Catholicism, Christianity, Denominations?

[OregonNative]

You should hope for more from the Church, and that is why it is so painful. But that is also why an evil force would attack it more vigorously, is it not?

Agree completely!!

 

I don't know how you research things, but I no longer expect that any source is unbiased. Therefore, what I usually do is seek out both sides of any issue to get their own view (both sides of an argument). Read what the Church says and read what others say. Know that some of those others have axes to grind. That is the best I think anyone can do.

Again, I agree. One of my struggle being such a "black and white" person.

 

Also, I would not think that there is a blanket answer here. All these incidents were unique, and there were many people involved over a span of time - mostly years ago. There were massive cultural influences going on at the time - a sexual revolution not originating in the Church was sweeping the West. I have no knowledge of this. Any links or ideas where I could get more information? They had to face the issues as individuals - those people who were doing the abuse and those faced with trying to decide how to handle it, and they made individual choices. Each and every one deserves unique judgement. Nothing simple here, and that is why the Church seems to have acted so slowly. They took it gravely serious, and that takes time. Taking time is NOT popular in the West. As if instant justice is possible.

 

Thanks again:001_smile:

[Parrothead]

I am aware that some individual groups hold closed communion. And this is not just within the Catholic church.

 

My husband attended 4 years at Catholic High in Baton Rouge, LA, and attending regular mass was part of their weekly school. Yes, he confirms that they were offered mass throughout his attendance there. I do not know what percentage of students at that time were non-Catholic, but I do know that it was not a tiny, insignificant percentage like 1-3%. It may have been as much as 25%....

Offered mass? Do you mean that he was allowed to attend Mass as "attended the weekly Sunday services? Or do you mean that he was offered the Holy Eucharist - ie. communion? It is okay for a non-Catholic to attend mass.

My older son attended Episcopal in Baton Rouge for K and first, and we were offered participation in communion there. The majority of students there were non-Episcopalian....

I have no knowledge of what the Episcopal church recommends for participating in communion in their church.

 

My older son attended Lexington Catholic for three years and weekly mass was part and parcel of his school there, just as it had been for my husband. AND, religion class was a requirement (as it was for my husband). At no time during any year's religion class nor during the services were either of them ever given any indication whatsoever that they could or should not partake in the communion.

Again, non- Catholics are allowed to attend Mass and also religious ed classes. I can't answer for this particular parish about why. I don't have a clue as to whether this parish uses a Missal or if your son ever read the inside of the front cover of the missal. IF your son was encouraged to receive the Holy Eucharist without being in a state of grace someone (the diocese bishop) should be informed that this has happened and is still possibly happening. I urge you to call or write to the diocese. Here is a link to the Lexington diocese and I'm sure there is an address to Bishop Gainer's office there.

Now last year, when my son graduated, I believe that there was slightly more than 50% of students at Lexington Catholic who were non-Catholic. Mass is part of graduation. I still have ALL written materials we were given when we entered the graduation hall. At no time and in no place were we told, orally or in writing, that non-Catholics were not to participate in communion. I'll have to look back, but I believe a Bishop presided.....

I'm sorry you are so disturbed by this. If ever you are in a Catholic church again, check out the inside front cover of the Missal in the pew. It contains a letter to non-Catholic visitors. I've never been in a Catholic church, and I've been in many, that did not have a missal.

 

I do have to ask, are you absolutely certain that mass was said? I ask because normally it can't be said someplace other than a consecrated church. A graduation hall wouldn't be allowed. Mass would have taken an hour or more just by itself. This is the Order of the Mass. Did you do all of ir?

Off to email another Catholic friend whose father sits on the board of the school.....

.

[mcconnellboys]

Some of the students at my son's graduation did this.... But more than half the families there were non-Catholic and there were certainly no where near that number of people doing such a thing..... I'd say only about 2 dozen on my side of a huge auditorium completely full of people.....

[Parrothead]

I have no knowledge of this. Any links or ideas where I could get more information?

 

Thanks again:001_smile:

You must be rather young if you don't remember the 60s and early 70s. :D

[asta]

I think this is a good time to point out that Catholics do not own the market on sexual misconduct by priests. I was assaulted by a lead pastor of a conservative evangelical "bible believing" church/denomination. Even with the evidence his credentials were not revoked, but I was able to file paperwork that has kept him from getting a new position once he left his old one.

 

I have had to ask this question on a very personal note..."God why didn't you protect me?" "I was serving you, in ministry...and you didn't protect me! Why?"

 

There are no easy answers to that. I know...He knows. I know...there will be accountabilty. I also know...that he didn't get away with it. I may not have been in position to bring criminal charges, but his sins caught up with him. He loved the pulpit...being in a place of authority...and that has been stripped.

 

I'm so very sorry this happened to you.

 

I wrote a post a couple of months ago about the numerous places where abuse has occurred. It happens in all denominations (all!), scouting, public and private schools, daycares - it is really sad.

 

I find it unfortunate that one only hears about the cases involving the RCC. I know there are deep pockets there, but all of the press going to Rome draws attention away from problems right in one's own back yard.

 

Additionally, and I think this has been touched on here before (caveat: this is not an excuse for anyone's behavior, this is just a cultural truism), one needs to realize that, until relatively recently (80s? 90s?) your average family would rather drop dead than report their minister/pastor to the police. It wasn't a matter of not believing what their child was telling them, it was a matter of not wanting to be ostracized from their community for getting the pastor arrested!

 

We live in the internet age; everyone knows everything, and information flows so quickly that the "big" story is here and gone within one 24 hour news cycle. But from the 1970s backwards, it just wasn't like that. Public shaming was HUGE. If something happened in a community, it STAYED and never left. If it was you or your family, you would have to uproot and move. People would tell their kid to shut up and deal with it rather than open their mouth about the aberrant pastor. Sure, they would make sure their kid wouldn't be around him any longer, but they wouldn't go to the police! And that was only if their kid actually told them. Many kids never said a word. Which is so not their fault. Pastors are supposed to be Christ's representatives on earth; what a horribly mixed message that is.

 

So. Holy Spirit. She's busy. She can only work through mankind. If mankind is screwed up, what does she have to work with? Bubkus. She has to wait around for a decent host; someone with enough gumption, who is in the right position to actually affect change. It appears she is working the rear off of Pope Benedict at the moment: he is 83 and is kicking butt and taking names in regards to the pedophile issue (as well as many others).

 

I wouldn't want her job.

 

 

a

[simka2]

May I ask why you couldn't bring charges against him?

 

 

It was a timing issue. By the time I was ready he had fled his position, moved to another state, and my story was public.

 

That was as far as I was willing to take it. I had advisors on both sides of the issue. It comes down to how much stress I could go thru while being a mother of 4 kids. I did what I had the strength to.

 

Just yesterday....3 years after this happened I recieved another apology from one of the elders at that time. Basically, I got everything I needed. He was out of ministry, my reputation was restored, dh had a new career which was more than 3 times the income we had made as full-time staff. We were able to use our gifts on staff at another church for no compensation :D. And our previous denomination was covering all the counseling.

[Gretchen in NJ]

When we were exploring all of this an Orthodox leaning friend explained that it elevated the Father and the Son over the Holy Spirit, in a sense, and that might be what Mommaduck means by "turning it on its head."

 

However, I have since come to think that that is a rather man-made concept. One cannot be elevated above or below the other. That idea in and of itself is filled with a fear that is simply not the character of God at all. It is definitely something that would cause humans to fret though. They worry about who is or is not elevated over whom all. of. the. time. It is, perhaps, our biggest pre-occupation, and it is also the cause of the fall.

 

The entire concept became completely comprehensible to me when I read Theology of the Body for Beginners (West). It also helped me understand the Trinity and why Catholics are so ardently against contraception, a huge stumbling block for Protestants. Whether or not you come to agree with their argument, it is very compelling, and I think it might help people to see why Catholics and the Pope defend the teaching the way they do. I highly recommend this little volume.

 

In a nutshell love must be shared to be expressed, so love "proceeds" from the Father and the Son because they are in perfect relationship. Out of that perfection flows Love (the Holy Spirit). But it is not like one comes before/after the other or is more important or anything like that. Those ideas just do not apply to God. The human family is the earthly, imperfect image of that relationship. It is the more complete idea of Man being in the image of God - not man alone but rather man in relationship. The very identity of the Triune God is a relationship of pure love.

 

I am no theologian, and I have no doubt butchered all this. But I am really just explaining how I came to comprehend the filioque and the teachings from a Catholic perspective. I probably should not even post this given the depth of the issue. But it does come up and it hasn't been attempted thus far. I refer others to the book for a better explanation.

 

I think that the RC Church might have given up the notion and gone back to the other wording at some point had the addition been found to be inaccurate or untrue given what is at stake. But that did not happen.

 

Anyway, this understanding is how I came to find peace with the Great Schism. Just my 2 cents.

 

Thank you for your 2 cents. It was well worth the read IMHO.:001_smile:

[Parrothead]

Some of the students at my son's graduation did this.... But more than half the families there were non-Catholic and there were certainly no where near that number of people doing such a thing..... I'd say only about 2 dozen on my side of a huge auditorium completely full of people.....

Since you are not quoting you'll have to be more specific as to what "this" and "such a thing" you are referring to.

[i.love.lucy]

 

Regarding the truth of different denominations: I believe that God allows us to practice different religions according to our ability to understand his gospel. In essence, every person has an individual relationship with God that he/she is accountable for. You must stay true to your God guided beliefs. There are religions that I completely disagree with and cannot see the gospel in at all, but it is not my business to tell others how to worship. That is MY truth and MY path. I believe that my walk in life is a testament to God and if God wants me to share my personal story (witness) and try to sway someone spiritually he will guide me in that. Like this post I'm writing; I believe it is divinely inspired.

 

I don't think God expects everyone of us to believe exactly the same. He made us all unique and so we will all have a unique understanding of Him causing a unique relationship with Him.

 

Hope that helps!:)

Very nicely worded. Our faith is personal and should be God directed. We can argue in this thread all day about which came first Catholics or Orthodox or how way off base the Protestants are, etc, etc, yada, yada, but I believe OP your journey needs to begin in and be drenched in prayer. He will not forsake you. There are no questions too hard. Remember he does tell us His ways are not our ways. There will certainly be things we can't understand or reconcile. But through prayer and faith we can find our own path to a growing and vibrant relationship with Him.

 

I will keep praying for you OregonNative!:):grouphug:

[simka2]

I'm so very sorry this happened to you.

 

I wrote a post a couple of months ago about the numerous places where abuse has occurred. It happens in all denominations (all!), scouting, public and private schools, daycares - it is really sad.

 

I find it unfortunate that one only hears about the cases involving the RCC. I know there are deep pockets there, but all of the press going to Rome draws attention away from problems right in one's own back yard.

 

Additionally, and I think this has been touched on here before (caveat: this is not an excuse for anyone's behavior, this is just a cultural truism), one needs to realize that, until relatively recently (80s? 90s?) your average family would rather drop dead than report their minister/pastor to the police. It wasn't a matter of not believing what their child was telling them, it was a matter of not wanting to be ostracized from their community for getting the pastor arrested!

 

We live in the internet age; everyone knows everything, and information flows so quickly that the "big" story is here and gone within one 24 hour news cycle. But from the 1970s backwards, it just wasn't like that. Public shaming was HUGE. If something happened in a community, it STAYED and never left. If it was you or your family, you would have to uproot and move. People would tell their kid to shut up and deal with it rather than open their mouth about the aberrant pastor. Sure, they would make sure their kid wouldn't be around him any longer, but they wouldn't go to the police! And that was only if their kid actually told them. Many kids never said a word. Which is so not their fault. Pastors are supposed to be Christ's representatives on earth; what a horribly mixed message that is.

 

So. Holy Spirit. She's busy. She can only work through mankind. If mankind is screwed up, what does she have to work with? Bubkus. She has to wait around for a decent host; someone with enough gumption, who is in the right position to actually affect change. It appears she is working the rear off of Pope Benedict at the moment: he is 83 and is kicking butt and taking names in regards to the pedophile issue (as well as many others).

 

I wouldn't want her job.

 

 

a

 

Thanks Asta! and the bolded part is still very true. When I told my MIL she told me "not to talk that way about her pastor!" They stood by their pastor and not their son or dil. It has been very painful for us.

 

As, I said in an above post, things worked out for me. I am grateful, but it soooo hard to stand against a pastor/priest.

[Parrothead]

Additionally, and I think this has been touched on here before (caveat: this is not an excuse for anyone's behavior, this is just a cultural truism), one needs to realize that, until relatively recently (80s? 90s?) your average family would rather drop dead than report their minister/pastor to the police. It wasn't a matter of not believing what their child was telling them, it was a matter of not wanting to be ostracized from their community for getting the pastor arrested!

 

We live in the internet age; everyone knows everything, and information flows so quickly that the "big" story is here and gone within one 24 hour news cycle. But from the 1970s backwards, it just wasn't like that. Public shaming was HUGE. If something happened in a community, it STAYED and never left. If it was you or your family, you would have to uproot and move. People would tell their kid to shut up and deal with it rather than open their mouth about the aberrant pastor. Sure, they would make sure their kid wouldn't be around him any longer, but they wouldn't go to the police! And that was only if their kid actually told them. Many kids never said a word. Which is so not their fault. Pastors are supposed to be Christ's representatives on earth; what a horribly mixed message that is.

 

 

This is so very sadly true. If you believe at one time unwed mothers were ostracized they you can kind of understand how this happened. Also "tolerance" wasn't the byword of the day. If young Jim reported that he had been sexu@lly abused by anyone be it priest, mailman, or school principal he would have been tagged as homosexu@l. Just as it use to be the woman's "fault" she was raped, it would be young Jim's fault he was assaulted.

 

The scandal could not have broken any sooner than it did and have the same results - reform within the Church as to policies regarding children. It just would not have happened the way it did. So no, it was truly in God's time when events happened the way they did.

[OregonNative]

Difference in beliefs within Denominations:

Does anyone have an issue with this? For example: the LCMS and the ELCA of the Lutheran Denomination. I just don't get how one faith can be so different especially when it comes to the Bible. If I was someone searching for Christ, this might make me think the Lutheran faith was confused!

 

Bible:

Inspired and inerrant. (LCMS)

Inspired but not inerrant. (ELCA)

 

Women in Clegegy

No (LCMS)

Yes (ELCA)

 

Closed Communion

No (LCMS)

Yes(ELCA)

 

Homosexualtiy

No (LCMS)

No Policy (ELCA) (but all single members, "including those who understand themselves to be homosexual, are expected to abstain from sexual relationships.")

 

Same Sex Marriage

No (LCMS)

Study in Progress (ELCA)

[OregonNative]

You must be rather young if you don't remember the 60s and early 70s. :D

 

Born in 73:tongue_smilie:While I know of the sexu@l revolution I don't really know about it.

[OregonNative]

I'm so very sorry this happened to you.

 

I wrote a post a couple of months ago about the numerous places where abuse has occurred. It happens in all denominations (all!), scouting, public and private schools, daycares - it is really sad.

 

I find it unfortunate that one only hears about the cases involving the RCC. I know there are deep pockets there, but all of the press going to Rome draws attention away from problems right in one's own back yard.

 

Additionally, and I think this has been touched on here before (caveat: this is not an excuse for anyone's behavior, this is just a cultural truism), one needs to realize that, until relatively recently (80s? 90s?) your average family would rather drop dead than report their minister/pastor to the police. It wasn't a matter of not believing what their child was telling them, it was a matter of not wanting to be ostracized from their community for getting the pastor arrested!

 

We live in the internet age; everyone knows everything, and information flows so quickly that the "big" story is here and gone within one 24 hour news cycle. But from the 1970s backwards, it just wasn't like that. Public shaming was HUGE. If something happened in a community, it STAYED and never left. If it was you or your family, you would have to uproot and move. People would tell their kid to shut up and deal with it rather than open their mouth about the aberrant pastor. Sure, they would make sure their kid wouldn't be around him any longer, but they wouldn't go to the police! And that was only if their kid actually told them. Many kids never said a word. Which is so not their fault. Pastors are supposed to be Christ's representatives on earth; what a horribly mixed message that is.

 

So. Holy Spirit. She's busy. She can only work through mankind. If mankind is screwed up, what does she have to work with? Bubkus. She has to wait around for a decent host; someone with enough gumption, who is in the right position to actually affect change. It appears she is working the rear off of Pope Benedict at the moment: he is 83 and is kicking butt and taking names in regards to the pedophile issue (as well as many others).

 

I wouldn't want her job.

 

 

a

 

Thanks for sharing this Asta!! So wonderfully put and something I didn't really consider-what the times were like "back in the day."

 

It is sad that most ppl only hear about the RCC. I do feel that the RCC was made the poster child for this issue. Sort of like Michael Vick and dog fighting. We know this still goes on everywhere. But ppl had to put a face to it!

[Cheryl in NM]

 

Directly translated from Latin means "scripture alone".

[Parrothead]

Difference in beliefs within Denominations:

Does anyone have an issue with this? For example: the LCMS and the ELCA of the Lutheran Denomination. I just don't get how one faith can be so different especially when it comes to the Bible. If I was someone searching for Christ, this might make me think the Lutheran faith was confused!

 

Bible:

Inspired and inerrant. (LCMS)

Inspired but not inerrant. (ELCA)

 

Women in Clegegy

No (LCMS)

Yes (ELCA)

 

Closed Communion

No (LCMS)

Yes(ELCA)

 

Homosexualtiy

No (LCMS)

No Policy (ELCA) (but all single members, "including those who understand themselves to be homosexual, are expected to abstain from sexual relationships.")

 

Same Sex Marriage

No (LCMS)

Study in Progress (ELCA)

I can look at you list and see why it is so. One is more traditional/conservative than the other.

 

Also you have to remember that the Lutheran church directly "came from" the Catholic church. Luther didn't want to start a new church, but that happened anyway. The new church kept quite a bit of the old. I think the Lutheran church is a close to being Catholic that a Protestant church can get. What you have with these two is one that stayed close to home and one that made yet another branch (off shoot) in the tree of Christianity. They have a common core to both call themselves Lutheran instead of one being Lutheran and one being Lutheran II.

[OregonNative]

Very nicely worded. Our faith is personal and should be God directed. We can argue in this thread all day about which came first Catholics or Orthodox or how way off base the Protestants are, etc, etc, yada, yada, but I believe OP your journey needs to begin in and be drenched in prayer. He will not forsake you. There are no questions too hard. Remember he does tell us His ways are not our ways. There will certainly be things we can't understand or reconcile. But through prayer and faith we can find our own path to a growing and vibrant relationship with Him.

 

I will keep praying for you OregonNative!:):grouphug:

 

Amy, do you believe that darkness can show itself as light? I almost converted to a faith that looking back terrifies me! I prayed and was told God would show me the truth about this faith if I sought him. I did seek and felt that he was telling me this faith was the truth. When my DH refused to let me convert (thank God), I was devastated and cried for days. I felt like my heart had been ripped out and I would never be able to practice the true faith.

 

I have not prayed about this new journey. Part of me is afraid I will be led astray-by what or whom I don't know.

 

I still don't understand why I was so eager to convert to something that I realize now is completely off the mark and is not Christian.

[OregonNative]

I can look at you list and see why it is so. One is more traditional/conservative than the other.

Also you have to remember that the Lutheran church directly "came from" the Catholic church. Luther didn't want to start a new church, but that happened anyway. The new church kept quite a bit of the old. I think the Lutheran church is a close to being Catholic that a Protestant church can get. What you have with these two is one that stayed close to home and one that made yet another branch (off shoot) in the tree of Christianity. They have a common core to both call themselves Lutheran instead of one being Lutheran and one being Lutheran II.

 

One is more traditional/conservative than the other. Yes, I understand this part. It just seems they are SO different and at completely different ends of the spectrum. I guess it bothers me personally that a church could be so liberal and still call itself Lutheran.

[Tea Time]

Thanks again:001_smile:

 

About how the sexual revolution influenced the sex abuse scandals...

Here is a start:

 

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=749

 

These two go together:

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/the-pattern-of-priestly-sex-abuse/

 

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/the-pattern-of-priestly-sex-abuse-cont/

 

This topic is vast, complex, and controversial. But the basic idea is not that hard to grasp unless you are really looking to obscure it. The traditional sense of family and sexuality was being subverted in many ways, some of them were so deliberate and bold it would shock most of us to our core, and that influence was felt and is felt everywhere.

[Parrothead]

One is more traditional/conservative than the other. Yes, I understand this part. It just seems they are SO different and at completely different ends of the spectrum. I guess it bothers me personally that a church could be so liberal and still call itself Lutheran.

I dare say one would find the same thing in any denomination. There are more liberal Catholics, more conservative Baptists, more traditional Methodists, and more modern Presbyterians. The Catholics are still Catholic, the Baptists are still Baptist and so on because the core belief is the same.

[silliness7]

Well, that begs the question "Which came first?" The epistles were written somewhere around 50 - 65 AD. Most modern scholarship puts the authorship of the Gospels after that. Jesus Christ instituted the Church. What was there in between? When was the canon defined? In the 300's. So, there wasn't a defined scripture for some 300 years after Christ was born. So, there was a Church with Tradition long before there was Scripture.

 

How can this be true? Christ himself had Scriptures. The early church wouldn't have had the New Testament but they would have had the Jewish Scriptures.

 

I am about 2/3 through the discussion. It is quite fascinating. I admit I do not know a whole lot about RCC and even less about EO. I grew up Southern Baptist and several years ago came to a Reformed understanding of the Bible. We then relocated in large part to worship and raise our kids in a reformed congregation.

 

ETA: One other thing...It seems reasonable to me that there was one church in the beginning which then split into RC and EO which then shattered into a thousand pieces with the Reformation. BUT the Anabaptists believe that their theology/worship directly descends from John the Baptist and will argue that they did not splinter off the Catholic church but have always been. It's one of the things that makes me go hmmmmm......

These are fuzzy recollections from a Baptist Heritage class I took in college. Feel free to correct any errors in my thinking.

Edited December 29, 2010 by silliness7

[mommaduck]

How can this be true? Christ himself had Scriptures. The early church wouldn't have had the New Testament but they would have had the Jewish Scriptures.

 

I am about 2/3 through the discussion. It is quite fascinating. I admit I do not know a whole lot about RCC and even less about EO. I grew up Southern Baptist and several years ago came to a Reformed understanding of the Bible. We then relocated in large part to worship and raise our kids in a reformed congregation.

 

ETA: One other thing...It seems reasonable to me that there was one church in the beginning which then split into RC and EO which then shattered into a thousand pieces with the Reformation. BUT the Anabaptists believe that their theology/worship directly descends from John the Baptist and will argue that they did not splinter off the Catholic church but have always been. It's one of the things that makes me go hmmmmm......

These are fuzzy recollections from a Baptist Heritage class I took in college. Feel free to correct any errors in my thinking.

Specifically, "in the form we now know it"...aka with the NT.

[OregonNative]

I dare say one would find the same thing in any denomination. There are more liberal Catholics, more conservative Baptists, more traditional Methodists, and more modern Presbyterians. The Catholics are still Catholic, the Baptists are still Baptist and so on because the core belief is the same.

 

Hmmmm..............but if their beliefs and practices deviate from the original churches design, wouldn't they be off track? For example: same sex marriage. If you believe in the Bible-wouldn't you then believe the homosexuality is wrong? If not Sola Scriptura, I can't imagine there are inspired resources that support this? Maybe I'm wrong???

 

While I can see a different belief in the communion table some of the other differences seem very worldly-almost like churches want to fit in to society rather than stick to the Word.

[Parrothead]

How can this be true? Christ himself had Scriptures. The early church wouldn't have had the New Testament but they would have had the Jewish Scriptures.

 

I am about 2/3 through the discussion. It is quite fascinating. I admit I do not know a whole lot about RCC and even less about EO. I grew up Southern Baptist and several years ago came to a Reformed understanding of the Bible. We then relocated in large part to worship and raise our kids in a reformed congregation.

Maybe she meant Scripture as we know it. The apostles and the early church had many many books and letters to guide them. The early church had not only the first gospels and letters that we have, they also had the gnostic gospels and Tradition that carried the Church for the first 400 years or so.

[OregonNative]

I grew up Southern Baptist and several years ago came to a Reformed understanding of the Bible. We then relocated in large part to worship and raise our kids in a reformed congregation.

 

Can you explain the major difference between non-reformed and reformed. I have no idea whether or not the churches I've attended are either. Does this only pertain to Protestant Christianity?

[Parrothead]

Hmmmm..............but if their beliefs and practices deviate from the original churches design, wouldn't they be off track? For example: same sex marriage. If you believe in the Bible-wouldn't you then believe the homosexuality is wrong? If not Sola Scriptura, I can't imagine there are inspired resources that support this? Maybe I'm wrong???

 

While I can see a different belief in the communion table some of the other differences seem very worldly-almost like churches want to fit in to society rather than stick to the Word.

Sure someone is off track. But one must make up one's own mind - free will and all that. Wasn't that what was asked in the first post? Who's got it right?

 

At some point enough people within the Lutheran church decided that Jesus would not condemn same sex marriage. That is just the kind of Guy He is. They still consider themselves Lutheran they still believe the core principals and every thing the Lutheran church teaches except the stance about same sex marriage. Do they branch off with the same name - Lutherans or do they get a new name? As it happened they branched off with the same name but started another governing body.

 

It is the same thing within the Jewish religion. They have Orthodox, Reformed, Ultra but they are all still Jewish.

 

ETA: I really don't know what caused the two Lutheran synods to come into being. I was using SSM as an example. I hope I haven't offended any Lutherans out there.

 

Off to the market.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Parrothead

[unsinkable]

I am aware that some individual groups hold closed communion. And this is not just within the Catholic church.

 

My husband attended 4 years at Catholic High in Baton Rouge, LA, and attending regular mass was part of their weekly school. Yes, he confirms that they were offered mass throughout his attendance there. I do not know what percentage of students at that time were non-Catholic, but I do know that it was not a tiny, insignificant percentage like 1-3%. It may have been as much as 25%....

 

My older son attended Episcopal in Baton Rouge for K and first, and we were offered participation in communion there. The majority of students there were non-Episcopalian....

 

My older son attended Lexington Catholic for three years and weekly mass was part and parcel of his school there, just as it had been for my husband. AND, religion class was a requirement (as it was for my husband). At no time during any year's religion class nor during the services were either of them ever given any indication whatsoever that they could or should not partake in the communion.

 

Now last year, when my son graduated, I believe that there was slightly more than 50% of students at Lexington Catholic who were non-Catholic. Mass is part of graduation. I still have ALL written materials we were given when we entered the graduation hall. At no time and in no place were we told, orally or in writing, that non-Catholics were not to participate in communion. I'll have to look back, but I believe a Bishop presided.....

 

Off to email another Catholic friend whose father sits on the board of the school.....

 

This is from Catholic.com:

 

Other Christians and Communion

 

 

 

The guidelines for receiving Communion, which are issued by the U.S. bishops and published in many missalettes, explain, "We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ’s prayer for us ‘that they may all be one’ (John 17:21).

 

"Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law. . . . "

 

Scripture is clear that partaking of the Eucharist is among the highest signs of Christian unity: "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread" (1 Cor. 10:17). For this reason, it is normally impossible for non-Catholic Christians to receive Holy Communion, for to do so would be to proclaim a unity to exist that, regrettably, does not.

 

Another reason that many non-Catholics may not ordinarily receive Communion is for their own protection, since many reject the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Scripture warns that it is very dangerous for one not believing in the Real Presence to receive Communion: "For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died" (1 Cor. 11:29–30).

 

Non-Christians and Communion

 

 

 

The U.S. bishops’ guidelines for receiving Communion state, "We also welcome to this celebration those who do not share our faith in Jesus Christ. While we cannot admit them to Communion, we ask them to offer their prayers for the peace and the unity of the human family."

 

Because they have not received baptism, the gateway to the other sacraments, non-Christians cannot receive Communion. However, in emergency situations, they can be received into the Church via

baptism, even if no priest is present, and an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may bring them Communion as Viaticum.

 

I have no issues with you or anyone else receiving Communion -- I have said before that is between the individual and God.

 

But it truly is NOT the teaching of the Church.

 

Individual schools do not have the authority to give Communion to non-Catholics. If they are doing it, it is wrong.

 

My son's school has Catholics, non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians. I would bet my last dollar that the priests, brothers and Eucharistic ministers know who can receive Communion. If it is different at your son's school, so be it. But that doesn't mean it OK according to the RCC.

 

Regena, I hope you understand what I mean. I don't want you to think I am picking on you or telling you that you can't go to Communion. I am just trying to explain that it is not the teaching of the Church.

 

Do you see what I mean? :confused:

Edited December 29, 2010 by unsinkable

[Tea Time]

How can this be true? Christ himself had Scriptures. The early church wouldn't have had the New Testament but they would have had the Jewish Scriptures.

 

I am about 2/3 through the discussion. It is quite fascinating. I admit I do not know a whole lot about RCC and even less about EO. I grew up Southern Baptist and several years ago came to a Reformed understanding of the Bible. We then relocated in large part to worship and raise our kids in a reformed congregation.

 

ETA: One other thing...It seems reasonable to me that there was one church in the beginning which then split into RC and EO which then shattered into a thousand pieces with the Reformation. BUT the Anabaptists believe that their theology/worship directly descends from John the Baptist and will argue that they did not splinter off the Catholic church but have always been. It's one of the things that makes me go hmmmmm......

These are fuzzy recollections from a Baptist Heritage class I took in college. Feel free to correct any errors in my thinking.

 

The Hebrew Scripture was also Oral Tradition before it was written. And when Jesus lived it was likely that all his teaching came directly from the Oral Tradition. He did not read off a Kindle. :D The Jews set down a cannon of books after Christ's death more or less to make a distinction from the newly forming Christians - leaving out some books that would have been used by Jesus. This Jewish Cannon is the cannon that the reformers used as well. Am I getting that right folks? Correct me if I am wrong. (Again, over my head! Sinking! Help! Blurb Blurb Blurb...)

 

The Anabaptist way of thinking is common to many Protestant faiths. They all claim to and desire to jump straight back to "the beginning" somehow, but there is no objective record of it. I think it is an understandable desire, to get back to the basics. But time flows forward, not back. Simply put, the RCC and the EO have records and an apostolic heritage to point to, for what it is worth.

[silliness7]

Specifically, "in the form we now know it"...aka with the NT.

 

 

Yes, of course...But to say that the early church had ONLY oral tradition for 300 years is incorrect, right? They did have Jewish Scriptures right? The same Scriptures Jesus quoted and Paul used to argue that Jesus is the Messiah. Like I said, I'm not familiar with RC/EO thought so maybe I'm missing something here.

[silliness7]

The Hebrew Scripture was also Oral Tradition before it was written. And when Jesus lived it was likely that all his teaching came directly from the Oral Tradition. He did not read off a Kindle. :D The Jews set down a cannon of books after Christ's death more or less to make a distinction from the newly forming Christians - leaving out some books that would have been used by Jesus. This Jewish Cannon is the cannon that the reformers used as well. Am I getting that right folks? Correct me if I am wrong. (Again, over my head! Sinking! Help! Blurb Blurb Blurb...)

 

The Anabaptist way of thinking is common to many Protestant faiths. They all claim to and desire to jump straight back to "the beginning" somehow, but there is no objective record of it. I think it is an understandable desire, to get back to the basics. But time flows forward, not back. Simply put, the RCC and the EO have records and an apostolic heritage to point to, for what it is worth.

 

More questions to ponder. :001_smile:

I have absolutely no idea how the Jews came up with their canon. However I did understand that as early as Moses God's Word was written down some of it by God's own finger on tablets of stone. Then of course there is the part of the law that instructs each king to copy the law in his own hand. There is a king who finds a copy of the law and reads it and repents. Who was that? Hezekiah maybe? And of course when Jesus quotes from Isaiah in the temple he unrolled a physical scroll and read it. Don't know the reference off the top of my head.

 

So I do understand that each home didn't have 10 copies of the Scriptures for themselves but there were enough copies to keep God's people on track, theoretically. ;)

[milovany]

I mean no disrespect here, but why do you quibble this?

 

Catholic means universal...

 

Thanks for bringing this up because I don't want to be quibbling, you're right. Forgive me. It's just that when I read statements like "The Catholic church invented the Bible," I twitch a little inside :D. In this context -- when you do see people saying "lower case 'c' catholic" and "lower case 'o' orthodox" -- an uppercase C does seem to indicate the Roman Catholic church. While there was certainly just one "holy, catholic and apostolic church" in the early church, I think both we Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics believe their church is the one the others came out of (and veered off from at some point, most notably at the 1054 schism). Hope that makes sense. And again, forgive me for quibbling.

[Matryoshka]

My husband attended 4 years at Catholic High in Baton Rouge, LA, and attending regular mass was part of their weekly school. Yes, he confirms that they were offered mass throughout his attendance there. I do not know what percentage of students at that time were non-Catholic, but I do know that it was not a tiny, insignificant percentage like 1-3%. It may have been as much as 25%....

 

I went to a Catholic high school as a non-Catholic. It was definitely impressed upon us that those that were not baptized Catholics were not to participate in communion - it would be disrepectful or even blasphemous. Most non-Catholics went to mass (I did, although one could opt-out), but none took communion - I would just stay in my seat while the rest of the congregation filed up to receive the Eucharist. There were always others doing the same.

 

I've been to many, many, masses - at school, visiting friends, for weddings and funerals, and I've always seen some people staying in their pews during communion, and I've always assumed it was for this reason.

[Gretchen in NJ]

I am finding this link which was posted earlier to be very interesting. Thanks.

[Gretchen in NJ]

Thanks Asta! and the bolded part is still very true. When I told my MIL she told me "not to talk that way about her pastor!" They stood by their pastor and not their son or dil. It has been very painful for us.

 

As, I said in an above post, things worked out for me. I am grateful, but it soooo hard to stand against a pastor/priest.

:grouphug::grouphug:

[ktgrok]

This may sound dumb-but how exactly does the HS protect the church? If so much doctorine (for lack of a better word) has been changed over the years (i.e Protestantism) would I be correct in saying he has not protected Protestant churches? What about reformed churches? Does he protect tradition? I do agree that humans are imperfect and will make sin and make mistakes.

Speaking to all not just TeaTime: This is going to a bold, unpopular question, BUT I am only asking because I want true, honest thoughts regarding the issue. I DO NOT want a debate or angry responses. This is only for me to understand. I am NOT attempting to offend Catholics, but deem this important for me to ask.

 

Should the HS have protected the Catholic Church when it comes to the child rapes spanning millenniums? If not, who should have? The Pope? (From what I understand, it IS his responsibility to weed out the bad apples). As I embark on my faith journey, I personally am unable to reconcile what seems like the unaccountability of the church-(I personally do not consider financial restitution taking responsibility for these crimes). At this point I have a hard time seeing hundreds of priests as "only" being imperfect and then paying penance to be forgiven and retain their salvation. Especially because they did it over and over and over. To me, it seems the church was/is more concerned about covering it up to save face-especially given the amount of time it went on. If you are new to the faith, are a cradle Catholic or somewhere in between-is this issue a factor for you when becoming a Catholic or staying with the church?

Again, the is important for me to understand personally. I do not in anyway to put down the faith or cast stones.

 

The issue of unacountability is actually a huge issue for me personally. It's one of the reasons we attend an Episcopal Church rather than the local Roman Catholic church. I also tihnk that the sex abuse issues were created by putting boys that were at the height of their sexual development in same sex seminaries and then drilling them to believe that sex was shameful....it twisted them in some way, and you ended up with men attracted to young boys, often teen boys about the age they were when they were in seminary (which was high school age back then).

 

I think that the way the church is set up now that will no longer be an issue.

[Cheryl in NM]

Difference in beliefs within Denominations:

Does anyone have an issue with this? For example: the LCMS and the ELCA of the Lutheran Denomination. I just don't get how one faith can be so different especially when it comes to the Bible. If I was someone searching for Christ, this might make me think the Lutheran faith was confused!

 

Bible:

Inspired and inerrant. (LCMS)

Inspired but not inerrant. (ELCA)

 

Women in Clegegy

No (LCMS)

Yes (ELCA)

 

Closed Communion

No (LCMS)

Yes(ELCA)

 

Homosexualtiy

No (LCMS)

No Policy (ELCA) (but all single members, "including those who understand themselves to be homosexual, are expected to abstain from sexual relationships.")

 

Same Sex Marriage

No (LCMS)

Study in Progress (ELCA)

 

They are both Lutheran because they both prescribe to Luther's interpretation of church. The ELCA has alway been the more progressive, trying to change to keep up with the times. The LCMS is more stodgy, set in their ways, unwilling to change for earth's progressions.

 

I agree with you, it can be confusing, but most, if not all, major religions have many different "sects" with opposing beliefs.

 

ETA: There are actually 3 Lutheran splits, you forgot the WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) which is more strict than the LCMS. Here's a link: http://www.lutheran.org/

Edited December 29, 2010 by Cheryl in NM

[silliness7]

Can you explain the major difference between non-reformed and reformed. I have no idea whether or not the churches I've attended are either. Does this only pertain to Protestant Christianity?

 

Yes, the term "Reformed" comes straight out of the Reformation and refers to Protestants, though not all Protestants. It is helpful to identify with others who believe the "doctrines of grace" also known as TULIP. Perhaps there are others who call themselves "Reformed" and do not hold to the 5 points of Calvinism (aka TULIP). I am not aware of this but always enjoy being enlightened. :001_smile: So far as I know Reformed, "doctrines of grace," TULIP, and the 5 points of Calvinism are fairly synonomous. Feel free to correct me where I am wrong.

 

The Southern Baptist tradition I grew up in adhered to 3 or 4 of TULIP's points depending on who you were talking to. I believe there are other Protestant groups who adhere to none of them although I don't know who they are. Methodists? Mennonites? Someone else could answer that better than I.

 

Here is a link to understand TULIP better. I did paste a little bit from it below but you will have to click on the link for a brief explanation of each point.

 

www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip

 

 

 

Basically, Calvinism is known by an acronym: T.U.L.I.P.

 

 

T

otal Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)

 

U

nconditional Election

 

L

imited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement)

 

I

rresistible Grace

 

P

erseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved)

These five categories do not comprise Calvinism in totality. They simply represent some of its main points

[OregonNative]

Sure someone is off track. But one must make up one's own mind - free will and all that. Wasn't that what was asked in the first post? Who's got it right?

 

At some point enough people within the Lutheran church decided that Jesus would not condemn same sex marriage. That is just the kind of Guy He is. They still consider themselves Lutheran they still believe the core principals and every thing the Lutheran church teaches except the stance about same sex marriage. Do they branch off with the same name - Lutherans or do they get a new name? As it happened they branched off with the same name but started another governing body.

 

It is the same thing within the Jewish religion. They have Orthodox, Reformed, Ultra but they are all still Jewish.

 

ETA: I really don't know what caused the two Lutheran synods to come into being. I was using SSM as an example. I hope I haven't offended any Lutherans out there.

 

Off to the market.

 

Gotcha:001_smile:

[silliness7]

Here is the flip side to Calvinism. I was right on the Methodists wrong on the Mennonites. So I guess Wesleyans would fall in this group as well?

 

It was my understanding that TULIP was constructed to repudiate Arminian's own 5 points. The clip from Wiki below shows 7 points. The first 3 points seem consistent with Calvinism and inconsistent with point #4 the way I understand it hmmmm.....

and the last 4 are directly opposite of a TULIP point.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Arminianism holds to the following tenets:

 

• Humans are naturally unable to make any effort towards salvation (see also prevenient grace). They possess free will to accept or reject salvation.
  
• Salvation is possible only by God's grace, which cannot be merited.
  
• No works of human effort can cause or contribute to salvation
  
• God's election is conditional on faith in the sacrifice and Lordship of Jesus Christ.
  
• Christ's atonement was made on behalf of all people.
  
• God allows his grace to be resisted by those who freely reject Christ.
  
• Believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace through persistent, unrepented-of sin.[2]
  

Arminianism is most accurately used to define those who affirm the original beliefs of Jacobus Arminius himself, but the term can also be understood as an umbrella for a larger grouping of ideas including those of Hugo Grotius, John Wesley and others. There are two primary perspectives on how the system is applied in detail: Classical Arminianism, which sees Arminius as its figurehead, and Wesleyan Arminianism, which sees John Wesley as its figurehead. Wesleyan Arminianism is sometimes synonymous with Methodism. In addition, Arminianism is often misrepresented by some of its critics to include Semipelagianism or even Pelagianism, though proponents of both primary perspectives vehemently deny these claims.[3]

Within the broad scope of the history of Christian theology, Arminianism is closely related to Calvinism (or Reformed theology), and the two systems share both history and many doctrines. Nonetheless, they are often viewed as rivals within evangelicalism because of their disagreement over details of the doctrines of divine predestination and salvation.[4]

[i.love.lucy]

Amy, do you believe that darkness can show itself as light? I almost converted to a faith that looking back terrifies me! I prayed and was told God would show me the truth about this faith if I sought him. I did seek and felt that he was telling me this faith was the truth. When my DH refused to let me convert (thank God), I was devastated and cried for days. I felt like my heart had been ripped out and I would never be able to practice the true faith.

 

I have not prayed about this new journey. Part of me is afraid I will be led astray-by what or whom I don't know.

 

I still don't understand why I was so eager to convert to something that I realize now is completely off the mark and is not Christian.

I am sorry you had that experience. I don't know what happened there, but I can say I would assume it was Satan tempting you toward darkness. Remember he is the lion lurking around every corner waiting to devour us! He makes the world and sin look so lovely and tempting that we can almost not resist. Look at the trap of alcoholism, drugs, homosexuality, pornography, gossip, etc. To the person who is vulnerable to a particular thing (for me it's alcohol) the temptation is almost more than they can bear. But I did bear it and coming away from my time of reliance on alcohol had taught me much about my ability to lean on God, about His strength when I had none, about my worthless inability to fight that temptation without Him. So Him allowing me to go through that pushed me closer to Him. Aside from those lessons, I can't imagine why I have had to go through some of the things I have. I hope to have complete clarity on that one day in His presence!;)

 

I also wanted to comment on what someone said about churches going more "liberal" to keep up with the times, as in the example you posted with Lutheran but we see in Episcopal and many other denominations. I personally find that to be a bunch of garbage. Either homosexuality (for example) is a sin and prohibited by God, or it is not. Just because it is in more modern favor doesn't lessen the sin of it. It's clearly defined in the bible as an abhorrent sexual perversion. I don't see why one would purposefully seek out a church that is "keeping up with the times" by allowing sin to openly enter and have acceptance. I'd call "keeping up with the times" having better music, or a more modern building if you will, but to put aside very specific principles as laid out in scripture is ridiculous. IMO.

[Parrothead]

 

I also wanted to comment on what someone said about churches going more "liberal" to keep up with the times, as in the example you posted with Lutheran but we see in Episcopal and many other denominations. I personally find that to be a bunch of garbage. Either homosexuality (for example) is a sin and prohibited by God, or it is not. Just because it is in more modern favor doesn't lessen the sin of it. It's clearly defined in the bible as an abhorrent sexual perversion. I don't see why one would purposefully seek out a church that is "keeping up with the times" by allowing sin to openly enter and have acceptance. I'd call "keeping up with the times" having better music, or a more modern building if you will, but to put aside very specific principles as laid out in scripture is ridiculous. IMO.

:iagree:Amen!

 

I'm more of a traditionalist. I'd prefer to go to Latin mass, have Georgian chant as the music of Mass and I'd like to see the alter rail come back, communion on the tongue the norm instead of the exception and extraordinary ministers used only during extraordinary occasions. But that is me and I'm weird that way.

[dirty ethel rackham]

How can this be true? Christ himself had Scriptures. The early church wouldn't have had the New Testament but they would have had the Jewish Scriptures.

 

 

What I meant is Scripture did not exist as a defined canon until the 300's. Yes, Jesus had scripture - and probably recognized writings as scriptural that protestants and Jews do not recognize as such. I meant that the church existed long before there was an official declaration of what was and wasn't scripture. This was in defense of the argument that the only true and valid practices and beliefs are those found in what Protestants refer to as Scripture. That is where the RCC and EOC's reference to Tradition comes from.

[texasmama]

I also tihnk that the sex abuse issues were created by putting boys that were at the height of their sexual development in same sex seminaries and then drilling them to believe that sex was shameful....it twisted them in some way, and you ended up with men attracted to young boys, often teen boys about the age they were when they were in seminary (which was high school age back then).

 

I think that the way the church is set up now that will no longer be an issue.

 

No doubt that contributed to sexual issues being "twisted" in young boys' minds, as you say, but there will always be pedophiles, both in and outside the church, regardless of denomination or how the seminaries are set up, sadly.

[TravelingChris]

It was interesting to see the chart referenced in two posts above. I examined the belief portion and saw exactly why I have been perfectly comfortable being a member of a number of denominations during the last 24 years (as my screenname implies, we are transients due to the military). Overall, they are very similar if you are looking at the Protestant side. Oh and even in the more liberal denominations, you can often find individual congregations that are much more conservative. I have noticed that at least two congregations we were members of or attended in the last 15 years have now left PC(USA) and joined EPC since they have strong disagreements with the main group about gay marriage or maybe it was gay ministers.

[Tiramisu]

:iagree:Amen!

 

I'm more of a traditionalist. I'd prefer to go to Latin mass, have Georgian chant as the music of Mass and I'd like to see the alter rail come back, communion on the tongue the norm instead of the exception and extraordinary ministers used only during extraordinary occasions. But that is me and I'm weird that way.

 

:thumbup:

 

:iagree:To all but the part about you being weird.

[ktgrok]

I am sorry you had that experience. I don't know what happened there, but I can say I would assume it was Satan tempting you toward darkness. Remember he is the lion lurking around every corner waiting to devour us! He makes the world and sin look so lovely and tempting that we can almost not resist. Look at the trap of alcoholism, drugs, homosexuality, pornography, gossip, etc. To the person who is vulnerable to a particular thing (for me it's alcohol) the temptation is almost more than they can bear. But I did bear it and coming away from my time of reliance on alcohol had taught me much about my ability to lean on God, about His strength when I had none, about my worthless inability to fight that temptation without Him. So Him allowing me to go through that pushed me closer to Him. Aside from those lessons, I can't imagine why I have had to go through some of the things I have. I hope to have complete clarity on that one day in His presence!;)

 

I also wanted to comment on what someone said about churches going more "liberal" to keep up with the times, as in the example you posted with Lutheran but we see in Episcopal and many other denominations. I personally find that to be a bunch of garbage. Either homosexuality (for example) is a sin and prohibited by God, or it is not. Just because it is in more modern favor doesn't lessen the sin of it. It's clearly defined in the bible as an abhorrent sexual perversion. I don't see why one would purposefully seek out a church that is "keeping up with the times" by allowing sin to openly enter and have acceptance. I'd call "keeping up with the times" having better music, or a more modern building if you will, but to put aside very specific principles as laid out in scripture is ridiculous. IMO.

 

I think that most Episcopalians, and I am one, do not approve of homosexuality because it is more modern to do so. It's because we feel Jesus is ok with love in that form, and doesn't want us to judge it. I do NOT want to debate homosexuality here, or anywhere really, but wanted to say that the church's opinion has nothing to do with it being modern or trendy.

[texasmama]

I think this is a good time to point out that Catholics do not own the market on sexual misconduct by priests. I was assaulted by a lead pastor of a conservative evangelical "bible believing" church/denomination. Even with the evidence his credentials were not revoked, but I was able to file paperwork that has kept him from getting a new position once he left his old one.

 

I have had to ask this question on a very personal note..."God why didn't you protect me?" "I was serving you, in ministry...and you didn't protect me! Why?"

 

There are no easy answers to that. I know...He knows. I know...there will be accountabilty. I also know...that he didn't get away with it. I may not have been in position to bring criminal charges, but his sins caught up with him. He loved the pulpit...being in a place of authority...and that has been stripped.

 

How horrible that this happened to you at all, much less by someone you were in ministry with.:grouphug:

[Cheryl in NM]

I also wanted to comment on what someone said about churches going more "liberal" to keep up with the times, as in the example you posted with Lutheran but we see in Episcopal and many other denominations. I personally find that to be a bunch of garbage. Either homosexuality (for example) is a sin and prohibited by God, or it is not. Just because it is in more modern favor doesn't lessen the sin of it. It's clearly defined in the bible as an abhorrent sexual perversion. I don't see why one would purposefully seek out a church that is "keeping up with the times" by allowing sin to openly enter and have acceptance. I'd call "keeping up with the times" having better music, or a more modern building if you will, but to put aside very specific principles as laid out in scripture is ridiculous. IMO.

 

This was me. What I was referring to is the popularity of becoming homosexual and not wanting to "judge" others. I don't agree with this either, but there is pressure in society to accept homosexuals because they are "born that way" and the Bible must be mis-interpret or something. There is so much emphasis on not hurting others feelings or not judging others that our society has begun excusing abhorrent behaviors and now accepts them as commonplace. So when I see religions that have in the past not accepted homosexuality as normal now allow homosexuals to preach from the altar, my only reasoning to myself is that they are trying to "keep up with the times". Homosexuals would seek out this type of church to justify their behavior. I"m not saying the I judge homosexuals, that is between them and God. I know what the Bible says about it and as for me, I will follow the Lord. I just can't see allowing someone so obviously living against Biblical preaching to lead a congregation.

[texasmama]

Thank you to all who have contributed to this thread. I have learned a great deal about Catholicism and EO. I don't have as much to contribute (being a life long protestant), but I appreciate learning about both of these and some of the history behind them.

[Carol in Cal.]

But to say that the early church had ONLY oral tradition for 300 years is incorrect, right? They did have Jewish Scriptures right? The same Scriptures Jesus quoted and Paul used to argue that Jesus is the Messiah. Like I said, I'm not familiar with RC/EO thought so maybe I'm missing something here.

 

The early church had all the books of the modern day Bible, and more. They passed them around, copied them, and read them out loud in church services. When the canon was debated and formed, one of the main criteria was that the chosen books were in wide or universal use already, as Scripture, in churches. There was a meeting of many church leaders, who all reported on what was being used in their regions, and there was an amazing consensus.

 

As a Lutheran, I regard my church as a continuation of the church catholic (universal, small c). Sola Scriptura was documented by Lutherans originally, and says that where councils and late work contradicts the Bible, the Bible wins. However, we have tremendous respect for the early councils of the church, and our pastors study them extensively. We also respect responsible Biblical scholarship, and our pastors all must learn Greek and Hebrew. Many also learn Latin, and a sizable minority in our LCMS also know German quite well. The Lutheran Reformation actually grew out of a widespread consensus among Renaissance and moral RC leaders that the Western church needed to be reformed. Luther never intended or envisioned setting up a separate church body, but simply helping to return the RC church to its former root beliefs and practices, and clearing out some abuses. This followed naturally from the Renaissance-era recovery of classical texts and classical languages. In fact, where Luther tended to disagree regarding justification grew out of his study of the Greek text of the New Testament, which was more original than the Latin Vulgate text in widespread use in the RC church at the time.

 

I privately believe that had Luther had more contact with the EO church he might very well have moved in that direction.

 

From my studies of history it is clear to me that the EO church has far less accretion of additional extraneous material than the RC church does, and as such I could imagine joining that church although it is impossible to imagine joining the RC one. However, the balance of the LCMS church at its best is my conviction of the truth--the historic Faith, the Real Presence, the focus on God and not saints, the belief in the communion of saints nonetheless, infant baptism, the Sola's, the focus on grace, the doctrine of adiophora, the view of Scripture--these are all so well balanced and clearly taught that I could not be anything else with conviction.