Is there really a difference in the two religions?

On Saturday I attended two funerals at an Anglican Church and I found what the Rector said to be offensive and in poor taste and also non-Chrisitian.

When it was time for communion he said that only practising and baptized Anglican could receive receive communion and all others stay away.

No where in the Bible when Jesus was feeding persons did he check to see what their creed was.

During the Anglican Mass we say" Let us then pursue the things that make for peace and build up of the common life" How can we say this and then turn arround and tell persons so calluously don't come to our table?

My Bible tells me that Jesus died for all. In his word he said when ever you do this remember me. so what? only anglicans must remeber his death? or is this doctrine.? Do Catholics make this same announcement? I can't remember if I ever heard so rawly put. As Anglican I was embarassed and ashamed.

Do you think the Rector was right about his handling of this in a funeral service?

well from my personal experience i can honestly say yes. My key club went to a roman catholic church and when it came time for communion i didn't move because i know how bahamians act and yet this old lady behind me tapped me and asked "are you all catholic?" to which i replied no and she proceeds to respond "well you don't expect to go up right?" LOL...i only laughed that morning. But in all honesty most christian churches compete with one another. I know parents that cut off their kids just for changing churches.

Is there really a difference in the two religions?

On Saturday I attended two funerals at an Anglican Church and I found what the Rector said to be offensive and in poor taste and also non-Chrisitian.

When it was time for communion he said that only practising and baptized Anglican could receive receive communion and all others stay away.

No where in the Bible when Jesus was feeding persons did he check to see what their creed was.

During the Anglican Mass we say" Let us then pursue the things that make for peace and build up of the common life" How can we say this and then turn arround and tell persons so calluously don't come to our table?

My Bible tells me that Jesus died for all. In his word he said when ever you do this remember me. so what? only anglicans must remeber his death? or is this doctrine.? Do Catholics make this same announcement? I can't remember if I ever heard so rawly put. As Anglican I was embarassed and ashamed.

Do you think the Rector was right about his handling of this in a funeral service?

If I were there I would have confronted him right there and then. A ceremony as un-Christian as that needs to be interrupted, Just 1 of the many reason I don't go to church.

Melody you say that you are Anglican but you dont know the tennets of your faith. The Anglican and Catholic church was literally divorced by a divorce and have not been together since. There have been advances to ward building bridges but the Angilcan community has made changes that further divide like women priest.
You wouldnt expect a person to take communion in any church unless they were in agreement with the belief of the particular church.

The Roman Catholic church believes that the bread and wine becomes the real presence of Jesus.

The Anglicans(Episcopalians) beileve it is symbolic.

The other denominastions dont have the same believe in that they dont even use wine but grape juice.

Now with such diference would you feel right participating in some one "else's communion " expression? Would you like it if someone tells you isnt what you think it is?

ainglacan vs roman catholic in a steel cage death match!!!!

no holds barred!!!!
:mad:

Nowadays it appears in certain circles that the concept of religion in this little island nation has been twisted to a great degree and is being used mistakenly to drive a wedge between different elements of our society. Citizens (myself included) are becoming more concerned about these trends and are starting to ask: Is the Bahamas becoming a radical Christian nation? Will we eventually get to the point where persons do not cater to a certain business or enterprise because the owner is not affiliated with a particular church? Are we becoming too judgmental or critical of those who do not share the same beliefs?

It is my opinion that less than 10 years ago this nation truly could be termed a Christian one, whose citizens looked equally upon all men and women through the eyes of sinners. According to the precepts of the Bible we ALL are born in sin, but now even the "saved" sinners are closing their doors and their minds to others. How can a "saved" person expect to spread the gospel if the "unsaved" sinner is chastised and lambasted to no end before they even set foot in the church's door? Some of our local pastors have done such a good job of speaking against sin that their members are now firmly set against other sinners, forgetting that they themselves were once in the same position for judgment.

How many of today's Christians came to the church in the past because of the welcoming atmosphere that was present at that time? Now many churches have demonized their own flock and infused prejudice and biases onto concepts where they should NOT be a factor. Yes, a good and faithful Christian should put on the armour of God, but in the same light should not strike down everyone else who is not an immediate member of their particular group in the process. Nor should a Christian at any level deny or reject any soul who wishes to join in their worship - to do so would then place the acceptance factor into the hands of man. Isn’t God supposed to be the sole judge of those who attempt to enter His kingdom? When did man become appointed with being the all-knowing fault-finding judge of character?

Christians in this society are becoming increasingly selective in who they associate and deal with, which shows the deterioration within them of the basic concepts of Christianity, which is a religion that is open to ALL. Ego has infiltrated the top ranks and now they are utilizing their power to lash out at "those who dare to question". They see the breakdown of the materialistic concepts of some of these 21st century churches and are threatened, which is why there is this new campaign calling out that the church is now under attack. Raca, I say – the church has been under attack for centuries. It is not within any man’s power for the existence of the church to remain. It is safe to say that it is the will of God alone. When a man declares war on behalf of God, it is his own ego that carries the blame, for the church will stand or fall only if it is the will of the Creator. MAN cannot save (or destroy) the church. I repeat, that is not within his power. For a Christian to refute this fact and try to throw themselves into some religious war to save their institution means that they would also deny the basic rule that JESUS is their only "Saviour".

There has been enough blatant hypocrisy in some of the various systems of religion for their walls to be broken down to their very foundations. Perhaps this is what needs to and will happen so that people can get back to the true nature of religion without the egos, name-calling, biases and other deteriorative conceptions that plague 21st century churches. Who knows whether this will happen? As the Bible tells us, only God does.

Could I, a Buddhist, take Communion in a Christian church? No! Why? Because I am not in communion, or agreement, with the faith being taught there. I often go to Christian Churches. It would never cross my mind to take Communion. Once they know I am Buddhist, they would not give it to me. I see no problem with this.

Many Christian faiths practice Closed, or Close, communion. By taking the elements one agrees with the faith as taught by that Church. One agrees with the Church as to what the Communion meal means - is it the true body and blood of Christ? Is it a symbol only? If you believe it is a symbol then you have no communion (or agreement) with those who see it as the true body and blood. There are many other faith issues that Christians clash over as well. If you Commune you agree that the teachings.

If you are Baptist, commune with Baptists. If you are Anglican, commune with Anglicans, if Catholic, then with Catholics. It would be a lovely sight to see you all communing together but I doubt we will see that any time soon. :angel:

As Yorickbrown said, "we dont know what the true nature of religion is."

It would be a lovely sight to see you all communing together but I doubt we will see that any time soon. :angel:


It would be such a LOVEly sight to see all religions embracing one another. Sometimes the walls of religion hinder, instead of promote, the spiritual progress that we all are trying to collectively make. Ego does seem be the fatal flaw in man’s interpretation of his corresponding religion, for it is often the mind which initially grabs onto the concepts of a chosen faith and then creates a bridge for the soul to connect.

It is almost impossible for man to take away the mental process involved in religion and instead allow his soul to grow, for the mind is the filter that we interpret this world through. Because of the nature of the mind, it can be corrupted very easily and then become possessive and protective of the religious choices that the individual has made. This is why the members of each faith tend to hold the members of other persuations at bay instead of embracing them – No man wants to regard his decision as possibly being incorrect, even in part.

I feel that this is detrimental to the progress of some religions, which is why they remain stagnant and often irrelevant in the changing times. Only a few, like Buddhism, allow for a true acceptance of others, for a focused attempt is made to get rid of the ego, the mental barrier which traps and binds man in the solitary world that his mind creates - Because of this barrier, mankind on the whole remains unable to spiritually grow for we are in many ways collective beings. The grouping (gathering) nature of religion proves this.

We can only hope that there will come a day when religious leaders will lose their ego and come together collectively, thereby bringing a large percentage of the world, their respective followings, onto one plateau of thought, but the only way for this to happen is for the egotistical walls and barriers of their respective faiths to come crumbling down. From what I see though, they are so busy patching these barriers up and selfishly protecting the ones already in place that we may never collectively see the light. And this is nothing but a tragedy.

... Only a few, like Buddhism, allow for a true acceptance of others, for a focused attempt is made to get rid of the ego, the mental barrier which traps and binds man in the solitary world that his mind creates .....

Got it YorickBrown! You would make a good Buddhist! You understand! You are awakened, no matter what faith you adhere to. You understand, if you are aware of it or not, the true Buddha nature.

It would be such a LOVEly sight to see all religions embracing one another. Sometimes the walls of religion hinder, instead of promote, the spiritual progress that we all are trying to collectively make. Ego does seem be the fatal flaw in man’s interpretation of his corresponding religion, for it is often the mind which initially grabs onto the concepts of a chosen faith and then creates a bridge for the soul to connect.

It is almost impossible for man to take away the mental process involved in religion and instead allow his soul to grow, for the mind is the filter that we interpret this world through. Because of the nature of the mind, it can be corrupted very easily and then become possessive and protective of the religious choices that the individual has made. This is why the members of each faith tend to hold the members of other persuations at bay instead of embracing them – No man wants to regard his decision as possibly being incorrect, even in part.

I feel that this is detrimental to the progress of some religions, which is why they remain stagnant and often irrelevant in the changing times. Only a few, like Buddhism, allow for a true acceptance of others, for a focused attempt is made to get rid of the ego, the mental barrier which traps and binds man in the solitary world that his mind creates - Because of this barrier, mankind on the whole remains unable to spiritually grow for we are in many ways collective beings. The grouping (gathering) nature of religion proves this.

We can only hope that there will come a day when religious leaders will lose their ego and come together collectively, thereby bringing a large percentage of the world, their respective followings, onto one plateau of thought, but the only way for this to happen is for the egotistical walls and barriers of their respective faiths to come crumbling down. From what I see though, they are so busy patching these barriers up and selfishly protecting the ones already in place that we may never collectively see the light. And this is nothing but a tragedy.

Very well said yorickbrown but there is another point. The religouse leaders will argue to see who is in charge.

I am an Anglican and to address what Melody has experienced I would say I am shocked. At my church during communion my priest specifically says to the congregation that ANY baptized individual of any denomination is free to come up and take communion. I have never personally heard a priest say only Anglicans would be allowed to take communion. In respect to the topic Anglicans vs. Roman Catholic I don't believe this is an issue. We the Anglicans broke off from the Roman Catholics some centuries ago because King Henry the VIII wanted a divorce from his wife which Catholics do not allow. This was before our time and I resent my denomination being attacked. I don't know what Anglican church you attended the funeral at Melody but I just can't see that comment being made by any of our priests.:hot:

Is there really a difference in the two religions?
On Saturday I attended two funerals at an Anglican Church and I found what the Rector said to be offensive and in poor taste and also non-Chrisitian.
When it was time for communion he said that only practising and baptized Anglican could receive receive communion and all others stay away.
No where in the Bible when Jesus was feeding persons did he check to see what their creed was.
During the Anglican Mass we say" Let us then pursue the things that make for peace and build up of the common life" How can we say this and then turn arround and tell persons so calluously don't come to our table?
My Bible tells me that Jesus died for all. In his word he said when ever you do this remember me. so what? only anglicans must remeber his death? or is this doctrine.? Do Catholics make this same announcement? I can't remember if I ever heard so rawly put. As Anglican I was embarassed and ashamed.
Do you think the Rector was right about his handling of this in a funeral service?

you should have confronted him, he was wrong.
he showcased no tact no decency no decorum nothing! At a funeral of all places...WTF?
I know I would have gasped for air and everyone would have heard my disdain. I went to a funeral about a month ago at an anglican church and the pastor dared not, it would have been disrespectful to the deceased and totally inappropriate. No excuse is good enough. He was wrong.

Got it YorickBrown! You would make a good Buddhist! You understand! You are awakened, no matter what faith you adhere to. You understand, if you are aware of it or not, the true Buddha nature.

:gi: what about me?

:gi: what about me?

What do you think? Do you feel so?

It was not a divorce that seperated the two denominations, it was nationalism and the desire to ride the Popes authority over church Land in England. Like OT Henry wanted a wife who would give him a son/heir. otherwise Henry VIII loved the Pope. It was the church leaders who seized the moment to 'divorce' themslves from Rome.
On the matter of Real Presence, that's an Anglican Teaching. RC's believe it's the 'actual' body and blood, unless that's cganged in recent times.
I sorry that Meoldy had her experience, that's not and anglican practice that I am familiar with.
We should not allow that to stop us from recieving the sacrament, especially if you believe in it's value and power. Beside, unless you had a sign on your forehead how would the Priest have know.
think of it like this, If you get to the pearly gate and Peter is in a bad mood and says something you don't like, are you going to turn around and go back where you came from. Pray for that Priest and press on, 'forgeting what lies behind...toward the prize the upward call... in XT Jesus.