now. :oops:
Author:  Llywela [ Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Even today, a lot of Catholics think twice before letting their children attend Protestant services, even if they are non-practicing Catholics - I teach at a Sunday School, and I can think of quite a few Catholic families nearby who will let their kids come to our after-school club but not to Sunday School.

Mind, I think a lot of it is to do with wanting to get the kids into Catholic schools and not wanting to do anything to jeopardise the place, but still. The division between the two denominations is there. So translate that back in time and the ecumenism of the CS really is amazing.

I hadn't really thought about it that way before - I went to a really rough inner city comp that incorporated about 50 different languages and numerous religions, all of which had to be accommodated for assembly, so when reading the CS books as a teen I took separate prayers for different denominations very much for granted.
Author:  MJKB [ Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Pado wrote:
so when reading the CS books as a teen I took separate prayers for different denominations very much for granted.

Same here. It would have been unthinkable in the Irish Catholic society that I grew up for the different demoninations to share prayers. I remember as a small girl bringing a book up to the teacher that had the Lord's Prayer in full, ie the "For thine is the Kingdom..... " That only came into the Mass around the middle '70's. I think I thought the book I read it from would spontaneously combust!
Author:  Kathy_S [ Sun Jan 31, 2010 10:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
MJKB wrote:
I remember as a small girl bringing a book up to the teacher that had the Lord's Prayer in full, ie the "For thine is the Kingdom..... " That only came into the Mass around the middle '70's. I think I thought the book I read it from would spontaneously combust!

I haven't had anyone tell me recently that I'll go to hell if I add those words (This is an improvement.), but have had priests ban any musical arrangements of the "Our Father" that include it. Yes, the words have made it into the Mass, but only as a response to the "Deliver Us O Lord." It is still unclear to me why adding to the "Our Father" is so dire, while it's fine for the "Hail Mary" to follow biblical quotes with an added prayer. Catholic-Protestant politics, I presume....
Author:  linda [ Sun Jan 31, 2010 10:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
My Catholic mother-in-law decided that she needed to ask her Parish priest if it was alright for her to attend our daughter's Christening in the Methodist Church in 1986. (I'm a Methodist and my SLOC is Catholic, but hasn't attended regularly since he left school) She wasn't sure if she would be allowed to come. Fortunately the priest told her it was OK.
Author:  MJKB [ Sun Jan 31, 2010 11:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
My sister was refused permission to go to a Protestant wedding in the late '60s. The priest who refused her permission was a convert. It seems extraordinary nowadays that even a very devout person would think it necessary to ask.
Author:  Tor [ Mon Feb 01, 2010 1:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
I remember going to my first C of E (and only, outside of weddings) service as a Venture Scout, and being quite struck by things like the difference in the 'Our Father', probably because so much of the Catholic mass was familiar and second nature, that the slight shift in cadence really stood out. But I was most shocked by the mention of the Queen. I'm not sure if that was a church parade thing, or standard...? Anyway, I felt vindicated after having had to put up with a truly awful bunch of of girls in my RE lessons (same church as the RE teacher) going on about Catholic idolatry and the Pope etc. Seemed to me like praying for the Queen was no different than praying for the Pope (I was a bit hazy on things like Papal authority... I didn't let that bother me :D ).

Anyway, it started a chain of thought in motion regarding religion in general that ended up with me being an aetheistically-inclined agnostic within a couple of years of that experience, so perhaps separate prayers serves many purposes :wink:

Back on topic, sort of, but I am sure that it being pre-Vatican II would have made prayers very different as others had said. But I wonder how this worked on occasions when the school came together for prayerful occasions: was all prayer silent, for example, on those occasions in the the cellar during the air-raid, or when pupils are at deaths door? What prayer would have been common to all girls? It would be very un-unified, and lacking in the some of the comfort that shared prayer gives, if voices were not in unison, I'd say....???
Author:  RubyGates [ Mon Feb 01, 2010 3:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
This is a fascinating debate for me as my father was evangelical and my mother was baptist. My mum wasn't too bad but after she died my dad really clung to his religion and became very narrow minded. As far as he was concerned the evangelical church was the right one and anyone who believed anything else was a hell-bound heretic.
I remember being really confused by one of the Marlow books and I think it might have been Patrick's mother commenting on the fish on fridays rule. Presumably it had been rescinded and she was glad because it made dinner parties so much easier. As we didn't have any rules like that in the evangelical church I didn't have a clue what she was talking about.
When I go to church now I prefer the High C of E church that's just down the road from my house, not least because I know when the service will end. Evangelical services can drag on for ages with singing and clapping and praise-the-lord-ing :roll:
Author:  fraujackson [ Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Tor wrote:
But I was most shocked by the mention of the Queen. I'm not sure if that was a church parade thing, or standard...? Anyway, I felt vindicated after having had to put up with a truly awful bunch of of girls in my RE lessons (same church as the RE teacher) going on about Catholic idolatry and the Pope etc. Seemed to me like praying for the Queen was no different than praying for the Pope (I was a bit hazy on things like Papal authority... I didn't let that bother me :D ).


I think it's still in the Compline service: 'Oh Lord, save the Queen/And bless thine inheritance.' I've always found it offensively egocentric/xenophobic, if that makes sense. (I also have a problem with 'God Bless America', as if it needs it more than anybody else :roll: )

But I agree: I'm always being told I worship the Pope, amongst other things !


Quote:
Back on topic, sort of, but I am sure that it being pre-Vatican II would have made prayers very different as others had said. But I wonder how this worked on occasions when the school came together for prayerful occasions: was all prayer silent, for example, on those occasions in the the cellar during the air-raid, or when pupils are at deaths door? What prayer would have been common to all girls? It would be very un-unified, and lacking in the some of the comfort that shared prayer gives, if voices were not in unison, I'd say....???


I'm imagining them all knowing the Our Father in English because it's in the Bible, so the RC's would have it in translation as well as Latin for Mass. I know I've heard priests introduce it as 'the prayer common to all Christians', so given EBD's idea of 'Many roads, one God', I can see Bill and the Abbess setting the example and leading the girls in it together whenever necessary. They'd all know the Magnificat as well, I should think, and 'Lord, lettest now thy servant depart in peace...'

Somebody's said this on another thread - but EBD was years ahead of her time both in her approach to this, and in writing about it in a very 'active', realistic way. I mean that in she's putting her beliefs (or theory or whatever) into a setting people can relate to (but which might be very different to their own experience), rather than just setting down the theoretical fitness of it, with non-concrete recommendations ('Be nice to the other side, we're all the same really', sort of thing) which often would not have fitted with real-life experience or the possibilities open to people.

It's now set me thinking how much CS had to do with my own coversion to Catholicism. They were the first Catholics i 'met', so to speak...

Completely OT - why/when did they start calling Hilda The Abbess ? Was she having a joke with EJO ??
Author:  Mel [ Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
I remember in one of the books Miss A's prayers consisting of a hymn. a collect or two, a prayer, probably the Lord's prayer and Gentle Jesus for the little ones. Girls lining up for RC prayers take out their rosaries so I would guess a decade of the Rosary and a hymn and possibly a few words about a relevant feast day. No-one should object to either, but the authorities were probably covering themselves in order to assure parents.
Author:  MJKB [ Mon Feb 01, 2010 7:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
How lucky if they got off with just one decade of the rosary! We had the five decades every night before supper. We also had Mass every morning. On the first of May every year we said the whole 15decades, a veritable marathon of prayers.
It was EBD's true ecuminism that drew me into the books. Even after she converted she kept her respect and admiration for the Anglican Church. What I found interesting and admirable too is that each sect has its own heroines. Madge remains Protestant as do the rest of the Russell/Bettany crowd, and of course Joey converts and becomes the main Catholic character. Mary-Lou is Protestant and she is slated to become the next Joey. A pity she stopped at the Christian divisions, and the main sects too. It would have been interesting to have had a major Jewish character such as Miranda in KIngscote.
Author:  Alison H [ Mon Feb 01, 2010 11:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
I personally assume that the Abbess joke's something to do with Hilda being the head of a female community and having the same name as Abbess Hilda of Whitby ... but, even assuming that the girls would all have known Miss A's first name, I wouldn't have thought that Abbess Hilda was all that well-known as a historical figure. Maybe I'm missing something really obvious :oops: .
Author:  violawood [ Tue Feb 02, 2010 12:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
I was reading the other day that St Hilda was popular at the time because of the improvements in education for girls and women and she was often instanced as an educated woman. Nicknames just stick though, I think - and then you realise years afterwards - 'Oh, so that's why !' (well - I know I do :D ) I also saw a reference that 'South Shields' might be a corruption of 'Saint Hilda' so EBD probably knew that.

Thanks for the info, MKJB, I was thinking a while ago that the Catholic CS girls probably thought prayers there were quite minimal compared to Catholic schools of the time.
Author:  cestina [ Tue Feb 02, 2010 12:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
To me EBD's tolerance in religious matters has always been filed away in my head along with her incredible stance on the difference between Germans and Nazis, which was quite extraordinary given the period in which she was writing.

Both attitudes were way ahead of their time. I should love to have known her.

The Jewish girls at our school in the fifties were expected to attend prayers but not asked to participate in any way. But they certainly did not wait outside and file in at notice time. RCs and Protestants all prayed together during the week though attended different churches on Sundays.
Author:  Catrin [ Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
EBD's own church was St Hilda's, I believe (I'm a proud member of the occasional choir there) so she would perhaps have been very aware of St Hilda.

Also they really go for the local saints in the North East - you can't move ten feet without falling over something to do with Bede, Cuthbert and the rest of the gang. Some poor souls are still being named after them . . . So anyway perhaps EBD assumed St Hilda was better known than she actually was.
Author:  JackieP [ Tue Feb 02, 2010 2:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
fraujackson wrote:
Tor wrote:
But I was most shocked by the mention of the Queen. I'm not sure if that was a church parade thing, or standard...? Anyway, I felt vindicated after having had to put up with a truly awful bunch of of girls in my RE lessons (same church as the RE teacher) going on about Catholic idolatry and the Pope etc. Seemed to me like praying for the Queen was no different than praying for the Pope (I was a bit hazy on things like Papal authority... I didn't let that bother me :D ).


I think it's still in the Compline service: 'Oh Lord, save the Queen/And bless thine inheritance.' I've always found it offensively egocentric/xenophobic, if that makes sense. (I also have a problem with 'God Bless America', as if it needs it more than anybody else :roll: )


It's in the traditional Evening Prayer Service from the Book of Common Prayer (1662) - not sure about Compline as I've never done that service. - I think that sentiment is partly to do with the time the BCP was originally written though - and the Queen is the head of the Anglican Communion...

In a random aside, I go to a High CofE church - but on quite a few occasions we pray not only for the Queen, but also the Archbishops (York and Canterbury), the Pope, the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Heads of the Free churches...

JackieP
Author:  Artemis [ Tue Feb 02, 2010 2:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Quote:
Completely OT - why/when did they start calling Hilda The Abbess ? Was she having a joke with EJO ??


I've always wondered if EBD knew that the 'Abbess' was also the term for the mistress of a brothel, or 'Nunnery'. When Hamlet says to Ophelia 'Go, get thee to a nunnery' he is certainly not recommending that she takes the veil, but implying that she's a whore like his own mother who connived at her husband's death . . .

Perhaps I just have a dirty mind . . .

And going back to the Catholic thing, a lot of Anglican and Evangelical Protestants had a real fear of the deceitful wiles of the Catholic church. It comes up in Charlotte Yonge, (a high Anglican) as well as in the tract novels like 'Maria Monk' (Evangelical). There must have been parents that the heads had to assure that their children were not to be lured into convents and preyed upon by avaricious priest seeking their wealth and virginity, as well as their eternal damnation. The parents of children in the school in the early years would have been brought up with that type of literature kicking around, with its emphasis that the Roman Church could not only not offer salvation even when behaving well, but was also more likely to corrupt than care for.
Author:  Mel [ Tue Feb 02, 2010 3:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
I suspect, like trilingualism, that the easy acceptance of other faiths is EBD's very idealistic Chalet School. I'm sure that lots of individuals would think as she did, whatever their denomination, but it would be impossible to put into practice.
Author:  fraujackson [ Tue Feb 02, 2010 7:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Alison H wrote:
I personally assume that the Abbess joke's something to do with Hilda being the head of a female community and having the same name as Abbess Hilda of Whitby ... but, even assuming that the girls would all have known Miss A's first name, I wouldn't have thought that Abbess Hilda was all that well-known as a historical figure. Maybe I'm missing something really obvious :oops: .


No, *I* was... thanks for this, Alison ! :D
Author:  MJKB [ Tue Feb 02, 2010 9:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
JackieP wrote:
In a random aside, I go to a High CofE church - but on quite a few occasions we pray not only for the Queen, but also the Archbishops (York and Canterbury), the Pope, the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Heads of the Free churches...


That's really interesting. I'm quite fascinated by the gradations, if Ican call them that, of the Anglican tradition. I understand that High Church liturgy is mcuh more beautifully written than the present vernacular Mass, and that there is a profound devotion to Our Lady. However, I didn't know that the Pope would be prayed for since to my understanding, that is what divides the two traditions. May I ask if the High Church believes in transubstantiation?
Author:  Tor [ Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:30 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
well I know there is a definite subset of high, high Anglican that is very close to Catholicism (look at the whole issues over gay bishops, and the Catholic Church offering to open up its doors to those Anglican priests etc who want to shift allegiances). I don't know about transubstantiation, but that would be such a big thing that I can only see that there must be some basis for it in high Anglicanism, else the whole issue about the Catholic church welcoming Anglican priests would be a bit odd....
Author:  JackieP [ Wed Feb 03, 2010 1:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
MJKB wrote:
JackieP wrote:
In a random aside, I go to a High CofE church - but on quite a few occasions we pray not only for the Queen, but also the Archbishops (York and Canterbury), the Pope, the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Heads of the Free churches...


That's really interesting. I'm quite fascinated by the gradations, if Ican call them that, of the Anglican tradition. I understand that High Church liturgy is mcuh more beautifully written than the present vernacular Mass, and that there is a profound devotion to Our Lady. However, I didn't know that the Pope would be prayed for since to my understanding, that is what divides the two traditions. May I ask if the High Church believes in transubstantiation?


It tends not talked about, mainly due to the fact that the non-belief in Transubstantiation is one of the 37 Articles of the Anglican Faith - and Priests have to swear an oath essentially agreeing to abide by these at their ordinations (first as Deacons, then as Priests).

There is certainly, in our church at least, a lot of reverence and adoration of the Sacrament - we tend to marry our Evening Prayer with Benediction on quite a few occasions in the year (most recently on Sunday)

I think the praying for the Heads of other churches may be more to do with Ecumenicism. As for the current Common Worship Mass - It is very similar to the Catholic Rite - I attended a Requiem Mass in a Catholic Church recently and the entire choir (all Anglicans) managed perfectly well without service sheets (we even remembered to pause in the Lords Prayer!)

JackieP
Author:  fraujackson [ Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Tor wrote:
well I know there is a definite subset of high, high Anglican that is very close to Catholicism (look at the whole issues over gay bishops, and the Catholic Church offering to open up its doors to those Anglican priests etc who want to shift allegiances). I don't know about transubstantiation, but that would be such a big thing that I can only see that there must be some basis for it in high Anglicanism, else the whole issue about the Catholic church welcoming Anglican priests would be a bit odd....


The 'technical' bit of the latest offer has its grounding in the belief in transubstantiation. I know the Anglo-Catholics ['English-branch-of-the-Catholic-Church', but how that differs from High Anglicanism I don't know at all] do accept it, and the Pope's thinking (as far as I follow wat he's saying) has its basis in the aim of uniting everyone of the same beliefs. The same thing happened in the 1990s with the ordination of women: those clergy who accepted the priesthood as apostolic succession (only open to men, therefore) could be received as Catholics with special dispensation - laity can just do it any time, but people did make that shift following that event. It's more-or-less the same thing now, I think, but the Pope's cards are more openly on the table than before.

JackieP, I would have guessed that if there's adoration, then the clergy accept transubstantiation (otherwise they're just worshipping bread), but I don't know. Am a bit fuzzy about High Anglicanism... :shock:
Author:  MJKB [ Wed Feb 03, 2010 9:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
JackieP wrote:
It tends not talked about, mainly due to the fact that the non-belief in Transubstantiation is one of the 37 Articles of the Anglican Faith - and Priests have to swear an oath essentially agreeing to abide by these at their ordinations (first as Deacons, then as Priests).

Does the relevant Article have a position of Consubstantiation? This a fascinting discussion. I'm completely fuzzy too on the difference between the High Anglican Church and the Anglo Catholics. I wonder does Rome accept the latter as a Church is schism like the Orthodox?
Author:  cal562301 [ Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
MJKB wrote:
JackieP wrote:
It tends not talked about, mainly due to the fact that the non-belief in Transubstantiation is one of the 37 Articles of the Anglican Faith - and Priests have to swear an oath essentially agreeing to abide by these at their ordinations (first as Deacons, then as Priests).

Does the relevant Article have a position of Consubstantiation? This a fascinting discussion. I'm completely fuzzy too on the difference between the High Anglican Church and the Anglo Catholics. I wonder does Rome accept the latter as a Church is schism like the Orthodox?


I had always understood that Anglo-Catholics and very High Anglicans were the same. But I may be wrong.

My mum, who knew far more about these things than I do, used to say that you could tell how 'high church' a vicar was by which side of the altar he stood. But to be honest, I have no idea what she meant by that. Does anyone else?

I have to admit that I don't really understand how Anglicans can convert to Catholicism, since one of the big things that divides the two churches, apart from transubstantiation, is the authority of the Pope, which was the real reason behind the Reformation - not Henry VIII wanting a divorce,whatever the British history books may tell you.

The basis of Protestantism in general terms, being that there is only one mediator between God and man - Jesus.

Oops, I better stop there, as I'm off into theology.

I also understood that protestants in general did not believe in transubstantiation, which reinforces my puzzlement at how an Anglican can become a Catholic, when their beliefs are so different.

Edited once to correct typo
Author:  Alison H [ Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
I don't do organised religion so may be way off the mark here but, just casting my brain back to doing the Reformation at A-level, didn't Elizabeth I want the wording of the article on transubstantiation and consubstantiation (I always had trouble spelling those words when i was in the VIth form!) to be ambiguous so that it would be OK for as many people as possible, the idea being to try to create a "broad church" and minimise religious disagreement? Is it possible that the wording still allows for belief in either?

I'm a historian not a theologian so may well have got that totally wrong ... :oops: .
Author:  MJKB [ Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
cal562301 wrote:
I have to admit that I don't really understand how Anglicans can convert to Catholicism, since one of the big things that divides the two churches, apart from transubstantiation, is the authority of the Pope, which was the real reason behind the Reformation - not Henry VIII wanting a divorce,whatever the British history books may tell you.


Are you saying that Henry would have broken with Rome whether or not Anne Boleyn had come on the scene? I'm no expert on British history, tho' I find it far more interesting than my own country's history, but I always understood that the Reformation would have claimed England eventually but not during Henry's time. I think England's uneasy relationship with Rome before the Reformation was similar to that of Gallicansim in that most of the English Kings had tried to limit the authorty of Rome at home.
Author:  Alison H [ Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
The relationship between the English monarchy and Rome was certainly uneasy at various points over the years - Henry I had a lot of "issues" over who should appoint bishops, King John was excommunicated and England placed under an interdict c. 1208, and Henry VII raised a few eyebrows by doing away with the right to claim sanctuary in a church - and there was also certainly support in Henry VIII's England for the sort of administrative and theological reforms that Luther was suggesting.

Anne Boleyn herself, for one, seems to've been quite keen on reform from a genuine religious viewpoint. Henry doesn't - some of the reforms Cranmer and Cromwell got through were reversed towards the end of Henry's reign, and the religious situation at the time of Henry's death is often referred to as "Henrician Catholicism" - so it does seem likely that if Henry hadn't wanted an annulment (or, more to the point, hadn't wanted an annulment at a time when the Pope couldn't afford to upset Catherine of Aragon's family) then the English Reformation wouldn't have happened so soon. Having said which, even if Henry hadn't wanted to marry Anne Boleyn, a megalomaniac like him might well have decided he liked the idea of taking control of the church in England, not to mention its money, once he saw what was happening in some of the German states and elsewhere.

Personally, I'd definitely still say that it'd've happened eventually, but it was heavily influenced by the personalities of the monarchs and if Henry's "marital career" had gone differently then the line of succession would have been different, so who knows?

Sorry for the "what if" history essay :oops: - am procrastinating from going to bed ...
Author:  ammonite [ Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Well Henry VIII was appointed 'Defender of the Faith' by the Pope about 15 years before the breakup with the church. Funnily enough the title is still used by the monarchy, I don't know what faith Elizabeth II is defending though - Catholicism from herself?

I always got the impression form my studies of the period for A-level that Henry didn't want to break from the Catholic Church but it happened almost by accident - that one thing lead to another etc. I think more of the damage was done by Edwards reforms despite Mary I changing them back and then Elizabeth sought to put an end to the infighting by trying to come up with a compromise through the Act of Supremacy, which is why England never went as far into Protestantism as Luther and Zwingli were advocating.

Procrastination before bed is good!
Author:  Abi [ Thu Feb 04, 2010 12:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Yes, I've always thought of England's Reformation as taking place rather prematurely. I do think that Henry was pretty much Catholic in his own views. Of course, it didn't help that the Tudors didn't seem to be able to make up their minds between themselves. But perhaps it was a good thing in the long run that it happened as it did - at least we didn't suffer some of the atrocities that happened for example in Calvin's Geneva.
Author:  ChubbyMonkey [ Thu Feb 04, 2010 1:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
As usual I've absorbed knowledge through osmosis, so I can't say this for definite, but I remember either reading or being told that Henry died Catholic, and Edward was the first Protestant king. I do know, having visited it over the summer, that Elizabeth was buried on top of Mary as a final insult to Catholicism and her sister's beliefs!

Part of our Law course is looking at religious differences with regards to the monarchy; we're doing Constitutional Law, which involves studying the Queen in Parliament, residual powers etc (all very fascinating for me, probably not for the rest of you). There was an interesting point in the last lecture about what could happen if a Catholic monarch came to power - technically illegal through the Act of Settlement, but I suppose that it could happen! The Monarch has the power of appointments to the Church of England, and is obviously head of it, so a Catholic monarch could potentially wreak havoc...

Ok, sorry, I've waffled enough now :oops:
Author:  Alison H [ Thu Feb 04, 2010 1:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
ChubbyMonkey wrote:
There was an interesting point in the last lecture about what could happen if a Catholic monarch came to power - technically illegal through the Act of Settlement, but I suppose that it could happen! The Monarch has the power of appointments to the Church of England, and is obviously head of it, so a Catholic monarch could potentially wreak havoc...

Ok, sorry, I've waffled enough now :oops:


It can't happen. Catholics and the spouses of Catholics are barred from the line of succession - ridiculous I know, but that's the way it is. (I did think the issue might finally come to a head when Peter Phillips married Autumn Kelly, who was a Catholic - no-one was very bothered when the Earl of St Andrews or even Prince Michael got booted out of the line of succession, but with the Queen's grandson it might have been different - but she decided to convert so the situation never arose.) So a Catholic cannot become monarch. What's not so clear is what would happen if a Protestant monarch succeeded to the throne, swore the coronation oath to defend the Church of England, and then converted to Catholicism: Charles II converted on his deathbed, but a) that was before the Act of Settlement was passed and b) seeing as he was on his deathbed it didn't really make a lot of difference anyway!
Author:  JackieP [ Thu Feb 04, 2010 1:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
MJKB wrote:
JackieP wrote:
It tends not talked about, mainly due to the fact that the non-belief in Transubstantiation is one of the 37 Articles of the Anglican Faith - and Priests have to swear an oath essentially agreeing to abide by these at their ordinations (first as Deacons, then as Priests).

Does the relevant Article have a position of Consubstantiation? This a fascinting discussion. I'm completely fuzzy too on the difference between the High Anglican Church and the Anglo Catholics. I wonder does Rome accept the latter as a Church is schism like the Orthodox?


It's a bit archaic, so I'm not entirely sure.

Quote:
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves, one to another, but rather it is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.


I too have always considered High Anglican and Anglo-Catholic to be almost the same, and that does appear to be the accepted meaning (wiki article here).

JackieP
Author:  fraujackson [ Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
JackieP wrote:
Does the relevant Article have a position of Consubstantiation? This a fascinting discussion. I'm completely fuzzy too on the difference between the High Anglican Church and the Anglo Catholics. I wonder does Rome accept the latter as a Church is schism like the Orthodox?


I thought consubstantiation was something to do with the Trinity: isn't Christ 'consubstial with the Father' in the Nicene Creed ?


Quote:
My mum, who knew far more about these things than I do, used to say that you could tell how 'high church' a vicar was by which side of the altar he stood. But to be honest, I have no idea what she meant by that. Does anyone else?


Tridentine/'Old Rite' priests stood facing east with their back to the people. New rite you face west and the people. Maybe it's that.

Quote:
I also understood that protestants in general did not believe in transubstantiation, which reinforces my puzzlement at how an Anglican can become a Catholic, when their beliefs are so different.


For me, it was a case of finding my beliefs *weren't* Anglican, and not being able to accept the Anglican position(s) as tenable. So for honesty's sake I needed to convert because I didn't believe like an Anglican.

But I'm probably getting onto contentious ground so will shut up before I upset anyone. :oops: If anyone wants me to carry on talking about it, I will do, though !

Re: Orthodox. I don't think the Orthodox and RCs are in schism. If you're lost in a country without a church of 'your' branch, you can with validity attend the Mass of the other. [I think the last Pope described it as 'two lungs of the same mystical body', or something like that...]
Author:  MaryR [ Thu Feb 04, 2010 9:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Consubstantiation holds that during the sacrament of the Eucharist the substance (a technical philosophical term which refers to the fundamental reality of a thing) of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which persists.

Whereas transubstantiation holds that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ totally and completely.
Author:  MJKB [ Fri Feb 05, 2010 1:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
MaryR wrote:
Whereas transubstantiation holds that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ totally and completely.
Consubstantiation holds that during the sacrament of the Eucharist the substance (a technical philosophical term which refers to the fundamental reality of a thing) of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which persists.

Whereas transubstantiation holds that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ totally and completely.

The substance is changed utterly, only the appearance of bread and wine remain.
There are several beliefs within Protestant tradition regarding the Eucharist ranging from the Catholic doctrine on Transubstantiation to the figurative interpretation of the bread and wine, but I'm still unsure as to whether the High Church/Anglo Catholic still holds to the view of consubstantiation.
Re: Orthodox and Rome. Even though each may attend the Mass of the other and both accept the doctrine of Transubstantiation, I think they are still in schism over the authority of the pope. But what I reallywant to know is, if some Anglo Catholics accept the doctrine of Transubstantiation and most of the other tenets of Catholic faith apart,that is, from the infallibility of the pope, can they be said to be in schism from Rome? The difference as I see it is that Rome accepts that the Orthodox Church is directly descendent from Christ and has the power to transform the bread and wine into the Body and Blood, but it doesn't believe that the Anglican Church has this power. Sounds horribly garbled but I've had an horrendously busy day!
fraujackson wrote:
But I'm probably getting onto contentious ground so will shut up before I upset anyone. :oops: If anyone wants me to carry on talking about it, I will do, though !

I hope you do. I'm extremely interested in what you're saying
Author:  MJKB [ Fri Feb 05, 2010 1:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
MJKB wrote:
There are several beliefs within Protestant tradition regarding the Eucharist ranging from the Catholic doctrine on Transubstantiation to the figurative interpretation of the bread and wine,
Sorry. I see my mistake. I think I mean Consubstantiation but I'm still not sure what the Anglo-Catholic view is.
Author:  Alison H [ Fri Feb 05, 2010 9:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
I'm coming at this purely from a historian's viewpoint so I may be wrong on the theology, but I understand that the main reason for the Schism of 1054 was the "filioque" ("and son") clause which someone added on to the Nicene Creed ... the Orthodox view on the nature of the Trinity is different from the Catholic one. However, the Ukrainian and Belarusian branches of the Eastern Catholic church pretty much follow Orthodox doctrine and practice but (on the insistence of the mainly Roman Catholic Poles and Lithuanians in the 16th century) are under the authority of the Pope, and no-one seems to have an issue with that.

To get back to the CS, is Eustacia the only girl who ever has a problem with the ecumenical ideas of the CS? She is quite shocked, upset and offended when Jo asks her if she'd like to go to a Catholic service even though she is a Protestant. By the standards of the times, that - sadly - is a fairly realistic reaction. & Margia drawing in the prayer book, also in Eustacia, seems far more realistic to me than, for example, a load of teenage girls wanting all the money raised for the school's 21st anniversary spent on chapels instead of on a swimming pool or something like that, but that's beside the point! No-one else, even Thekla who might be expected to do so given that religion was traditionally an "issue" between Prussia and Austria, says anything about it. EBD probably, very sensibly, decided that showing a lot of arguments about religion would be a Very Bad Idea as some people get offended about religion so easily - doesn't Jo Scott say that the girls aren't meant to discuss it, when Joan Baker makes some remark about nuns? - but she does make an issue of it with Eustacia. Having said which, it's very early on in the series and Eustacia is really the first person who is Not A Proper CS Girl And Must Be Reformed, with the possible exception of Juliet.
Author:  Llywela [ Fri Feb 05, 2010 10:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
This has been a fascinating discussion, but - and not to go off-topic or anything - but ever since you all started talking about transubstantiation, I've had that song from Bedknobs and Broomsticks rattling around in my head. Transubstantiary locomotion... :lol:
Author:  Catherine [ Fri Feb 05, 2010 12:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
This is OT but I'm always surprised that Mollie Bettany isn't Catholic ...
Author:  MJKB [ Sat Feb 06, 2010 4:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Catherine wrote:

Post subject: Re: Separating for prayers Reply with quote
This is OT but I'm always surprised that Mollie Bettany isn't Catholic ...

Why? Is it because she is Irish? Actually, for most Irish people, the fact that Mollie speaks with a broad brogue places her decidedly at variance with the upper middle class Protestants of the time. There would have been very little difference between the accent of the average British middle class then and the Irish ascendancy class of which Mollie was a member.
Author:  Jenefer [ Sun Feb 07, 2010 5:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Not all Irish people are Catholic and the number of Protestants would have been higher then than now.
I wonder how many Irish people EBD knew. It is unlikely that Mollie would have spoken with a brogue. Her accent would depend on how much time she spent in Ireland or India. We do not know if she went to school in Ireland or England. My guess is BBC type with Irish overtones - her pronounciation of certain words eg bath, castle and film would give her origins away.
According to the 1911 census, there were 35 Averys living in Ireland. They are moslty Protestant and are working class or lower middle. The majority live in the 9 Ulster counties. I must get out more....
Author:  Alison H [ Sun Feb 07, 2010 7:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
The first 3 important Irish characters in the CS books are:
1. Mollie - dad works for the British imperial authorities in India (presumably had been doing so since before the establishment of the Irish Free State and just stayed in his job).
2. Deira - is later presented at court in London.
3. Donal - is a student in England and intends to read for the Bar in London.

I'm not sure what that says :? .

No 4. is Biddy, who comes from a totally different background to the other 3.

On a slightly different tack, EBD in the early books has an infuriating habit of assuming that all British girls are Protestant - we get comments such as "Mademoiselle took the Catholics and Madge the British girls ..." - and throughout the books uses "Church of England" as a synonym for "Protestant" (Richenda and various others are asked if they're "C of E or RC" as if they couldn't possibly be any other denomination). It really annoys me!

Mollie's maiden name changes to Kennedy later on, if that makes any difference :? .
Author:  trig [ Mon Feb 08, 2010 6:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Alison H wrote:

Quote:
On a slightly different tack, EBD in the early books has an infuriating habit of assuming that all British girls are Protestant - we get comments such as "Mademoiselle took the Catholics and Madge the British girls ..." - and throughout the books uses "Church of England" as a synonym for "Protestant" (Richenda and various others are asked if they're "C of E or RC" as if they couldn't possibly be any other denomination). It really annoys me!


Totally agree. But isn't Richenda a Quaker? I seem to remember this, so EBD was aware of other sects. As she made such a big deal of having seperate prayers for RC and protestant you'd think she would realise that some sects (notably quakers) have services (or not) which are as different, if not more so, from C of E as C of E is from RC.
Author:  ammonite [ Mon Feb 08, 2010 6:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
But then doesn't someone say to someone when they object about prayers that you have been sent here, so presumably your parents don't mind.

This isn't very precise, I have a feeling it happens in one of the swiss books? But doesn't it show that people who attended the chalet school or at least their parents were religiously broadminded.

But then my Mum when to a Catholic convent school when nominally she was C of E. I believe they seperated them for RE in the first couple of years but then they all came together for RE lessons after that. I wonder if the juniors had seperate lessons but by teh time they were middles, they were supposed to be learning about other religions and also to be broadminded enough to cope.
Author:  sealpuppy [ Mon Feb 08, 2010 7:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Alison H wrote:
On a slightly different tack, EBD in the early books has an infuriating habit of assuming that all British girls are Protestant - we get comments such as "Mademoiselle took the Catholics and Madge the British girls ..."


I think, though, that the schools at all the other OG books I've ever read, are Protestant. Wouldn't RC girls have gone to a convent school at that time, rather than an 'ordinary' boarding school? And the established church in this country was, and is, the Church of England, so that's why the assumption would have been made, I guess.

As for Mollie's Irish accent - EBD was hugely influenced by the books of Mrs George de Horne Vaizey, 'borrowing' a lot of plot ideas from them. Mrs G de HV's best selling book for girls was called Pixie O'Shaughnessy - about an Irish girl from a Protestant upper class family. Pixie has a brogue you could cut with a knife and is, I'm pretty certain, the prototype for all the wild Irish colleens in the subsequent literature for girls! Her sisters, however, speak with a 'delightful touch of an accent' so Pixie was meant to be an eccentric, I think. But she is the 'ancestor' of all the rest, including Biddy O'Ryan.

Back on topic: at my grammar school (50s/60s), the morning assembly was Protestant (couple of hymns, a prayer, a reading). After the reading, the RC girls would file in to the hall for the announcements, having had prayers of their own in a classroom.
Author:  Jennie [ Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
I'm afraid that all this just makes me very, very glad that I'm a freethinker. Historically, it's fascinating, but I really cannot see that a priest is needed to intervene in someone's relationship with God, neither do I see that anyone needs to bless communion wafers and wine. Communion just means sharing, and it is as much an act of communion for someone to pass around some bread and some wine, and to me, just as sacred an event, without any need for vestments and vessels.

It is, after all, just a continuation of the law of host and guest, or of friendship, that one shares bread, the most common sort of food, and wine, or any other drink. You don't quarrrel with a man who has eaten your bread and salt, and he doesn't quarrel with you.

And why do people have to go to confession? Sorry, if God is omnipotent, omniscient and all the other omni's, well, he can hear you be really sorry for your misdeeds, so there's no need to make a confession to another mortal, and therefore fallible person, and to accept a penance.

ETA: I'm sorry if that has offended anyone, but the forms of religion, and the money that it takes to keep it going, are offensive to me, when people need food and clothes to stay alive.

That said, I love church music, and I also love cathedrals, but they are beautiful sounds and beautiful buildings to me, and have no other significance. Perhaps I'm lacking, but I really cannot see what faith has to do with religion.
Author:  cal562301 [ Mon Feb 08, 2010 10:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Dear Jennie, I can't speak for anyone else, but you've certainly not offended me! :)

I have to say, too, that most Protestants would agree with your comments about confession, although most Catholics see it in a different light for reasons that as a non-Catholic, I won't even attempt to explain.

I just wanted to say that, for me, being a Christian, is all about relationships first with God and secondly with my fellow man (and woman). For me the church is not a building, but the people who meet together there to worship God and you don't need a massive Gothic cathedral to do that.

However, I do believe that it's important to meet with fellow believers for fellowship.

As for giving to the poor, I cannot speak for every church (or church-goer) in the land, but I live in a very affluent area of the couintry, which worries me sometimes, coming as I do from a Northern working-class background.

Most of the people in the church I attend have very good jobs, often in London, as we're in the commuter belt. We are far from being perfect, but I do know that a large part of the offerings taken in the services are used to support charities at home and abroad.

We also have a community worker and a youth worker who are very active in the local community supporting those who are not so fortunate - yes we have our share of social problems here too, including substance abusers.

Sorry if that sounds like self-justification, but I'm trying to explain another point of view.

One of the things I love about this board is the freedom to say what we think and on occasions to agree to disagree!
Author:  Abi [ Mon Feb 08, 2010 11:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Jennie wrote:
Perhaps I'm lacking, but I really cannot see what faith has to do with religion.


Honestly Jennie, I find it so sad, but I have to agree about this - I think that institustionalised religion has become more about forms and trappings than about relationships. I do think that often ceremony and form can be helpful and can help people to have a very special experience of God, but I also think it's very easy to end up worshipping the box rather than the contents.

Personally, I have found it very freeing that over the last few years the church group I meet with has changed totally - from being a group of about 150 we are now twelve! Yet, amazingly, this has enabled us to relate to our community in a way we never could have before. We now meet in people's homes, then go down to our local Costa Coffee and we've ended up having contact with so many people who would never have been seen dead in a church; for example a disabled man who knows loads of people but has often been lonely and depressed now comes to meet us every week and he says his relationship with his parents has really improved since meeting us. This sort of thing has enabled us to consider what really constitutes a church, and how many of our traditions are actually necessary.

The only trouble now is that I have got so used to having discussions instead of sermons that I now fall asleep and lose concentration in anything that even vaguely resembles a sermon, and get frustrated because I can't add my penn'orth! :oops:

Having said that, I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, because there are many things that are good about larger more traditional churches, and things that they have that a group the size of ours simply can't (like things that take a lot of money!).
Author:  Alison H [ Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Organised religion's never caused me anything but unhappiness, so I'm with you, Jennie! Although as a historian I find it all very interesting :D .

To get back to Richenda, EBD informed us that Prof Fry was a Quaker, and as we got Richenda thinking about "our" meetings presumably she (Richenda) was a Quaker too, but that Nanny was "staunch Church of England" and took Richenda to C of E services :roll: . Presumably Professor Fry was OK with that, but I find it rather weird. I can't imagine, for example, Rosa taking David and Sybil to the local Catholic service whilst Madge and Jem went to the Church of England one, or Beth Chester taking the triplets to a Protestant service whilst Joey and Jack went to a Catholic one :? . Or maybe it was just meant to show that Prof Fry was eccentric and didn't take much interest in his daughter.
Author:  fraujackson [ Tue Feb 09, 2010 8:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Jennie wrote:
I'm afraid that all this just makes me very, very glad that I'm a freethinker.


I'm splitting hairs here, but you can't really be *forced* to believe anything, like you can't be forced by somebody to love them. For me, it's more that, through your own free will and thought, you come to accept and believe something as true. The things that don't make sense you trust in, which is another part of your faith.


Quote:
And why do people have to go to confession? Sorry, if God is omnipotent, omniscient and all the other omni's, well, he can hear you be really sorry for your misdeeds, so there's no need to make a confession to another mortal, and therefore fallible person, and to accept a penance.


Technically, you *are* confessing to God, the priest isn't acting as himself, but in persona Christi. The forgiveness is God's forgiveness/absolution, as in the Gospels. (That's over-simplistic and I can see how that might not make sense. The Catechism would explain it in more detail but I need to find a copy to look)

Quote:
ETA: I'm sorry if that has offended anyone, but the forms of religion, and the money that it takes to keep it going, are offensive to me, when people need food and clothes to stay alive.


I'm not offended, for one. It's better people talk about these things, share, and find out how much we've got in common than brood silently on differences until we burst :)
Author:  Tor [ Tue Feb 09, 2010 8:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
It is interesting, Jennie - my take is almost the flip-side of yours; I *get* the church aspect, with its shared community and set of forms/observances that help to cement that community together. I also get the desire to build up a complex material culture between it and to differentiate that community/culture from other communities. What I (quite happily) lack is the belief in a God - and as FrauJackson points out, you can't force belief. So when it comes to differences between creeds/faiths/denominations, I feel sad, but I understand that much more than people clinging to their own particular faith whilst also preaching ecumenicism. Though it must be said it makes for a much nicer life for all; there have been quite enough wars (past and present) resulting from religious difference. I just think that logically, like you, once you go down that route you ought to abandon organised religion (though not belief/faith).

I just puzzle over EBDs conversion all the time; but as others have put it on this board, people sometimes just feel more comfortable within one type of worship. I still think it requires some serious sidestepping of dogma, and mental acrobatics, to really believe that all faiths are equal but different routes to god...; and again I find that particularly odd in a convert (people brought up in a tradition, I can understand, because they probably don't think about it much at all). I can only presume that in reality EBD just preferred the community/communal worship associated to her Catholic parish, and didn't delve to deep into the dogmatic differences between the churches. If that makes sense.

What do people reckon about Naomi - do you think she became a faithful catholic or a faithful protestant after she found God? Or maybe she ended up experimenting with one of the other abrahamic religions, of even something completely different...
Author:  cal562301 [ Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Tor wrote:
It is interesting, Jennie - my take is almost the flip-side of yours; I *get* the church aspect, with its shared community and set of forms/observances that help to cement that community together. I also get the desire to build up a complex material culture between it and to differentiate that community/culture from other communities. What I (quite happily) lack is the belief in a God - and as FrauJackson points out, you can't force belief. So when it comes to differences between creeds/faiths/denominations, I feel sad, but I understand that much more than people clinging to their own particular faith whilst also preaching ecumenicism. Though it must be said it makes for a much nicer life for all; there have been quite enough wars (past and present) resulting from religious difference. I just think that logically, like you, once you go down that route you ought to abandon organised religion (though not belief/faith).

I just puzzle over EBDs conversion all the time; but as others have put it on this board, people sometimes just feel more comfortable within one type of worship. I still think it requires some serious sidestepping of dogma, and mental acrobatics, to really believe that all faiths are equal but different routes to god...; and again I find that particularly odd in a convert (people brought up in a tradition, I can understand, because they probably don't think about it much at all). I can only presume that in reality EBD just preferred the community/communal worship associated to her Catholic parish, and didn't delve to deep into the dogmatic differences between the churches. If that makes sense.

What do people reckon about Naomi - do you think she became a faithful catholic or a faithful protestant after she found God? Or maybe she ended up experimenting with one of the other abrahamic religions, of even something completely different...


I think it would be truer to say that wars have been fought in the name of religion, rather than because of different faiths. The whole conflict in the Middle East is really about oil or possibly more importantly water, which is a scarce commodity in that region.

I know it's a sweeping generalisation, but even when wars have in theory been fought between different faiths, I think the real cause in most cases has been a power or political struggle .

The conflict in Ireland is much more complicated, too, than the Catholic/Protestant divide, although I'm not an expert and there may be others more qualified to comment on that than me.

As for EBD, if she was a high Anglican, she probably wouldn't notice a lot of difference when she converted. I agree, it would be harder to reconcile if she was low-church.

In the last 35 years or so I've gone through quite a range of different protestant denominations from Anglican through to charismatic house church, and I currently attend a Baptist church, so those differences don't seem to bother me so much.

As for Naomi, my guess is that her background would lend itself more to protestantism than catholicisim, though I might be totally wrong about that.
Author:  Pat [ Tue Feb 09, 2010 10:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Jennie wrote:
Perhaps I'm lacking, but I really cannot see what faith has to do with religion.


To me it's the other way around - what has religion to do with faith? A lot of awful things have been done in the name of religion. And it's religion that has brought so many of the things that people have problems with, such as confession and the way communion is taken. But faith is your personal relationship with God, and transcends all the man-made differences between the various denominations.
Author:  Alison H [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Tor wrote:
What do people reckon about Naomi - do you think she became a faithful catholic or a faithful protestant after she found God? Or maybe she ended up experimenting with one of the other abrahamic religions, of even something completely different...


I hate that storyline with Naomi! It really winds me up that EBD presents Mary-Lou as being so rude as to tell Naomi that it's wrong not to believe in God (she says something about Naomi's opinions being "dreadful things" which "simply aren't true," IIRC), especially when Naomi has mentioned that her late parents were agnostics. Not to mention being shocked that someone hadn't been baptised - how on earth was she going to go on as an archaeologist in different parts of the world if she was as narrow-minded as that? I can't believe that an intelligent 18-year-old girl would react like that, and it annoys me so much that EBD wrote her doing so.

Sorry, rant over! Are we meant to think that Naomi didn't believe in God because of the tragedies she'd suffered in her life (which would be completely understandable) and then changed her mind because the wonderful doctors at the San, who specialised in treating TB, somehow managed to put right a problem which top orthopaedic specialists hadn't been able to treat? Glad as I am that things worked out for Naomi, I don't think that that was one of EBD's finest moments either :roll: . To get back to the original question, I assume EBD intended us to think that Naomi went all CS-conventional and became either a practising Protestant or a practising Catholic, probably Protestant as we were told that her aunt had taken her to Protestant services, but I'd quite like to think that someone who was never CS-conventional followed a different path instead.
Author:  Lesley [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 6:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
It would be nice to think that Naomi became a member of Wicca - owing her recovery from her disability to a chance meeting with a Witch while at the San awaiting surgery... :wink:
Author:  Tor [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
I think she'd make an excellent Wiccan. Or maybe something polytheistic, like Hinduism... after all those years without God, she decided she'd like several.

I'm being flippant. But, like Alison, I don't think Naomi's storyline was EBDs finest moment. She manages to trivialize faith and Mary-Lou's character at the the same time.

Quote:
Not to mention being shocked that someone hadn't been baptised - how on earth was she going to go on as an archaeologist in different parts of the world if she was as narrow-minded as that?


Yes, quite. The 'real' Mary-Lou, as we've got to know her over the books, would have been quite good (though I maintain that she'd end up being an anthropologist/ethnographer rather than an archaeologist). But she's a very different girl here, being used to proselytise.

Quote:
I know it's a sweeping generalisation, but even when wars have in theory been fought between different faiths, I think the real cause in most cases has been a power or political struggle


Just wanted to add - I agree with this Cal!
Author:  JennieP [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 1:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Totally agree about what I would call Mary-Lou's judgemental, up-herself, bogoted narrow mindedness. Hardly the all-understanding wise M-L we are told about!

There's been quite a lot of discussion on consubstantiation /transubstantiation/ the filioque clasue/RC/CofE differences that are a tad OT but fascinating (to an AngloCatholic with rather too much of an interest for church dogmatics for the good of her supposed research, anyway...) Anyone up for continuing it in COT?
Author:  trig [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 5:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
I agree that faith and religion are totally different things. I grew up as a child in a middle of the road Anglican family, and used to love the Communion and Morning Prayer services from the old prayer book. I drifted away during University and after but when my daughter started Brownies I went to the local church for harvest and remembrance days etc. I just couldn't relate to the new "plain English" services and happy-clappiness, and couldn't face going back. I felt as if I was shallow and elitist and that I hadn't really believed all along but just liked the liturgy but at the same time felt a bit angry with the church because they had sacrificed the wants of people like me so they could relate more to younger people. (The same feeling I get when we're told to make Maths more "democratic" at school...)

I too dislike the Naomi storyline above all others and it was at that point in my first CS read through that I gave up, and have never really related to later books. Trials always seems to me the sort of book I would write but never have the audacity or cheek to send to a publishers. EBD should have kept it to herself.
Author:  fraujackson [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 7:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
JennieP wrote:
Totally agree about what I would call Mary-Lou's judgemental, up-herself, bogoted narrow mindedness. Hardly the all-understanding wise M-L we are told about!

There's been quite a lot of discussion on consubstantiation /transubstantiation/ the filioque clasue/RC/CofE differences that are a tad OT but fascinating (to an AngloCatholic with rather too much of an interest for church dogmatics for the good of her supposed research, anyway...) Anyone up for continuing it in COT?


Yes, please !
Author:  cal562301 [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
trig wrote:
I agree that faith and religion are totally different things. I grew up as a child in a middle of the road Anglican family, and used to love the Communion and Morning Prayer services from the old prayer book. I drifted away during University and after but when my daughter started Brownies I went to the local church for harvest and remembrance days etc. I just couldn't relate to the new "plain English" services and happy-clappiness, and couldn't face going back. I felt as if I was shallow and elitist and that I hadn't really believed all along but just liked the liturgy but at the same time felt a bit angry with the church because they had sacrificed the wants of people like me so they could relate more to younger people. (The same feeling I get when we're told to make Maths more "democratic" at school...)

I too dislike the Naomi storyline above all others and it was at that point in my first CS read through that I gave up, and have never really related to later books. Trials always seems to me the sort of book I would write but never have the audacity or cheek to send to a publishers. EBD should have kept it to herself.


I'm a member of my local Baptist church and as committed as I can be, but I also resent the way the old hymns are being ignored so that churches can pander to the younger generation. Most of the modern choruses don't have the depth of meaning (or even decent tunes!) of the old hymns.

This trend totally ignores the needs of more mature members of the congregation which are just as valid as those of the upcoming generation.

Depending on who the worship leader is on a particular Sunday, we may get one or two of the more traditional hymns, but often we get none. And they sing so many different 'choruses' that I'm sure most of the congregation of whatever age doesn't even know them!

And yes, I have tried to express this to some of the leadership, but felt dismissed as out of touch. So, considering changing churches, which would be a shame, since I have many good friends there of all ages.

Mind you, I am a traditionalist when it comes down to it, because I love the language of the King James Bible and having been brought up on the 1662 prayer book, could probably still quote great chunks of it by heart. I was fine with some of the early changes made to the liturgy, until they started messing around with the Lord's prayer, which to me was totally unnecessary, beyond (perhaps) replacing the thees and thous and archaic verb forms.
Author:  JennieP [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
I've started the new thread, fraujackson. It's in COT, under Matters Theological.
Author:  JackieP [ Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
cal562301 wrote:
I'm a member of my local Baptist church and as committed as I can be, but I also resent the way the old hymns are being ignored so that churches can pander to the younger generation. Most of the modern choruses don't have the depth of meaning (or even decent tunes!) of the old hymns.

This trend totally ignores the needs of more mature members of the congregation which are just as valid as those of the upcoming generation.


Not just the mature members - I know several people of my own (nearly 30) and younger generations who aren't too fond of the more modern 'songs' (as our Rector refers to them). Oddly enough seems to be the musical people. Perhaps the more modern, catchy stuff bores us musically...

JackieP
Author:  Llywela [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
JackieP wrote:
Not just the mature members - I know several people of my own (nearly 30) and younger generations who aren't too fond of the more modern 'songs' (as our Rector refers to them). Oddly enough seems to be the musical people. Perhaps the more modern, catchy stuff bores us musically...

*nods* I'm 32 and a lifelong member of my local chapel, which has an aging population and tends toward a variety of hymns and choruses depending on who is selecting them that week. Some weeks we have mostly old hymns, other weeks mostly newer choruses, other weeks a blend of the two. Personally, I really love a good resounding hymn, and very few of the modern type give me that, although they have their own charm and some of them are great. Then again, some of the older ones can be quite dull...so there is something to be said for both types, and really it's all down to the individual song, no matter how old or new!
Author:  cal562301 [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Llywela wrote:
JackieP wrote:
Not just the mature members - I know several people of my own (nearly 30) and younger generations who aren't too fond of the more modern 'songs' (as our Rector refers to them). Oddly enough seems to be the musical people. Perhaps the more modern, catchy stuff bores us musically...

*nods* I'm 32 and a lifelong member of my local chapel, which has an aging population and tends toward a variety of hymns and choruses depending on who is selecting them that week. Some weeks we have mostly old hymns, other weeks mostly newer choruses, other weeks a blend of the two. Personally, I really love a good resounding hymn, and very few of the modern type give me that, although they have their own charm and some of them are great. Then again, some of the older ones can be quite dull...so there is something to be said for both types, and really it's all down to the individual song, no matter how old or new!



Oh, I agree with that. I do love some of the newer songs, such as In Christ Alone (though that's more of a modern hymn, I would say!).

And my two favourite Easter songs are 'Thine Be The Glory' and 'See What a Morning Gloriously Bright', which were probably written 350 years apart.
Author:  JennieP [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Cal and Jackie (sorry, Cal, I don't know your name!) if you go to http://www.igracemusic.com/ it's a group that has started writing modern settings for old hymns. I can't abide the modern pap either - singing the same two lines 25 times makes me want to commit homicide/suicide - and I love full on organ and choir for the proper settings, but I do find these theologically satisfying - we used to sing them at evening service and it was a nice change occasionally. Nice and loud and fun, but not at all vapid.
Author:  Joey [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 1:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
cal562301 wrote:
Oh, I agree with that. I do love some of the newer songs, such as In Christ Alone (though that's more of a modern hymn, I would say!).


That was one of the songs in our wedding service - we had nine musical items!

Our church has a fairly good balance of older hymns and modern songs, and they all seem popular. I wouldn't want to be without either of them.
Author:  cal562301 [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 1:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
JennieP wrote:
Cal and Jackie (sorry, Cal, I don't know your name!) if you go to http://www.igracemusic.com/ it's a group that has started writing modern settings for old hymns. I can't abide the modern pap either - singing the same two lines 25 times makes me want to commit homicide/suicide - and I love full on organ and choir for the proper settings, but I do find these theologically satisfying - we used to sing them at evening service and it was a nice change occasionally. Nice and loud and fun, but not at all vapid.


Thanks for that Jennie. I will have a look.

For the record and anyone who is interested, my full name is Carol. Cal is a childhood nickname which kind of stuck!
Author:  Artemis [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 2:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
It might be fun to do a hymns we know and love / hymns we dislike thread . . .
Author:  Alison H [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 3:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Our headmistress banned several hymns from assembly because people kept singing the football versions of them (I thought it was quite effective, personally, but she evidently didn't). At least it wasn't rude versions.
Author:  JennieP [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 3:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
In primary school (aged about 7 or 8) we developed a lovely hobby re-singing hymns to include words we knew were "bad": fart was a particular favourite, I am ashamed to admit.

Can somebody remind me what age is technically old enough for full knowledge and consent...
Author:  Tor [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 3:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Quote:
In primary school (aged about 7 or 8) we developed a lovely hobby re-singing hymns to include words we knew were "bad": fart was a particular favourite, I am ashamed to admit.


Yup, us too (RC primary school). Fart is particularly good, being one syllable, and so perfectly suited to replacing 'art' (as in, "how great thou...").

Hilarious, if you're 7 :roll: :oops: :roll:
Author:  Alison H [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 3:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Of course, CS girls would never have done anything like that ... like they were happy for all the money raised for the school's 21st anniversary celebrations to be spent on building chapels instead of a swimming pool or a dance hall or lots of exciting expeditions. I find Margia drawing in her hymn book in Eustacia, in the pre-preachiness days of the school, much more realistic than the reaction we get in Coming of Age: I just can't believe that every single girl thought the chapels were such a great idea :roll: .
Author:  Tor [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
In the same vein, it is really refreshing how in Head Girl, EBD writes about how bored lots of the staff are at Frühstückwith the girls go on about Guides!

But by the end of the series, the staff is made up by a lot of old girls and long-term mistresses, who are firmly indoctrinated. And a lot of the girls are old-girls daughters. So it is a bit like a cult (joking!!... Well , a bit..) - hence the universal clamour for the chapels!
Author:  cal562301 [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Tor wrote:
Quote:
This thread my inspire me to re-read my collection of refernce works on early Christian doctrine.


Yup, us too (RC primary school). Fart is particularly good, being one syllable, and so perfectly suited to replacing 'art' (as in, "how great thou...").

Hilarious, if you're 7 :roll: :oops: :roll:



I don't remember ever using rude words, but I have vivid memories of singing this as an alternative last line to one of the lesser known Christmas Carols, which we sang a lot at grammar school:

'Mostly highly flavoured gravy, Oxo'

For those who don't recognise it, the original line reads: 'Mostly highly favoured lady, Gloria'.

And of course we sang all the alternative versions of carols such as 'While Shepherds Washed their Socks by Night' and 'We three Beatles of Orient are'. The latter definitely ages me! :lol:
Author:  Llywela [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Heh, we had a nicely modern version of 'we three kings' that placed them respectively on a bus and a car and one on a scooter, blowing the hooter...
Author:  ChubbyMonkey [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Llywela wrote:
Heh, we had a nicely modern version of 'we three kings' that placed them respectively on a bus and a car and one on a scooter, blowing the hooter...


That was ours! We also had the Shepherds "watching ITV, when the Angel of the North came down and turned to BBC".
Author:  Tor [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 5:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
hmm, delightful as we were our rendition of three kings ended, "one on a scooter, beeping his hooter and unhooking his girl-friends bra.... O-o... etc"
:shock:
Again. Bras. hilarious. to the under 11s... especially as there were nun's around. We didn't realise they had heard it all before. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Author:  Llywela [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 5:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
We were such innocents, in contrast - our king on the scooter was merely playing a guitar :lol:
Author:  Chelsea [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 5:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Was "Joy to the World, the school's burned down", a uniquely Canadian thing?
Author:  Artemis [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 5:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Definition of mortal sin: full knowledge, full consent, grave matter: And I think it's seven, which seems a bit rough, when the age of criminal consent is much later. Could be wrong tho'.
Author:  Margaret [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Artemis wrote:
It might be fun to do a hymns we know and love / hymns we dislike thread . . .


On COT?
Author:  cal562301 [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 9:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
ChubbyMonkey wrote:
Llywela wrote:
Heh, we had a nicely modern version of 'we three kings' that placed them respectively on a bus and a car and one on a scooter, blowing the hooter...


That was ours! We also had the Shepherds "watching ITV, when the Angel of the North came down and turned to BBC".


While we had to make do with the 'Angel of the Lord', because it was long before the Angel of the North existed!

There was also a version to do with eating fish and chips, but maybe that was a Yorkshire version.

And I think it was We three Beatles of Liverpool, following Ringo Starr, which would make more sense!
Author:  Saffronya [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
All we had was 'Shabanna in the highest' instead of Hosanna. Poor old Shabanna was a girl in our class and has to listen to this most weeks. We thought we were being very clever!
Author:  Clare [ Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
JennieP wrote:
In primary school (aged about 7 or 8) we developed a lovely hobby re-singing hymns to include words we knew were "bad": fart was a particular favourite, I am ashamed to admit.

Can somebody remind me what age is technically old enough for full knowledge and consent...


According to the Catholic Church - 7 :D It was lowered from 12 (I think) in around 1910... Hazy memories of a very boring lecture coming back to me - I think 7 was defined as the "age of reason".
Author:  JennieP [ Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Clare wrote:
JennieP wrote:
In primary school (aged about 7 or 8) we developed a lovely hobby re-singing hymns to include words we knew were "bad": fart was a particular favourite, I am ashamed to admit.

Can somebody remind me what age is technically old enough for full knowledge and consent...


According to the Catholic Church - 7 :D It was lowered from 12 (I think) in around 1910... Hazy memories of a very boring lecture coming back to me - I think 7 was defined as the "age of reason".


Oh dear...
Author:  judithR [ Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Our headmistress banned the hymn with "ineffable" in it. Can't remember which it was at present.
Author:  RubyGates [ Fri Feb 12, 2010 1:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
My favourite silly version of a hymn is actually a Christmas carol:

Hark the Herald angels sing
Beechams pills are just the thing
They are gentle, meek and mild
Two for a man and one for a child
If you want to go to Heaven
You must take a dose of seven
If you want to go to Hell
Take the blinking box as well
Author:  JackieP [ Fri Feb 12, 2010 1:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
cal562301 wrote:
Tor wrote:
Quote:
This thread my inspire me to re-read my collection of refernce works on early Christian doctrine.


Yup, us too (RC primary school). Fart is particularly good, being one syllable, and so perfectly suited to replacing 'art' (as in, "how great thou...").

Hilarious, if you're 7 :roll: :oops: :roll:



I don't remember ever using rude words, but I have vivid memories of singing this as an alternative last line to one of the lesser known Christmas Carols, which we sang a lot at grammar school:

'Mostly highly flavoured gravy, Oxo'

For those who don't recognise it, the original line reads: 'Mostly highly favoured lady, Gloria'.

And of course we sang all the alternative versions of carols such as 'While Shepherds Washed their Socks by Night' and 'We three Beatles of Orient are'. The latter definitely ages me! :lol:


It doesn't Gloria - I'm not yet 30 and yet I still remember singing about 'We three lads from Liverpool are' so a similar vane...

I think the funniest substitution is actually done by those at Theological Colleges who prefer to avoid singing 'Alleluia' during Lent when practising music for Easter Services - apparently 'Eggs and Bacon' works well as it has the same number of syllables and the same stresses...

JackieP

ETC Spelling...
Author:  Catrin [ Fri Feb 12, 2010 6:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Every Easter we sing a wonderful piece about Mary weeping at the base of the Crucifixion. It includes the words "Cease not, wet tears", which invariably comes out as "see snot" for several rehearsals . . .
Author:  MJKB [ Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
JennieP wrote:

According to the Catholic Church - 7 :D It was lowered from 12 (I think) in around 1910... Hazy memories of a very boring lecture coming back to me - I think 7 was defined as the "age of reason".


Oh dear...


Oh dear ditto. I wonder if the age has been upped since the new cathechism came in? I have a very distinct memory of attempting to avoid Mass one Sunday by saying I was sick. I could not have been older than five, but such was the orthodoxy of our family that I remember thinking I would be committing a mortal sin. At five. It was the Js, I think, who were responsible for lowering the age from 10 to seven.

In secondary school in the 70s, our very progressive religion teacher, Sister Connie, encouaged us to write religious lyrics to current songs. Simon and Garfunkel were firm favourites in this exercise. And I did absolute wonders with Sounds of Silence etc. There was a song called Whiskey on a Sunday by the Dubliners that went something like this: Drinking buttermilk all the week, whiskey on a Sunday. One girl got into dreadful trounle for her effort, which went as follows: Drinkin bread and wine all the week, the Body and Blood on a Sunday. I'm still uncomfortable with it as it's very nearly blasphamous.
Author:  Lisa_T [ Sun Feb 14, 2010 5:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
*g* My brother sang the While shepherds washed their socks by night version at school. We didn't have anything like that (I don't think a particularly um.... lurid .... version of Make me a channel of your peace counts) because we were very non-faith at Mary Hare, as we had kids of all traditions and none. I remember finding that rather odd at first, having come first from our very segregated system here in NI, and then spent a year at a so-called Christian school in Australia. Assembly at my Norn Iron school was conducted very much on CS CoE (CoI here) lines, and I actually always loved the fact that RC and CoE could mix so well in the CS. We're supposedly trying that here with integrated schools, but it's as much a social experiment as a religious one, and only time will tell. Given this is Ulster, I'm not terribly optimistic. We're rather good at sabotaging ourselves.

My own background is complicated - RC on my dad's side, Presbyterian on my mum's, but both parents became evangelical/pentecostal christians in their late teens. Unfortunately for that, I really, really prefer the dignity of either highish CoE or RC. Although it's partly practical too - RC churches are really nice about giving out handy sheet of paper telling you what's happening when, and there's no random people standing up to pray all over the place either. I don't feel particularly prayerful when people keeping jumping up and down and I can't keep up.... even though I know they're talking to God and it doesn't matter whether I understand or not, years of 'it's up to you to make sure you can hear what's going on' means that I get a tad paranoid when I can't!
Author:  Robert Andrews [ Sun Feb 14, 2010 2:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Chelsea wrote:
Was "Joy to the World, the school's burned down", a uniquely Canadian thing?


I don't know, but here in the US we have "Joy to the World, the teacher's dead / we barbequed her head / what happened to her body? / we flushed it down the potty (pronounced in an American accent as "poddy") / and round and round it goes / and round and round it goes.

We also have

"Deck the Halls with Gasoline / Falalalalalalalala /
Light a match and watch it gleam /
Watch the school burn down to ashes / Falalalalalalalala /
Aren’t you glad you played with matches? / Falalalalalalalala!”

on a slightly less Xmasy note, we sang (to the tune of the Battle Hymn of the Republic, a US Civil War song)

"Mine eyes have seen the glory of the burning of the school/
We have trampled every teacher, we have broken every rule /
<varies> /

"Glory, Glory, Hallelujah!/
The teacher hit me with a rulah (i.e. ruler, explicitly pronounced without the "r" to make it rhyme. In most American accents, including my own, the r at the end is explicitly pronounced (i.e. is "rhotic") and the words wouldn't normally rhyme.)/
I shot her head off with a Magnum 44/
That teacher don't teach no more/"


Tor wrote:
hmm, delightful as we were our rendition of three kings ended, "one on a scooter, beeping his hooter and unhooking his girl-friends bra.... O-o... etc"
:shock:
Again. Bras. hilarious. to the under 11s... especially as there were nun's around. We didn't realise they had heard it all before. :lol: :lol: :lol:


We have:

"We three kings of Orient are/
Trying to smoke a rubber cigar/
It was loaded, and exploded/
Now we're on yonder star/"

or, after "exploded", you start again from the top except with two kings, then repeat with one, then end with "now we're on yonder star", the implication being that a king dies during each failed smoking attempt.
Author:  ChubbyMonkey [ Sun Feb 14, 2010 2:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Robert Andrews wrote:
"Glory, Glory, Hallelujah!/
The teacher hit me with a rulah (i.e. ruler, explicitly pronounced without the "r" to make it rhyme. In most American accents, including my own, the r at the end is explicitly pronounced (i.e. is "rhotic") and the words wouldn't normally rhyme.)/
I shot her head off with a Magnum 44/
That teacher don't teach no more/"


Aah, you've just reminded me of one of the Brownie songs we all used to sing in primary school (I was never in Brownies, well aside from a couple of weeks to decide I didn't want to do it, so I just picked them up from others.) It was slightly less violent! "Glory, glory Hallelujiah! Teacher hit me with a ruler. The ruler broke in half and we all began to laugh and we never went to school again."

:oops:
Author:  Kathy_S [ Sun Feb 14, 2010 6:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
ChubbyMonkey wrote:
Robert Andrews wrote:
"Glory, Glory, Hallelujah!/
The teacher hit me with a rulah (i.e. ruler, explicitly pronounced without the "r" to make it rhyme. In most American accents, including my own, the r at the end is explicitly pronounced (i.e. is "rhotic") and the words wouldn't normally rhyme.)/
I shot her head off with a Magnum 44/
That teacher don't teach no more/"


Aah, you've just reminded me of one of the Brownie songs we all used to sing in primary school (I was never in Brownies, well aside from a couple of weeks to decide I didn't want to do it, so I just picked them up from others.) It was slightly less violent! "Glory, glory Hallelujiah! Teacher hit me with a ruler. The ruler broke in half and we all began to laugh and we never went to school again."

:oops:

I suppose our version was somewhere in the middle, since after "rulah" (actually we just sang "ruler") came:
"Bopped her on the bean
With a rotten tangerine
And she shall teach no more."

Shocking slang. :) But, are these song still sung? I wonder if they wouldn't now be considered threatening, given that we seem to live in an era in which school shootings are all too real.
Author:  fraujackson [ Sun Feb 14, 2010 7:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Robert Andrews wrote:
We have:

"We three kings of Orient are/
Trying to smoke a rubber cigar/
It was loaded, and exploded/
Now we're on yonder star/"


We three kings of Leicester Square
Modelling ladies' underwear
How fantastic !
No elastic !
Only a penny a pair.

Oooh Marks of wonder, Sparks of light
Guide me to thy nylon tights

I can't remember the rest (if there was any more !)
Author:  Abi [ Sun Feb 14, 2010 7:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
fraujackson wrote:
Robert Andrews wrote:
We have:

"We three kings of Orient are/
Trying to smoke a rubber cigar/
It was loaded, and exploded/
Now we're on yonder star/"


We three kings of Leicester Square
Modelling ladies' underwear
How fantastic !
No elastic !
Only a penny a pair.

Oooh Marks of wonder, Sparks of light
Guide me to thy nylon tights

I can't remember the rest (if there was any more !)


"We three Kings of Orient are,
One in a taxi, one in a car,
One on a scooter, blowing a hooter,
Waving his girlfriend's bra!"

"Oh, star of wonder star of night,
Sit on a box of dynamite,
Light the fuse and off we go,
Around the world to Mexico!"

Also, at least half of us sang "most highly flavoured gravy" in place of "most highly favoured lady" . :roll:
Author:  Mrs Redboots [ Sun Feb 14, 2010 9:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
We three kings (or occasionally "spivs") of Leicester Square
Selling tights at tuppence a pair,
Oh how drastic, no elastic!
Not very safe to wear!

(Which I remember my younger cousin, aged all of 7 or 8, found so hilarious he could hardly tell it to me; I didn't quite like to say I'd known it for years).

We four Beatles of Liverpool are
Paul on a bicycle, John in a car,
George on a scooter, blowing his hooter,
Following Ringo Starr!
Author:  judithR [ Mon Feb 15, 2010 12:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
Not to mention versions of the Twelve Days of Christmas and Glorious Things of Thee are Spoken which certainly could not be broadcast before the watershed.
Author:  hac61 [ Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
To almost go back to the original topic, :) :

I've been re-reading "Three go...", the GGB edition, and when Mary-Lou goes home for the first time after her father's death, Mrs Trelawney says to her something like
"And you'll be going to Church with the Maynards tomorrow."

Aren't the Maynards Catholic by now? Isn't Mary-Lou Protestant? Is there any other mention of her attending Catholic services/prayers?

(Sorry, book is upstairs and I've no energy to go and get it.)
Author:  MJKB [ Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Separating for prayers
hac61 wrote:
I've been re-reading "Three go...", the GGB edition, and when Mary-Lou goes home for the first time after her father's death, Mrs Trelawney says to her something like
"And you'll be going to Church with the Maynards tomorrow."


I'd say a definite EBDism. I'm fairly sure that the Maynard girls are placed in the Hall for prayers with their cousins, the Bettanys, inPeggyThis threw me completely as it was about my third CS book and I knew that Joey had converted.
All times are UTC + 1 hour
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/