Adventist: amalgamation in CERTAIN races of men.

[FredVB]

What I find curious is the (relatively) new racial category of "Hispanic". It certainly is not a matter of skin color as Central America and South America have centuries-long histories of intermarriage between natives, Eurpean colonists, and Africans. Nor is it a matter of linguistics because Spanish is not the national language of several of these countries with Brazil being the largest of the bunch with Portuguese as its national language. Does anyone know of an objective means of determining what the "Hispanic race" really is?

From what I hear science is pretty useless for establishing what are races of humanity and even if there are distinct races. There is a great variety of where distinctions between people can be discerned and they do not correspond to each other at all. I see from a map of people by their location around the year 1500, before such migration since, how the variation by distinct characteristics really are completely independent from each other. Distinction by race is really a cultural thing, and the cultures do not agree, so there is not any universal agreement around the world on what are the races exactly. You might do better to discuss ethnicities, slightly better anyway.

 

[bbbbbbb]

From what I hear science is pretty useless for establishing what are races of humanity and even if there are distinct races. There is a great variety of where distinctions between people can be discerned and they do not correspond to each other at all. I see from a map of people by their location around the year 1500, before such migration since, how the variation by distinct characteristics really are completely independent from each other. Distinction by race is really a cultural thing, and the cultures do not agree, so there is not any universal agreement around the world on what are the races exactly. You might do better to discuss ethnicities, slightly better anyway.

I agree. Discussing ethnicities is only slightly easier than racial qualities.

 

[FredVB]

I agree. Discussing ethnicities is only slightly easier than racial qualities.

There is the category Latino as well, that people get classified to. It is broader. The Brazilian people are Latino but they would not be Hispanic, not speaking Spanish.

 

[bbbbbbb]

There is the category Latino as well, that people get classified to. It is broader. The Brazilian people are Latino but they would not be Hispanic, not speaking Spanish.

Then, what becomes of the folks in all of the former Spanish and Portuguese colonies, as in the Philippines and Angola?

 

[The Liturgist]

From what I hear science is pretty useless for establishing what are races of humanity and even if there are distinct races. There is a great variety of where distinctions between people can be discerned and they do not correspond to each other at all. I see from a map of people by their location around the year 1500, before such migration since, how the variation by distinct characteristics really are completely independent from each other. Distinction by race is really a cultural thing, and the cultures do not agree, so there is not any universal agreement around the world on what are the races exactly. You might do better to discuss ethnicities, slightly better anyway.

Indeed. Also there are other oddities such as the very large number of people whose DNA indicates they are distant relatives of Ghenghis Khan, and other historical persons who reproduced aggressively (for example, the relations among the European nobility to certain ancient Frankish dynasties).

 

[FredVB]

Then, what becomes of the folks in all of the former Spanish and Portuguese colonies, as in the Philippines and Angola?

I think they who are of that descent of Spanish colonies might be called Hispanic as well. I do not know that they are called that but as it refers to those of a language and culture from Spanish occupation and influence it would apply. Those of the Portuguese are not Hispanic.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I think they who are of that descent of Spanish colonies might be called Hispanic as well. I do not know that they are called that but as it refers to those of a language and culture from Spanish occupation and influence it would apply. Those of the Portuguese are not Hispanic.

That is really quite peculiar, given the fact that the vast majority of Filipinos do not trace their descent from any Spanish or European ancestors. Going back to the term "Latino" as also encompassing those peoples in former Portuguese colonies, it is quite bizarre to imagine that the large majority of citizens of Angola, whose forbears were of decidedly southern African origin, might fall into the same category as citizens of Portugal.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The Roman Catholic Church is the official name of the Church of Rome presided over by the Patriarchate. Thus we use that name as a courtesy despite the fact that under other conditions we would call ourselves the Roman Catholic Church ....

Catholicity is a subjective opinion, which different denominations define differently according to their ecclesiastical model. For example, traditional Lutherans such as my friends @MarkRohfrietsch @ViaCrucis @Ain't Zwinglian and @JM commonly identify as Evangelical Catholics of the Augsburg Confession, and I feel this identification should be honored.

Would you honor my identification as 'Catholic'? You oversimplify me by saying I am a Roman Catholic. Yes, I am a Catholic of the Latin Rite. And yet I am in communion with all of these other Catholics too, who are sometimes called Roman Catholics when they belong to one of the other Catholic rites. I am out of communion with a bunch of other groups I wish I could be in communion with, but that is out of my control. If they claim my identification but persist in being out of communion with me I have to live with that somehow. But I am a Catholic, if you all let me.

 

[The Liturgist]

Would you honor my identification as 'Catholic'?

Of course I would.

who are sometimes called Roman Catholics when they belong to one of the other Catholic rites.

Not by me. I have never called the Eastern Catholics such as Ukrainian Greek Catholics or Chaldean Catholics as “Roman Catholic” or referred to them as “Uniates,” a term they find highly offensive.

It would be hypocritical of me to disparage the self-identification of the various Catholics in communion with Rome while asking my friends in communion with Rome to recognize the use of the word Catholic by other churches which historically have used it, since antiquity in the case of the Orthodox, the traditional Old Catholics and the Assyrian Catholic Church of the East, and also with credibility in the case of Anglo Catholics, Scoto Catholics, Evangelical Catholics and Reformed Catholics.

As I see it, even if you do not believe that they have Catholicity - that they are Separated Brethren (and not all of the groups I have mentioned are recognized as Separated Brethren with valid sacraments by Rome, but the Orthodox, Assyrians and Old Catholics are), it is still desirable to refer to everyone in as close a manner to how they wish to be referred as possible.

Likewise as an Eastern Orthodox I encourage the use of the word Orthodox not just by the Oriental Orthodox, who I controversially regard as perfectly, purely and entirely Orthodox, but also by Eastern Catholics who often identify as “Eastern Orthodox in Communion with Rome” and by those Evangelical Catholics such as my friend @MarkRohfrietsch , who seek to promote Lutheran Orthodoxy as it flourished in Saxony, Sweden, Norway and elsewhere in the period from 1600-1780, before the encroachment of Rationalism and Pietism brought to an end the glorious liturgical culture associated with the music of Dietrich Buxtehude, JS Bach and his sons.

I will even refer to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church by its name, even though my opinion as to its orthodoxy varies depending on the congregation - specifically, some OPC congregations, and also parishes in the Presbyterian Church in America and the Southern Baptist Convention, are or were members of the iconoclastic 9Marks group, which promotes abusive church discipline and which also posted on their website an article which sought to explain Islamic contempt for Christians on the basis that the Orthodox and Catholics who are their neighbors are idolaters and drunks who view pornography (I wish I was kidding on this point, but I’m not): Journal : Putting Contextualization in its Place | 9Marks

However, there are some churches in the PCA that have a liturgical heritage, for instance, Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, and the PCA and OPC are quite closely related. When Dr. James Kennedy was the pastor of Coral Ridge, it definitely exuded a certain Orthodox charm.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Would you honor my identification as 'Catholic'? You oversimplify me by saying I am a Roman Catholic. Yes, I am a Catholic of the Latin Rite. And yet I am in communion with all of these other Catholics too, who are sometimes called Roman Catholics when they belong to one of the other Catholic rites. I am out of communion with a bunch of other groups I wish I could be in communion with, but that is out of my control. If they claim my identification but persist in being out of communion with me I have to live with that somehow. But I am a Catholic, if you all let me.

You are certainly welcome to commune along with me at my (Presbyterian) church any time you should so choose. It is the Church of Rome that has anathematized Christians like myself.

 

[chevyontheriver]

You are certainly welcome to commune along with me at my (Presbyterian) church any time you should so choose. It is the Church of Rome that has anathematized Christians like myself.

I have read your Westminster Confession. So thank you anyway for the invitation.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I have read your Westminster Confession. So thank you anyway for the invitation.

I have also read your Catechism of the Catholic Church. You are welcome any time to join me in Christian worship.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Of course I would.

Thank you.

Not by me. I have never called the Eastern Catholics such as Ukrainian Greek Catholics or Chaldean Catholics as “Roman Catholic” or referred to them as “Uniates,” a term they find highly offensive.

And I know you wouldn't do that. Others do, probably ignorantly.

It would be hypocritical of me to disparage the self-identification of the various Catholics in communion with Rome while asking my friends in communion with Rome to recognize the use of the word Catholic by other churches which historically have used it, since antiquity in the case of the Orthodox, the traditional Old Catholics and the Assyrian Catholic Church of the East, and also with credibility in the case of Anglo Catholics, Scoto Catholics, Evangelical Catholics and Reformed Catholics.

I'm not saying anything about what they want to call themselves, except maybe to caution that ambiguity and confusion may result in some instances.

As I see it, even if you do not believe that they have Catholicity - that they are Separated Brethren (and not all of the groups I have mentioned are recognized as Separated Brethren with valid sacraments by Rome, but the Orthodox, Assyrians and Old Catholics are), it is still desirable to refer to everyone in as close a manner to how they wish to be referred as possible.

The real solution is for us all to own the name together. But that won't happen in my lifetime.

Likewise as an Eastern Orthodox I encourage the use of the word Orthodox not just by the Oriental Orthodox, who I controversially regard as perfectly, purely and entirely Orthodox, but also by Eastern Catholics who often identify as “Eastern Orthodox in Communion with Rome” and by those Evangelical Catholics such as my friend @MarkRohfrietsch , who seek to promote Lutheran Orthodoxy as it flourished in Saxony, Sweden, Norway and elsewhere in the period from 1600-1780, before the encroachment of Rationalism and Pietism brought to an end the glorious liturgical culture associated with the music of Dietrich Buxtehude, JS Bach and his sons.

I like it.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I have also read your Catechism of the Catholic Church. You are welcome any time to join me in Christian worship.

Thank you again, but having read the Westminster Confession and it's literal hostility to Catholics I will have to wait.

 

[The Liturgist]

I have also read your Catechism of the Catholic Church. You are welcome any time to join me in Christian worship.

You’re always welcome to worship with me.

It may surprise you to learn that despite being Orthodox, I am responsible for two Congregationalist missions, since historically I was Congregationalist, although at some point in the future these will likely either become Orthodox or Anglican (although they might become part of the CCCC). That said, neither mission subscribes to the Westminster Confession of Faith (I haven’t heard of any Congregationalists who use that, in fact).

Indeed, I have a particular interest in injecting Orthodoxy into Protestantism, which John Wesley did to some extent, as a means of brining about ecumenical reconciliation.

Thank you again, but having read the Westminster Confession and it's literal hostility to Catholics I will have to wait.

There are other Reformed confessions - perhaps @bbbbbbb follows one of them? For instance, the Belgic and Helvetic Confessions of Faith.

I do agree that the Westminster Confession of Faith is excessively polemical, and it is also the product of the reign of Oliver Cromwell, who oppressed not just Roman Catholics but also the Anglicans, and there was a second wave of iconoclasm during his reign, worse than that in the 1550s. Indeed, when I watch the film Cromwell, which is meant to praise him, it leaves a very bad taste in my mouth, particularly the opening scene where he picks up a beautiful gilded cross, not even a Crucifix, mind you, from the simply decorated altar in his parish, shouts something about graven images, and throws it on the floor, which is an act of violent iconoclasm which I regard as a desecration of an Anglican altar, and also as offensive given that the Cross is a universal Christian standard, but the Calvinist faction he was associated with was extreme to the point that they would not use it. It reminds me of how SDA churches lack crosses (or at least used to lack them - recently the SDA has included a cross as part of their official logo, but I have never seen an altar with a cross sitting at the front of an SDA parish (but perhaps they have become more common - I have not set foot in an SDA church since 1993, with the exception of a chapel permanently leased by a Syriac Orthodox church that is too small to purchase its own building).

 

[bbbbbbb]

You’re always welcome to worship with me.

It may surprise you to learn that despite being Orthodox, I am responsible for two Congregationalist missions, since historically I was Congregationalist, although at some point in the future these will likely either become Orthodox or Anglican (although they might become part of the CCCC). That said, neither mission subscribes to the Westminster Confession of Faith (I haven’t heard of any Congregationalists who use that, in fact).

Indeed, I have a particular interest in injecting Orthodoxy into Protestantism, which John Wesley did to some extent, as a means of brining about ecumenical reconciliation.



There are other Reformed confessions - perhaps @bbbbbbb follows one of them? For instance, the Belgic and Helvetic Confessions of Faith.

I do agree that the Westminster Confession of Faith is excessively polemical, and it is also the product of the reign of Oliver Cromwell, who oppressed not just Roman Catholics but also the Anglicans, and there was a second wave of iconoclasm during his reign, worse than that in the 1550s. Indeed, when I watch the film Cromwell, which is meant to praise him, it leaves a very bad taste in my mouth, particularly the opening scene where he picks up a beautiful gilded cross, not even a Crucifix, mind you, from the simply decorated altar in his parish, shouts something about graven images, and throws it on the floor, which is an act of violent iconoclasm which I regard as a desecration of an Anglican altar, and also as offensive given that the Cross is a universal Christian standard, but the Calvinist faction he was associated with was extreme to the point that they would not use it. It reminds me of how SDA churches lack crosses (or at least used to lack them - recently the SDA has included a cross as part of their official logo, but I have never seen an altar with a cross sitting at the front of an SDA parish (but perhaps they have become more common - I have not set foot in an SDA church since 1993, with the exception of a chapel permanently leased by a Syriac Orthodox church that is too small to purchase its own building).

As you do, I also view the Westminster Confession of Faith in its historic context. Following the Council of Trent with its extensive anathematization of non-Catholics in general and Protestants in particular it comes as no surprise that Protestant denominations also reacted similarly. The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican Church, although really quite brief, are an example.

Today, although the Presbyterian church I attend is relatively conservative on the scale, the announcement is made prior to communion that the Table is open to all Christians, not merely members of a particular denomination. Thus, ChevyOnTheRiver would be welcomed, despite the fact that his denomination excludes all Protestants from partaking of their Eucharist.

 

[The Liturgist]

As you do, I also view the Westminster Confession of Faith in its historic context. Following the Council of Trent with its extensive anathematization of non-Catholics in general and Protestants in particular it comes as no surprise that Protestant denominations also reacted similarly. The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican Church, although really quite brief, are an example.

Today, although the Presbyterian church I attend is relatively conservative on the scale, the announcement is made prior to communion that the Table is open to all Christians, not merely members of a particular denomination. Thus, ChevyOnTheRiver would be welcomed, despite the fact that his denomination excludes all Protestants from partaking of their Eucharist.

That said there is a theological basis for closed communion which is not done out of any malicious spirit. For example, Lutherans and Orthodox practice closed communion as well as Roman Catholics. The reason for the practice, scripturally, is based on a desire to prevent people from receiving communion unworthily as per 1 Corinthians 11:27-34

Indeed many Eastern Orthodox Christians, such as Russians and Ukrainians, go a step further and require partaking of sacramental reconciliation at least once a month, sometimes before every Eucharist. This might sound harsh until one considers that unlike in the West, Orthodox clergy do not apply a penance to everyone who confesses.

 

[bbbbbbb]

That said there is a theological basis for closed communion which is not done out of any malicious spirit. For example, Lutherans and Orthodox practice closed communion as well as Roman Catholics. The reason for the practice, scripturally, is based on a desire to prevent people from receiving communion unworthily as per 1 Corinthians 11:27-34

Indeed many Eastern Orthodox Christians, such as Russians and Ukrainians, go a step further and require partaking of sacramental reconciliation at least once a month, sometimes before every Eucharist. This might sound harsh until one considers that unlike in the West, Orthodox clergy do not apply a penance to everyone who confesses.

Actually, I have no objection to closed communion at all. It becomes difficult to implement effectively in large parishes, especially the new combined parishes in the Catholic Church.