Go Back   FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Special Interest Travel > Religious Travelers
Sign in using an external account

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 29, 06, 10:44 am   #166
btr
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 241
I just found this thread - very interesting. I am struck by the desire by everyone here to show respect for other's faiths, and I appreciate the often thorny issue of not compromising ones own faith in doing so. In that spirit, allow me to offer my thoughts, which are rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition(s).

In the early years of the Christian church, Christians (especially those who were Jews) would attend synagogue as practicing Jews, and attend a separate service afterwards to celebrate the Eucharist (Communion, whatever). In other words, the Christian service was merely an extension of that which is/was Jewish. 2000 years later, traditions, beliefs, dogma have all intervened to make the differences much more significant, and to delve into them is clearly beyond the scope of this thread.

Having said that, it is possible to see the echoes of the ancient Jewish rites in the Christian order of worship, with the obvious exceptions of Christian additions. This is easier to observe (and acknowlege) in some Christian denominations than others, but they are indeed there in all.

So, with respect to these two great faiths, we do have common ground, and to some extent I believe that interfaith participation is possible and permissible within limits. In conversations I've had in the past with members of the clergy, so long as one isn't being actively disrespectful, a non member's presence is generally seen as a form of respect, and as a potential opportunity to share one's faith with others.

About kneeling - if your beliefs are in conflict with the prayer to be offered (or to the deity to whom it is being offered), then kneeling is clearly not appropriate, and in the churches I've attended, it would not be expected, and in some cases actively discouraged. I do not agree with standing instead of kneeling - the statement is too bold, IMHO. Sitting quietly while others kneel is quite sufficient.

As far as the (Christian) Eucharist is concerned, some denominations are more open than others about sharing with those in other denominations. In my experience, none are open to sharing with other faiths. There is a belief in some, that partaking in the Eucharist by a non-believer makes their position worse, and members of denominations that believe that way would actually feel disrespected by the participation of a non-member.

Other faiths are more tricky, as has been said by others. A Christian (and Jew, I believe) should take no action that could be considered (within one's own faith) worship to another god/God (pick your own proper capitalization, please). However, I personally believe that the admonition to teach all nations... (as a Christian) also precludes showing disrespect, as it inhibits ones ability to teach. So one must find that thin line between not worshipping and being sufficiently respectful of others and of their beliefs.

About garments, and especially hats - the churches that I have attended are generally accepting of the religious attire of other faiths - as long as that is what it is. I have seen Imans, Rabbis, Roman Catholic, and various Orthodox Christian clergy members attending or participating in what most call Protestant services - in the vestments of their own denominations and faithrs (or garments, if you wish). My experience is that it is always seen as respectful (you wear your best garments as a form of respect), and as an opportunity for learning and outreach.

My 2 cents, of course.
btr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 06, 1:33 pm   #167
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: New York, NY USA
Posts: 51,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanFF
I as a Lutheran believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist just as
Episcopals do I think the only difference is that Catholics go one step furthur and profess a chemical change ,thus transsubstancian occurs when the bells ring. Protestants believe that the Eucharist is only a memorial meal to remember the sacrifice made by Christ.
Like our Roman Catholic brethren, Episcopalians believe in transubstantiation. For Episcopalians, the Holy Eucharist IS the body and blood of Christ. It's not a memorial; it is Christ.
__________________
Choose wisely; treat kindly
Analise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 06, 4:04 pm   #168
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: San Diego,CA,USA
Programs: Southwest CP US Airways Club Lifetime,Priority Club Platinum,HHonors Gold
Posts: 1,287
Ask any Episocopal Priest

Quote:
Originally Posted by Analise
Like our Roman Catholic brethren, Episcopalians believe in transubstantiation. For Episcopalians, the Holy Eucharist IS the body and blood of Christ. It's not a memorial; it is Christ.
Lutherans and Episcopals both believe in True presence and both do no practice transubstantiaion. THis is one reason the ELCA Lutherans and Episcopal church are in full communion in worship. Strangely enough as a conservative Lutheran I feel more "at home" in the RC church than either of the ELCA or Epispocal churchs although I respect their decision to worship together.
sanFF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 06, 6:11 am   #169
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: New York, NY USA
Posts: 51,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanFF
Lutherans and Episcopals both believe in True presence and both do no practice transubstantiaion. THis is one reason the ELCA Lutherans and Episcopal church are in full communion in worship. Strangely enough as a conservative Lutheran I feel more "at home" in the RC church than either of the ELCA or Epispocal churchs although I respect their decision to worship together.
sanFF, the wafer and wine IS the body and blood of Christ after the priest consecrates them. Because the Episcopal Church's umbrella is so wide, perhaps there are some parishes which don't follow the liturgy but open up the BCP and read it. Whether it's Rite I or Rite II, you'll see. When the priest gives you the host, he says "The Body of Christ, the bread of heaven. [Amen.]
The Blood of Christ, the cup of salvation. [Amen.]"

I don't have the BCP in my office, but I found a website for you with the BCP. http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/euchr2.doc

Read Rite II of the Eucharist: pp. 13-18. Now where do you see no practice of transubstantiation?
__________________
Choose wisely; treat kindly
Analise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 06, 7:25 am   #170
Senior Moderator & Moderator, United MileagePlus
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: SFO
Programs: UA MM 1K; Fairmont & Starwood platinum; Hyatt diamond; Kimpton IC Elite
Posts: 16,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analise
Like our Roman Catholic brethren, Episcopalians believe in transubstantiation. For Episcopalians, the Holy Eucharist IS the body and blood of Christ. It's not a memorial; it is Christ.
The Episcopal church does not believe in transubstantiation; it believes in consubstantiation. That is the basis for why a RC cannot accept Communion at an Episcopal church.

Transubstantiation vs. mystery
The Episcopal Church does not believe in Transubstantiation, which is documented in the Book of Common Prayer, page 873 in the Articles of Religion. Transubstantiation is the belief that Jesus' physical body and blood are present in the Holy Communion elements. The bread and wine physically are transformed. The Episcopal Church believes Jesus is spiritually present in the the Holy Communion elements.

http://www.pttw.org/peek/communion.html

Last edited by l'etoile; Apr 10, 06 at 7:33 am.
l'etoile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 06, 8:21 am   #171
btr
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 241
Straying a bit from the topic?

I'm not trying to be an enforcer, but given recent actions in other forums we might need to tighten up the discussion a bit.

Having said that, I think I can safely comment that it is unfortunate that this and other similar subjects have become a source of strife and division within the Church. Especially when a goal of any(?) church (or perhaps more properly put, religion) is to recruit new members. Perhaps that could have been stated better, but I'm trying to be religion neutral here.

It is indeed refreshing to see folks making an effort to respect and perhaps even reach out to other faiths.
btr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 06, 8:47 am   #172
Senior Moderator & Moderator, United MileagePlus
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: SFO
Programs: UA MM 1K; Fairmont & Starwood platinum; Hyatt diamond; Kimpton IC Elite
Posts: 16,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by btr
I'm not trying to be an enforcer, but given recent actions in other forums we might need to tighten up the discussion a bit.
Going back to what this forum was established for, my understanding is that it's perfectly fine to present what a particular faith teaches/believes. And, IMO, that's on topic here. If one believes in transubstantiation, for instance, they clearly need to know how to behave (take Communion or not) in a church that does not believe that and vice versa. To debate dogma, would be inappropriate here, however.

If you're concerned about what leads to disciplinary action on FT, as your posts suggests, please take a look at the FT guidelines.

http://www.flyertalk.com/help/rules.php

Last edited by l'etoile; Apr 10, 06 at 9:02 am.
l'etoile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 06, 9:01 am   #173
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Yiron, Israel
Programs: Bates Motel Plat
Posts: 49,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by letiole
Going back to what this forum was established for, my understanding is that it's perfectly fine to present what a particular faith believes.
You are right -- as long as you are discussing it as a question of fact. (eg: It is a fact that Catholicism believes in the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.)

It would go off the road if someone were to start debating whether or not Mary was actually conceived in that manner.
Dovster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 06, 9:18 am   #174
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: New York, NY USA
Posts: 51,118
The link you shared letiole is quite disturbing and one reason why the Episcopal church keeps dropping in size. The link goes against Episcopal worship. My area of worship is the Anglo-Catholic side in which Holy Communion IS the body and blood of Jesus. The Book of Common Prayer details that explicitly. This is why I have had a problem with the notion that only Roman Catholicism views the host as the body and blood of Jesus.

Yes we may be veering off the main topic of this thread (as if that doesn't happen in FT ), but I don't think this has broken any TOS rules.
__________________
Choose wisely; treat kindly
Analise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 06, 10:03 am   #175
Senior Moderator & Moderator, United MileagePlus
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: SFO
Programs: UA MM 1K; Fairmont & Starwood platinum; Hyatt diamond; Kimpton IC Elite
Posts: 16,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analise
The Book of Common Prayer details that explicitly.
Which version? The 1928 book rejects transubstantiation in favor of consubstantiation, IMU.

From the Articles of Religion as they appear in the 1789, 1892 and 1928 Books of Common Prayer (emphasis mine):

Quote:
XVIII. Of the Lordís Supper.

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 Christís 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 Lordís Supper was not by Christís ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.
From American Heritage:
Consubstantiation: The doctrine that the substance of the body and blood of Jesus coexists with the substance of the bread and wine in the Eucharist.

Transubstantiation: The doctrine holding that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are transformed into the body and blood of Jesus, although their appearances remain the same.

Last edited by l'etoile; Apr 10, 06 at 10:21 am.
l'etoile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 06, 1:56 pm   #176
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: New York, NY USA
Posts: 51,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by letiole
Which version? The 1928 book rejects transubstantiation in favor of consubstantiation, IMU.
The 1979 version which I linked earlier today.
__________________
Choose wisely; treat kindly
Analise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 06, 2:19 pm   #177
Senior Moderator & Moderator, United MileagePlus
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: SFO
Programs: UA MM 1K; Fairmont & Starwood platinum; Hyatt diamond; Kimpton IC Elite
Posts: 16,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analise
The 1979 version which I linked earlier today.
I vaguely remember the split that resulted from that. The article I quoted against transubstantiation is still in the back of your 1979 verson (page 867). I guess there's debate within the church and variances from parish to parish as to whether those are historical documents, or still something to be followed. Of course, what church doesn't have debates within itself?

Last edited by l'etoile; Apr 10, 06 at 2:43 pm.
l'etoile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 06, 6:20 pm   #178
 
Join Date: May 2004
Programs: TG Gold, BA Gold
Posts: 316
I think it only appropriate to be more respectful and aware in someone/some-other religion's place of worship than you are in your own. I hate conflict, so this may be tainting my opinion, but at least starting out overly respectful means your not stepping on anyone's toes and you can adjust your behaviour when you have watched the other worshippers for a while.
molasis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 06, 12:45 pm   #179
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dovster
I do remove my hat in a Christian church, even though it is Jewish tradition to have your head covered in a synagogue
Just a suggestion, but I'd wear a small kippah instead.
modgirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 21, 06, 8:20 pm   #180
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 316
This is an intriguing thread for me- as I was raised basically atheist (my mother was raised Ukranian Orthodox and my father Conservative Jewish). So any house of worship is a foreign place for me of sorts.

I try to dress conservatively and even if I'm told the house of worship is full of people in tank tops and open toed shoes, I wear a short with sleeves and closed to shoes.
Travelin Dreams is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Bookmarks


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 9:45 am.