Catholicism, Christianity, Denominations?

[8circles]

I've been reading this thread with great interest. It's a discussion that pulls me in over & over.

 

I'm not really happy in my current church (born & raised in - www.covchurch.org) so I'm not searching in that regard. But it's been really interesting to me that my own beliefs - which are not contradicted by my church's doctrine that I know of - are very much in line with EO. I have more to say but I don't want to hijack. I'll start a new thread. :tongue_smilie:

[milovany]

I just wanted to pop in here, after 450 posts, to say that I've been engrossed in both this thread and the others like it! I've always gone to a non-denominational, Baptist-like church. Then over the past few years, half of my family has become Orthodox! Everything I thought I knew has been turned on its head:) I'm deeply intrigued with the Orthodox church and am learning so much... mostly learning how little I know. Thanks to all of you, I'm learning a lot about the Catholic church as well.

 

 

I find that pretty cool, about your family. :D

 

As to the bolded (did I already say this in this thread?), two years ago as we were looking into the Orthodox faith I would find myself just sitting in a stunned silence sometimes, then I would look at my husband and ask, "Are we crazy?" because of the very thing you mentioned above: Everything that we had been so very convinced of (we were quite evangelical, active in ministry) was being called into question. It was scary in a way! In fact, I was the first one (between my dh and me) to read a bunch, talk with people online, etc about Orthodoxy. It was a few weeks before he was vaguely interested and a couple of months before he was really interested. Well,my dh is not duplicitous and when he takes hold of something, that's it. But at that point I was sort of freaking out. Anyway, we pressed on ... and here we are.

 

There's an Exploring Orthodox Christianity social group here, if you're interested. There's a good thread there with book recommendations. The book our family read aloud together that really helped us is Matthew Gallatin's Thirsting For God in a Land of Shallow Wells. And if you like to listen to things, there are lots of great podcasts at Ancient Faith Radio (that you can listen to online). May you be abundantly blessed ~ ~

[ClassicCole]

Just wanted to say I have learned alot from this thread. I've enjoyed it very much. And will continue to read and research but feel very drawn to the Catholic faith. Thank you for having such an in-depth and open conversation.

[Carol in Cal.]

I simply can't find it. I cannot find where Sola Scriptura is 1) Biblical, 2) taught by any of the early church father or doctors of the church, 3) anything other than something Luther and the other reformers started.

 

I don't say that as a dig to Martin Luther either. In many ways I agree with him. The Church did need reform - badly. And it is a known fact that he did not want to split from the Church. So it wasn't meant as something offensive, just what I'm seeing as fact.

 

Sola Scriptura in its original, Lutheran sense, did not preclude other sources of information; but rather asserted that where they contradict Scripture, Scripture should be considered normative. Thus Holy Scripture is the only rule and norm of faith and practice, but as well, traditions and customs are allowed and encouraged for the sake of catholicity and good order, both of which are supported in the Bible.

 

The radical exaggeration of Sola Scriptura is not correct or original. It was never a standalone item. Scripture Alone stands with the evangelical catholic Church, with salvation by Grace Alone through Faith Alone, with ancient practices, with the Office of the Ministry being held in high regard, with the affirmation of the three ecumenical creeds, etc.

 

And it rose, after the Renaissance, as a principled return to original sources and as close as possible to concurrent historical material; something that we WTM'ers should at least be familiar with if not support. It was not the elevation of Scripture to papal replacement status by any means.

[milovany]

Sola Scriptura in its original, Lutheran sense, did not preclude other sources of information; but rather asserted that where they contradict Scripture, Scripture should be considered normative. Thus Holy Scripture is the only rule and norm of faith and practice, but as well, traditions and customs are allowed and encouraged for the sake of catholicity and good order, both of which are supported in the Bible.

 

The radical exaggeration of Sola Scriptura is not correct or original. It was never a standalone item. Scripture Alone stands with the evangelical catholic Church, with salvation by Grace Alone through Faith Alone, with ancient practices, with the Office of the Ministry being held in high regard, with the affirmation of the three ecumenical creeds, etc.

 

And it rose, after the Renaissance, as a principled return to original sources and as close as possible to concurrent historical material; something that we WTM'ers should at least be familiar with if not support. It was not the elevation of Scripture to papal replacement status by any means.

 

Thank you for posting this. Very helpful, and nice to know! In my own life, the doctrine of sola scriptura (the way it's used today; that the Bible is the sole revelation of God to man, or is the foundation of the faith) began falling apart when I had been personally convicted about wearing a cloth head covering to church. I studied word by word the entire 1 Cor. 11 passage and decided, based on my own personal understanding, that women ought to wear head coverings in church. So I started to do so even though it was NOT a common or even talked-about thing at the church we were attending [this isn't about head covering per se; head covering is just the topic that was at hand at the time]. But then, like now, I was active on discussion boards and would converse about this with others. And slowly I began to realize that while I was completely convinced about the issue because of my word study -- there were others who had done the exact same or very similar study, and come to a different conclusion! (Either that the covering is long hair, or that a covering isn't needed at all.) I just kept thinking, "We can't all be right." Even though it's not a salvation issue, still, God either wants us to wear a head covering in church or He doesn't. How can there be different "personal convictions" about it? Why isn't it more clear? And I realized that sola scriptura isn't something I believed in anymore -- that the Bible is the foundation of the faith.

Edited December 31, 2010 by milovaný

[Carol in Cal.]

I found this article tonight. Have you read any of this information before? It was something we wondered about too, as we were converting. If, as the article says, the Lutherans wanted the Orthodox Church to come into alignment with Lutheranism (rather than the other way around), I can see where the talks might not be fruitful. I, too, wish something different might have happened in regard to Luther and the Orthodox Church at that point. I think some of it was probably that it seemed too foreign and ethnic? Not sure.

 

I have read a little of it, but not extensively enough to feel qualified to comment from a Lutheran perspective or a historical one. It's important to remember that communications were extremely slow and difficult in those days, and short distances and borders were formidable. The meetings cited took place long after Luther's death--he would probably have conducted them effectively because he was such a linguist, Bible and church history scholar, and theologian, but by the date in question the Evangelisch (German name for Lutherans, which was, by the way, a title that would have appalled Luther) and RC sides were far more entrenched than they had been in the 1520's when the Reformation was beginning.

 

I guess I should mention that the Lutheran view, mentioned in the article, that we were the historic, reformed, purified church, is my own view today. However, I have a great deal of respect for the EO church as a traditional, historic one, and my comments arose from the surmise that Luther might well have been willing to compromise to the extent of joining the EO church far more easily than starting a new church, which he never wanted to do. However, that surmise is a private one of mine, and not well researched at all. That's why I put it forward so gingerly.

 

Thank you very much for the reference!

[OregonNative]

I've been reading this thread with great interest. It's a discussion that pulls me in over & over.

 

I'm not really happy in my current church (born & raised in - www.covchurch.org) so I'm not searching in that regard. But it's been really interesting to me that my own beliefs - which are not contradicted by my church's doctrine that I know of - are very much in line with EO. I have more to say but I don't want to hijack. I'll start a new thread. :tongue_smilie:

 

I would love if you continued the conversation here:001_smile: I for one would love to hear what you have to say!

[milovany]

I would love if you continued the conversation here:001_smile: I for one would love to hear what you have to say!

 

Haha, too late. ;)

 

<off to answer your emails!>

[Giraffe]

I just love it that we've made it 46 pages and are still cordial, open, listening, and respectful of each other.

 

Thank you!!

 

I think I may have to save this thread offline somehow. There are so many links, so many Biblical references I want to read when DD goes back to preschool next week (and I can think without a 3 yo babbling in the background). I fear it being deleted!

[OregonNative]

Actually, this wasn't the words of Christ, but is the last verse of the Gospel of John (21:25): "There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written."

Thank you!! I am going to highlight this in my Bible and talk with my DH about it. I wonder why then, that Protestant churches do not takes this stance. Or do they? I assumed from the reading I've done, that they do not. And only use the cannons for edification. As said above-the Bible trumps the canons.

[OregonNative]

Haha, too late. ;)

 

<off to answer your emails!>

 

Of course I am:tongue_smilie: Guess I'll be checking the new thread as well.

[Parrothead]

Sola Scriptura in its original, Lutheran sense, did not preclude other sources of information; but rather asserted that where they contradict Scripture, Scripture should be considered normative. Thus Holy Scripture is the only rule and norm of faith and practice, but as well, traditions and customs are allowed and encouraged for the sake of catholicity and good order, both of which are supported in the Bible.

 

The radical exaggeration of Sola Scriptura is not correct or original. It was never a standalone item. Scripture Alone stands with the evangelical catholic Church, with salvation by Grace Alone through Faith Alone, with ancient practices, with the Office of the Ministry being held in high regard, with the affirmation of the three ecumenical creeds, etc.

 

And it rose, after the Renaissance, as a principled return to original sources and as close as possible to concurrent historical material; something that we WTM'ers should at least be familiar with if not support. It was not the elevation of Scripture to papal replacement status by any means.

Thank you for explaining.

[Carol in Cal.]

Thank you for posting this. Very helpful, and nice to know! In my own life, the doctrine of sola scriptura (the way it's used today; that the Bible is the sole revelation of God to man) began falling apart when I had been personally convicted about wearing a cloth head covering to church. I studied word by word the entire 1 Cor. 11 passage and decided, based on my own personal understanding, that women ought to wear head coverings in church. So I started to do so even though it was NOT a common or even talked-about thing at the church we were attending [this isn't about head covering per se; head covering is just the topic that was at hand at the time]. But then, like now, I was active on discussion boards and would converse about this with others. And slowly I began to realize that while I was completely convinced about the issue because of my word study -- there were others who had done the exact same or very similar study, and come to a different conclusion! (Either that the covering is long hair, or that a covering isn't needed at all.) I just kept thinking, "We can't all be right." Even though it's not a salvation issue, still, God either wants us to wear a head covering in church or He doesn't. How can there be different "personal convictions" about it? Why isn't it more clear? And I realized that -- just like with any other text out there -- there had to be an interpreter.

 

Yes, that is true, there must be interpretation, although the extent to which that establishes authority higher than the Bible would be a matter of debate I am sure. One of the main Lutheran Bible interpretation principles is that Scripture interprets Scripture--a very basic and sensible one, I think. Another is that major doctrines should be drawn from or at least supported by very clear Scriptures and from books of the Bible that were never in question in the church. We emphasize historical languages so much that all of our pastors must learn Biblical Greek and Hebrew, and more than half of them also learn Latin. The importance of determining the original message of Scripture is high, and the early historical texts play a role in that--particularly the Didache and some of the more contemporary writings from Josephus and others. We are not ahistorical.

 

On the head covering issue, the first Orthodox church that I visited did not separate men from women and did not have head coverings on the women. It was a Coptic church in Fremont, CA. The later ones that I visited, including Coptic churches in Chicago and the LA area and a Syrian Orthodox church in SF, did have those practices. I have also visited the first evangelical orthodox American church in the Santa Cruz mountains for a baptism, but don't recall whether the women wore coverings or not.

[Parrothead]

I just love it that we've made it 46 pages and are still cordial, open, listening, and respectful of each other.

 

Thank you!!

 

I think I may have to save this thread offline somehow. There are so many links, so many Biblical references I want to read when DD goes back to preschool next week (and I can think without a 3 yo babbling in the background). I fear it being deleted!

I would hope that if someone came in and started spouting off, the powers that be would simply delete that post.

[milovany]

I would hope that if someone came in and started spouting off, the powers that be would simply delete that post.

 

I doubt that the thread would be deleted if for some reason it took a "turn" -- maybe locked, but not deleted. Don't you think? So if one bookmarks it, it'll still be found even if located a few hundred pages back. And I, too, think it's cool we've gotten this far and haven't had any negative argumentation!

 

:thumbup:

[Cheryl in NM]

Hmm, I'm not sure which verse either. There's "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him and He will make your paths straight" but that doesn't mention the Word of God. I'd be interested in seeing where it says to rely only on the written word of God as indicated -- although I knew how hard it can be to find a certain Scripture when the search terms are so common (BTDT!).

 

I think wherever/whatever it is, it's important to note that Jesus Himself is the "Word of God" (see John 1, and others) -- not solely the printed text of the Bible. "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." He's a living, breathing person, not something that can be contained in the pages of a book. Jesus Himself said many, many more books could be written -- and still He could not be contained within them. For us (EO), the Church is His living, breathing Body on the earth and is where He can be found. Jesus is the Truth, and the church, Scripturally, is the "pillar and foundation of Truth." So that's why we are not sola scriptura.

 

Not trying to argue with you (!), just letting you know why we don't ascribe to relying on the Bible alone for matters of faith.

 

Thanks! I"ve always wondered what EO believed.

 

I believe the scripture you quoted above is correct and I interpreted or was taught the word of God part.

 

I don't see your post as argument. I'm very thankful for this thread. There's tons of info!

[Tiramisu]

I just love it that we've made it 46 pages and are still cordial, open, listening, and respectful of each other.

 

Thank you!!

 

I think I may have to save this thread offline somehow. There are so many links, so many Biblical references I want to read when DD goes back to preschool next week (and I can think without a 3 yo babbling in the background). I fear it being deleted!

 

Here are some more Biblical references to the Church and tradition that you might find helpful.

 

1 Timothy 3: 15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

 

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

 

2 Thessalonians 3:6 We instruct you, brothers, in the name of (our) Lord Jesus Christ,to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us.

 

1 Cor. 11:2 I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.

[OregonNative]

Here are some more Biblical references to the Church and tradition that you might find helpful.

 

1 Timothy 3: 15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

 

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

 

2 Thessalonians 3:6 We instruct you, brothers, in the name of (our) Lord Jesus Christ,to shun any brother who condu

cts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us.

 

1 Cor. 11:2 I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.

2 Thess. Seems pretty harsh. I read it as literally shun those who don't believe the same as you. Is this how shun is meant in the scripture?

[Jeanne in MN]

When I was converting to Catholicism I talked to a lot of different people about it, including my pastor (at my previous church) and my mom, in addition to others. Most people had what I came to consider "the usual" objections (the Inquisition was the top of the list :001_huh:). My mom and my pastor, when I asked them (individually) why I shouldn't become Catholic, both of them said, quite solemnly, "Mary." I finally decided (after much prayer), that Jesus' mother was not really a reason to ignore God's call.

 

That's so sad that Mary would be a reason they'd object to being Catholic. I'm guessing it's part of the confusion that we worship her, but people can also miss that she's our blessed mother and can be such a part of our lives too!

 

Good luck. The journey can be hard.

[Jeanne in MN]

I picked up a book yesterday called Easter Orthodoxy through Western Eyes, and all I can say is, "Wow!"

 

The above issue came up in the intro, here's a quote, "The spirituality of the West is largely a backward looking spirituality: we motivate ourselves for the Christian life by remembering what God has already done in saving us. In contrast, Orthodox see the journey not so much stemming from something that has already happened, but as moving toward God.... Orthodox spirituality is largely forward-looking: anticipation more than memory provides the motivation."

 

Anyway, I thought it was very interesting ;).

 

That is very interesting!

[Jeanne in MN]

:iagree:

Great post (all of it). I particularly like this summary. Very well put.

 

 

 

I wanted to join the RCC ten years before it actually happened. Ten long years. There is no rush. This thread has given you lots of material to read and think about. The Scott Hahn books are a great start for learning about the things that you list above. Take your time and do your own research before you take it out to people whose opinion you already know quite well. Give your husband and everyone else time. People adjust, but they need time and space. And they do need to feel and believe you are not rushing into anything without thinking. That is fair enough of them to ask. Whatever you do, it should not come about because of fear or pressure. I think you will not find those methods to be the way of the ancient Churches (They learned that the long, hard way).

 

God bless!

 

Rome Sweet Home was a fascinating read. It's his story of conversion to the Catholic Church, how hard he fought it, how it was very difficult on the marriage, etc. It was beautiful to see the Church through his eyes by the end.

[FaithManor]

Hi, I've been lurking around this thread for quite a while and have decided to come out of my self-appointed hiatus to ask a question. (Going back into the cave after this.)

 

Dh and I are very interested in visiting an orthodox church. There are three within a four hour driving distance of us. The closest is Antiochian. I've tried looking them up on the web and they are not listed in the directory for the Orthodox Church of America. The link is to the Independently governed Antiochian church. The other churches are Byzantine and Greek Orthodox. So, I am confused. Was there a schism of the Orthodox church so that there are now "denominations" of orthodoxy? What are the theological differences between Greek, Byzantine, Coptic, Syrian, Ethopian, Eritrean, and Oriental?

 

Are there any Orthodox churches in America that conduct the liturgy in English or do all use their "home" language and if so, are translations of the liturgy provided to visitors? If English is not the primary language, are non-speakers discouraged from converting?

 

My Latin is decent and so is Ds (13) but I don't see dh, completely ignorant of Latin, experiencing much spiritual growth if he can't understand the liturgy. But, a Latin speaking church might be a starting place since he could learn from ds and I.

 

I'm generally confused but soooooo interested. Dh and I both feel "home" is somewhere much more traditional and with a deeper link to the apostolic fathers than what our current protestant church provides. But, on the other hand...the distance to an Orthodox church from our current rural location, is such that we could never fully take part in the life of the church at all. We'd be lucky to manage one service per month given that the entire Sunday would be spent commuting and Dh must be on call for work three Sunday evenings (starting 6 p.m.) per month.

 

If someone could explain the differences amongst the churches, etc. that would be great!

 

Faith

[milovany]

I had a big reply typed out, then saw that Patty Joanna also replied. I'm sure she answered your questions! Just want to say that our parish is Antiochian and is English-speaking and mostly made up of converts. I think this is pretty common with Antiochian churches (and Patty's OCA, too). I hope you can go visit .... it's such a delightful experience.

[threeturn]

Wonderful thread - and yes, I have read all 48 pages so far. :-)

 

Two years ago I started searching for something more. If there were so many churches, who held the Truth. Due to the witness of Catholics I had met, I started my search at the Catholic Church and have been there ever since. (I am not even sure there is an EO church in my neck of Alabama!) It was a beautiful trip home and a great place to be.

 

Thanks for the interesting reading.

[MrsBasil]

Something I can help with. I attend a Greek Orthodox Missions parish. Our Liturgy is in English, but certain things that are repeated more than once are done in English-Greek or English-Greek-English. It's a very small amount of Greek and everything is done in English first. We do say Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal in the English-Greek-English for instance.

 

We are mainly converts at my church, but I don't believe that's the norm with the Greek Orthodox churches. We also have hymnals that provide the text and, where needed, music of the entire Divine Liturgy.

 

If all else fails, call the parish. Someone should be able to tell you what language is used. According to my priest, many of the Greek Orthodox churches use English.

[Jeanne in MN]

(I'm not sure how to ask this correctly and hope it doesn't come off as anything other than curiosity).

I know I read the answer to this somewhere or someone already answered it for me-but why does the RCC need(probably not the right word) Mary or the Saints if we have God to pray to?

 

We ask them for their prayers just like we ask friends here on earth for their prayers. People often appreciate the prayers of many, especially during difficult times. So why not ask for intercession from Mary and the saints (who are close to God) as well?

[CindyPTN]

Thank you for all the ideas and thoughts to ponder over the last few days.

 

Especially thank you to those that expressed their experiences with close communion.

 

This thread came at a time in which I've been quesitioning man's interpretation fo the Bible and how we can find the Truth in the mix of it all. It's definitely brought up more questions and concerns, but as always, the journey in faith is never as simple as our day to day routines.

 

Lots to think about, question, learn and accomplish this new year.

 

Thank you again for a great informative discussion on religion.

 

Sincerely,

 

Cindy

[mommaduck]

Faith, we attend a Greek Orthodox Parish. Our parish was started by a Greek immigrant community. However, it has MANY converts, married-to-Greeks (think Big, Fat, Greek Wedding..."you are now Greek!"), and people that are curious or come from other jurisdictions because this church is closer in locality. Our church is 70% English/30% Greek...many times there are things that are said/sung both in Greek and English, the Scripture is in both Greek and English...this is during Divine Liturgy. During more minor occasions and off nights there may be more Greek than English; this is because we still have many elderly Greeks and they are more likely to be the ones attending those. We need to be able to cater to/respect both (especially since English is still limited in their English as they were the immigrants and relied on their children to learn English). This frustrates one friend of mine who is one of the few English speakers to attend those services, but to me it's both understandable and I've come to a place in my walk where my worship is not affected by what is being spoken around me. I come to worship, not to pick apart others. I know what is happening now, the liturgy book is in both English and Greek, so I can follow along...and my children are learning Greek ;) In fact, I've printed out The Lord's Prayer in Tsalagi (Cherokee) so that I can say it in English when we say it in English and say it in Tsalagi when they say it in Greek. I can sing "One is Holy" in both English and partly in Greek (it's an easy one to pick up in song). At Pascha, we have a reading that is done in a dozen languages. If I can ever get the reading in Cherokee, I may see if we can have that read as well.

 

Now there aren't denominations in Orthodoxy. Greek, Russian, OCA, Antiochian, etc are all "jurisdictions". They are all in communion with one another, but have different bishops that are equals.

 

Now there was another, smaller schism...the Oriental Orthodox (they include the Ethiopian/Eritrean, Coptic, Syrian). They rejected the Fourth Ecumenical Synod in 451. However, they are much closer to Eastern Orthodoxy than anyone else and if unity were to happen, it would be with the Oriental Orthodox. In fact, in our Greek Parish we have a community of Eritreans that live here, but have no priest. They have chosen/been accepted out of economia to participate in Divine Liturgy with us AND partake in communion with us. They stay for coffee hour and then they have a study downstairs separately for their own. A few different practices they have, and many of us greatly admire, is that they will take off their shoes for communion, they wrap themselves in white (beautiful white pashminas from Eritrea with embroidery...those few of us that headcover in our parish have occasionally been gifted one due to our commonality) (this is their way of celebrating the resurrection every Sunday), and the older women are insistent in covering their mouths with their covering until they have thoroughly swallowed communion (bread tinctured in wine) and the antidoran (blessed bread) (this is because it is considered holy).

Edited January 1, 2011 by mommaduck

[FaithManor]

Thank you to all for graciously answering my questions. I have a few more and then will go back into the cave.

 

DD and I want to be respectful of the practices of the local congregation but due to the holidays are having trouble getting in touch with the parish priest and the head deacon in order to ask these questions. We are concerned about the head covering issue. We know that some local bodies still observe this, that some do not, and that there are mixes - some women choosing to do so and some not. Is an Antiochian congregation, due to being of "Middle Eastern Culture" more likely to observe head coverings for women and is this rule only for married women to show her submission to her husband's leadership or do unmarried women cover as well? If a visitor brings a shawl and attempts to follow the custom noticing other women doing so, is she considered "offensive" because she is not a member of the community or Chrismated? Or is she more offensive for NOT following the custom? Are shawls, scarves, doilies, or prayer caps thenorm? My only shawl is burgundy with velvet burnout (design) and some fringe on the end. It's very pretty though not overly adorned. Would this be appropriate or should I try to whip up something very plain for tomorrow? I do own a light blue scarf and a black and white music note scarf that would adequately cover my hair but are certain colors discouraged?

 

Truly, in order for us to be comfortable as a family with a worship tradition so radically different to our upbringing, any advice that will help us not stand out like sore thumbs would be most welcome. Obviously we will have trouble following the liturgy and so we'll just stand in the back against the wall and hope to fade into the surroundings, so to speak. We'd never go and stand with the congregants as though we belong there. But, I'm guessing that visitors from outside the faith aren't all that common and we really don't want to be considered, rude, offensive, or leave an impression such as, "Wow, we really hope that weird family from up north doesn't come back!"

 

Is it better to observe vespers on a Saturday afternoon first or should we stick to a Sunday morning service? Should we slip out the back when the Eucharist is served since we can not partake so that we don't make things awkward for the church family? Will we be offending others if we don't cross ourselves since we don't even know the proper method?

 

Thanks for putting up with my ignorance! I really do appreciate it.

 

Faith

[mommaduck]

Thank you to all for graciously answering my questions. I have a few more and then will go back into the cave.

 

DD and I want to be respectful of the practices of the local congregation but due to the holidays are having trouble getting in touch with the parish priest and the head deacon in order to ask these questions. We are concerned about the head covering issue. We know that some local bodies still observe this, that some do not, and that there are mixes - some women choosing to do so and some not. Is an Antiochian congregation, due to being of "Middle Eastern Culture" more likely to observe head coverings for women and is this rule only for married women to show her submission to her husband's leadership or do unmarried women cover as well? If a visitor brings a shawl and attempts to follow the custom noticing other women doing so, is she considered "offensive" because she is not a member of the community or Chrismated? Or is she more offensive for NOT following the custom? Are shawls, scarves, doilies, or prayer caps thenorm? My only shawl is burgundy with velvet burnout (design) and some fringe on the end. It's very pretty though not overly adorned. Would this be appropriate or should I try to whip up something very plain for tomorrow? I do own a light blue scarf and a black and white music note scarf that would adequately cover my hair but are certain colors discouraged?

 

Truly, in order for us to be comfortable as a family with a worship tradition so radically different to our upbringing, any advice that will help us not stand out like sore thumbs would be most welcome. Obviously we will have trouble following the liturgy and so we'll just stand in the back against the wall and hope to fade into the surroundings, so to speak. We'd never go and stand with the congregants as though we belong there. But, I'm guessing that visitors from outside the faith aren't all that common and we really don't want to be considered, rude, offensive, or leave an impression such as, "Wow, we really hope that weird family from up north doesn't come back!"

 

Is it better to observe vespers on a Saturday afternoon first or should we stick to a Sunday morning service? Should we slip out the back when the Eucharist is served since we can not partake so that we don't make things awkward for the church family? Will we be offending others if we don't cross ourselves since we don't even know the proper method?

 

Thanks for putting up with my ignorance! I really do appreciate it.

 

Faith

I can't speak directly about Antiochian practice, but in general it can vary parish to parish. You are a visitor, a guest...I don't think anyone would dare criticise you for either practicing or not practicing. On the safe side, go ahead and bring your shawl or scarf. They do not know your background, whether this is your practice or not, and if they cover and you feel comfortable covering, then you are prepared and no one will say something if your covering is different (headscarves or pashminas aka shawls would be the norm if anyone covers). Our Greek parish, very few cover (I do, but it has been my practice for over a decade, long before I converted). In a Russian parish you will find more covering. In the Eritrean, EVERYONE covers LOL! including the men! In the Antiochian, I don't know. Usually, it's just the women, if anyone covers. If it's common practice, it will be all females. Again, just bring a couple of scarfs or pashmina around your shoulder just in case.

 

Word of note...though I've seen many practicing the opposite in my parish...your shoulders should be covered aka no sleeveless dresses/tops. If you do, just have your pashmina/shawl cover your shoulders. This would probably be the bigger issue than if your head is covered or not ;)

[Tiramisu]

2 Thess. Seems pretty harsh. I read it as literally shun those who don't believe the same as you. Is this how shun is meant in the scripture?

 

It does sound harsh, doesn't it? I've heard of churches that do literally shun, but not the Roman Catholic Church. When it comes to an individual, I think the RCC view would be to pray for a misguided person, and common sense would say that it wouldn't be a good idea to seek the company of one who is committed to error. I wonder if a real life example of this would be a politician who promotes abortion. I guess this is a good example of how individual interpretation can be tricky and why it's helpful to have the authority of the Church to guide us.

 

Perhaps someone more informed will chime in. :bigear:

[Parrothead]

It does sound harsh, doesn't it? I've heard of churches that do literally shun, but not the Roman Catholic Church. When it comes to an individual, I think the RCC view would be to pray for a misguided person, and common sense would say that it wouldn't be a good idea to seek the company of one who is committed to error. I wonder if a real life example of this would be a politician who promotes abortion. I guess this is a good example of how individual interpretation can be tricky and why it's helpful to have the authority of the Church to guide us.

 

Perhaps someone more informed will chime in. :bigear:

We as human beings shun other people all the time. There are people who will cross the street to avoid meeting those they perceive to be different or dangerous. Most of us are not besties with bank robbers (Thou shalt not steal). Wouldn't the dynamic of a friendship change if one found out one's friend was having an affair?

 

And not to keep harping on it or anything but I know that there are churches that do practice shunning if one does not believe as they do.

 

The Catholic church isn't like that. If anything it is as Kelli said above, we be encouraged to pray for the individual or group.

[TracyP]

We still pray to God. But the answer to your question is the same answer to "why do we come here and ask people to pray for us?"

 

I'm no theological expert, but have you ever asked your friends to pray for you?

 

Thank you, this is the first time in my life that I have understood this.

 

I haven't finished reading but my dh has just informed me that I have been on the computer for three hours. I think that is code for "time to get off":D so I will have to come back and finish reading. I have a ton of tabs open from rabbit trails this thread has inspired. Thank you OP. I too have been searching - I lurked on the post evengelical thread and that is how I see myself. I hope you find the answers your looking for. :grouphug:

[ktgrok]

Thank you to all for graciously answering my questions. I have a few more and then will go back into the cave.

 

DD and I want to be respectful of the practices of the local congregation but due to the holidays are having trouble getting in touch with the parish priest and the head deacon in order to ask these questions. We are concerned about the head covering issue. We know that some local bodies still observe this, that some do not, and that there are mixes - some women choosing to do so and some not. Is an Antiochian congregation, due to being of "Middle Eastern Culture" more likely to observe head coverings for women and is this rule only for married women to show her submission to her husband's leadership or do unmarried women cover as well? If a visitor brings a shawl and attempts to follow the custom noticing other women doing so, is she considered "offensive" because she is not a member of the community or Chrismated? Or is she more offensive for NOT following the custom? Are shawls, scarves, doilies, or prayer caps thenorm? My only shawl is burgundy with velvet burnout (design) and some fringe on the end. It's very pretty though not overly adorned. Would this be appropriate or should I try to whip up something very plain for tomorrow? I do own a light blue scarf and a black and white music note scarf that would adequately cover my hair but are certain colors discouraged?

 

Truly, in order for us to be comfortable as a family with a worship tradition so radically different to our upbringing, any advice that will help us not stand out like sore thumbs would be most welcome. Obviously we will have trouble following the liturgy and so we'll just stand in the back against the wall and hope to fade into the surroundings, so to speak. We'd never go and stand with the congregants as though we belong there. But, I'm guessing that visitors from outside the faith aren't all that common and we really don't want to be considered, rude, offensive, or leave an impression such as, "Wow, we really hope that weird family from up north doesn't come back!"

 

Is it better to observe vespers on a Saturday afternoon first or should we stick to a Sunday morning service? Should we slip out the back when the Eucharist is served since we can not partake so that we don't make things awkward for the church family? Will we be offending others if we don't cross ourselves since we don't even know the proper method?

 

Thanks for putting up with my ignorance! I really do appreciate it.

 

Faith

 

I'm not EO but I've visited one. I was made VERY welcome. And although I stayed where I was during communion I was offered some of the blessed, but not consecrated, bread, afterwards. I was told it was normal to do this, and found it really nice.

[8circles]

1 Timothy 3: 15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

 

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

 

2 Thessalonians 3:6 We instruct you, brothers, in the name of (our) Lord Jesus Christ,to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us.

 

1 Cor. 11:2 I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.

 

 

Some questions.

Which translation do you normally use? I think the above are from KJV, but I didn't check.

In each of the above examples, which traditions does it mean, specifically?

[Wayfaring Stranger]

Some questions.

Which translation do you normally use? I think the above are from KJV, but I didn't check.

In each of the above examples, which traditions does it mean, specifically?

 

In the Greek the word used for tradition is "paradosis" (or a form of that word). It is the same word used in the "traditions of men" quote from Mark 7:8.

 

Many translations will use the word tradition if "paradosis" is used in a negative way but will use some other English word (like teaching) if paradosis is used in a positive way. Sometimes translators biases comes out and it is good to now when it is there.

[asta]

Thank you for all the ideas and thoughts to ponder over the last few days.

 

Especially thank you to those that expressed their experiences with close communion.

 

This thread came at a time in which I've been quesitioning man's interpretation fo the Bible and how we can find the Truth in the mix of it all. It's definitely brought up more questions and concerns, but as always, the journey in faith is never as simple as our day to day routines.

 

Lots to think about, question, learn and accomplish this new year.

 

Thank you again for a great informative discussion on religion.

 

Sincerely,

 

Cindy

 

There are no coincidences. ;)

 

 

a

[BBG580]

I am a convert of 6.5 yrs now.

 

When I started researching Church history I couldnt' be Protestant any more. I had fallen away from all practice of religion because it was illogical to me all the many branches of Protestantism teaching various things.

 

 

I was raised nominally Methodist but Christianity was never a part of my childhood outside of Sunday School and the service on Sunday. I grew rather aggravated and disillusioned with Christianity and how slick and marketing driving it appeared to me as a young adult. "Come and accept Jesus and be saved!" What ever happened to "Jesus, I need you to save me"? I met my husband and he was raised by Buddhists at that seemed like a nice approach for life that wouldn't be too intrusive if I didn't want it to be so I read a lot about it for awhile. And then I fell in love with Bahaism and studied it extensively for about a year and half. Something always held me back from signing my membership card and becoming an official Baha'i though. I ended up settling on being a happy agnostic.

 

I stumbled into reading about early Church history by accident and at first I approached my study in a very secular way to learn about that period in history and why all these crazy people decided to follow a man, Jesus. I read about the first Councils, the compilation of the Bible, the formation of the Nicene Creed and the defining of the Holy Trinity to stamp out the Arian heresy. The more I read the more fascinated I became. I read and read and read lots of Christian writers - everyone from Thomas Howard and Frank Sheed to Marcu Borg and John Dominic Crossan, Shane Claiborne and Peter Kreeft. Lots of reading over a 2 year period (and still a lot of reading now!).

 

Then I reread the book of Acts. Then I reread the Gospels. I gobbled up all I could in the way of apologetics and conversion stories. I began emailing regularly with a Reformed Baptist minister who I had been friends with for awhile with lots of questions which later turned into lots of great debate between the two of us. Those email exchanges helped me define exactly why I believed what I was growing to believe and helped me discover areas of theology that I was either ignorant about or had a weak amount of knowledge in and led me to read more about them. I enrolled in RCIA in a local parish, still not intending to convert. I had trouble with ideas like the Real Presence in the Eucharist and some of the other mysteries of faith. But I had a light bulb to my soul moment during Advent of 2008 and I knew I was hooked on Jesus and held Him in absolute adoration and that I wanted to belong to His Church.

 

So, I converted. It created some shock waves in my family, my husband did not convert with me so that has been a struggle at times. I would say for me that reading early Christian history and reading what early Church writers had to say about Christianity in the first few centuries was a great place to start. Get back to the beginning. Who compiled the Bible and how did they do it? What lends the Bible authority if the group who compiled it has none? What did the first Christians believe about holy communion? Who were some holy people who lived in the first 5 centuries of Christianity and what did they believe and why?

 

The one thing that I really missed out on as a kid was the whole picture. We were basically taught about John Wesely and Martin Luther and nothing much before. I'm not saying this is true for all Protestant kids (especially not true for any kid using TOG ;) ) but I think that huge gap in knowledge about Christianity led me leave as a young adult.

 

Good luck!

 

(And, no, I did not read every single reply in this 50+ page thread! I'm sorry if I am being redundant but this is my story and you asked for those. :) )

Edited January 1, 2011 by BBG580
spelling

[Violet Crown]

Thank you to all for graciously answering my questions. I have a few more and then will go back into the cave.

 

DD and I want to be respectful of the practices of the local congregation but due to the holidays are having trouble getting in touch with the parish priest and the head deacon in order to ask these questions. We are concerned about the head covering issue. We know that some local bodies still observe this, that some do not, and that there are mixes - some women choosing to do so and some not. Is an Antiochian congregation, due to being of "Middle Eastern Culture" more likely to observe head coverings for women and is this rule only for married women to show her submission to her husband's leadership or do unmarried women cover as well? If a visitor brings a shawl and attempts to follow the custom noticing other women doing so, is she considered "offensive" because she is not a member of the community or Chrismated? Or is she more offensive for NOT following the custom? Are shawls, scarves, doilies, or prayer caps thenorm? My only shawl is burgundy with velvet burnout (design) and some fringe on the end. It's very pretty though not overly adorned. Would this be appropriate or should I try to whip up something very plain for tomorrow? I do own a light blue scarf and a black and white music note scarf that would adequately cover my hair but are certain colors discouraged?

 

Truly, in order for us to be comfortable as a family with a worship tradition so radically different to our upbringing, any advice that will help us not stand out like sore thumbs would be most welcome. Obviously we will have trouble following the liturgy and so we'll just stand in the back against the wall and hope to fade into the surroundings, so to speak. We'd never go and stand with the congregants as though we belong there. But, I'm guessing that visitors from outside the faith aren't all that common and we really don't want to be considered, rude, offensive, or leave an impression such as, "Wow, we really hope that weird family from up north doesn't come back!"

 

Is it better to observe vespers on a Saturday afternoon first or should we stick to a Sunday morning service? Should we slip out the back when the Eucharist is served since we can not partake so that we don't make things awkward for the church family? Will we be offending others if we don't cross ourselves since we don't even know the proper method?

 

Thanks for putting up with my ignorance! I really do appreciate it.

 

Faith

Speaking as a fairly traditional Catholic who covers at Mass.... You'll be shocked at how fast you go from "I feel so self-conscious! I wonder if I'm doing it wrong? Is everyone staring at me?" to "Wow! Look at all these great head coverings on eBay! How many colors shall I get?":)

 

I was a guest at a friend's chrismation in an Antiochian parish, and I wore my pre-Vatican-2-type chapel veil, and many female visitors wore no head covering.... there was no sense of awkwardness for anyone. Everyone was very friendly and welcoming. Don't let the issue of head covering dampen your immersion into a beautiful prayer experience.

[Tiramisu]

Speaking as a fairly traditional Catholic who covers at Mass.... You'll be shocked at how fast you go from "I feel so self-conscious! I wonder if I'm doing it wrong? Is everyone staring at me?" to "Wow! Look at all these great head coverings on eBay! How many colors shall I get?":)

 

I was a guest at a friend's chrismation in an Antiochian parish, and I wore my pre-Vatican-2-type chapel veil, and many female visitors wore no head covering.... there was no sense of awkwardness for anyone. Everyone was very friendly and welcoming. Don't let the issue of head covering dampen your immersion into a beautiful prayer experience.

 

:iagree:I cover my head, too, but, if I forget my veil, it won't stop me from going to Mass or into the chapel to pray. And, at our church, no one would look at me differerently if I had one on or not. Two of my dds cover their heads regularly, two don't. I like the tradition but I won't force it on my dds, especially because of their sensory issues. It reminds me of Moses taking his shoes off on holy ground and, for me, is a physical reminder that I am in the presence of Our Lord.

[Parrothead]

:iagree:I cover my head, too, but, if I forget my veil, it won't stop me from going to Mass or into the chapel to pray. And, at our church, no one would look at me differerently if I had one on or not. Two of my dds cover their heads regularly, two don't. I like the tradition but I won't force it on my dds, especially because of their sensory issues. It reminds me of Moses taking his shoes off on holy ground and, for me, is a physical reminder that I am in the presence of Our Lord.

I think the option is a good thing. It is much better than being 3 and having your mother cover your head with a Kleenex because she forgot the chapel veils.

 

:D

[Tea Time]

I just wanted to pop in an add this resource for people who are still getting research sites and information off of this thread. It is Biblically based, that is it focuses on a Scripture. This links to the Table of Contents. You can read it from either of these links, which ever suits you. It is very extensive. Best wishes! And Happy New Year!

 

http://www.catholicapologetics.org/aptoc.htm

 

http://www.catholicapologetics.org/CBANotes.pdf

[Giraffe]

I just wanted to pop in an add this resource for people who are still getting research sites and information off of this thread. It is Biblically based, that is it focuses on a Scripture. This links to the Table of Contents. You can read it from either of these links, which ever suits you. It is very extensive. Best wishes! And Happy New Year!

 

http://www.catholicapologetics.org/aptoc.htm

 

http://www.catholicapologetics.org/CBANotes.pdf

 

Still pulling links, so thank you!!

[milovany]

At that point in time it was neither: it was THE Church. The schism happened later. That is really the point...it was THE CHURCH.

 

Mais oui. My apologies for not being more clear. And please don't read the whirleypop thread. It's not interesting. Pretty boring, actually.

 

Thanks. :D

[littlebug42]

I just thought I would mention that I have been looking at this website for classes for my kids and I thought it might interest some of you. In addition to kids classes, there are online classes for adults including an RCIA program. This is a Catholic site.

 

www.catechismclass.com

 

This has been a wonderful thing. I have learned many things and it has definitely peaked my interest for others.

[OregonNative]

Specifically, in the NIV, when the word "paradosis" occurs in a negative sense, the "translators" chose to use the word "tradition". When it appeared in a positive sense--the same word--they chose the word "teachings". It supports an evangelical position, but it is not an accurate or consistent translation.

 

How would one know these things while reading the Bible? Is there a way to find these translation issues out if you are very young in your Bible knowledge?

 

I used to read the NIV, then switched to NKJV and finally after reading how much meaning was changed in translations outside of the KJV-went to strictly reading KJV. I feel like so much get's lost in translation and that bothers me as someone seeking deep meaning.

Edited January 2, 2011 by OregonNative

[ClassicCole]

Just wanted to say that this thread has given me alot to think about. Have been reading alot and studying. And have gained alot of answers to questions. We have had some great conversations here at home about this as well.

 

So when today at church during Sunday School I was dismayed a bit how some Catholic misconceptions were been discussed. Then my children told me the same happened in the teen class. Their teacher is a former Catholic and didn't share a positive light of it. Anyways my kids were surprised by alot of what they heard.

 

I am glad though they were prepared somewhat to not fall into all of the negative comments. They are open to learning more of the Catholic faith. So our journey will continue. Just wanted to say thanks for sharing your knowledge and experience.

[Tiramisu]

Just wanted to say that this thread has given me alot to think about. Have been reading alot and studying. And have gained alot of answers to questions. We have had some great conversations here at home about this as well.

 

So when today at church during Sunday School I was dismayed a bit how some Catholic misconceptions were been discussed. Then my children told me the same happened in the teen class. Their teacher is a former Catholic and didn't share a positive light of it. Anyways my kids were surprised by alot of what they heard.

 

I am glad though they were prepared somewhat to not fall into all of the negative comments. They are open to learning more of the Catholic faith. So our journey will continue. Just wanted to say thanks for sharing your knowledge and experience.

 

I truly appreciate that I share faith in Christ with people of different denominations, and the friendship and prayer of other Christians has been very uplifting and inspiring.

 

As a Catholic, though, I have found so much anti-Catholicism among fallen away Catholics. In most cases, the former Catholics I have met, I can honestly say, were simply poorly catechised so they never really learned their faith, and they may say things like they didn't feel like they were being "fed" in their Catholic church (which is inconceivable if you were taught and believe in the Real Presence).

 

However, I'm my limited experience, I have found that the most vehement anti-Catholics are people who grew up in nominally Catholic families that had serious problems, dysfunctional relationships, things like alcoholism or abuse, and somehow they have put the blame of all of that on the Catholic Church or on God.

 

I have seen this again and again, and it has led me to believe that our relationship with God and our view of the Church is strongly influenced by our childhood family dynamics and experiences.

 

When I see situations in which personal wounds have negatively influenced someone's faith and relationship with the Church, I need to pray for that person and remember that Christ can heal all things.

[iwka]

Just wanted to say that this thread has given me alot to think about. Have been reading alot and studying. And have gained alot of answers to questions. We have had some great conversations here at home about this as well.

 

So when today at church during Sunday School I was dismayed a bit how some Catholic misconceptions were been discussed. Then my children told me the same happened in the teen class. Their teacher is a former Catholic and didn't share a positive light of it. Anyways my kids were surprised by alot of what they heard.

 

I am glad though they were prepared somewhat to not fall into all of the negative comments. They are open to learning more of the Catholic faith. So our journey will continue. Just wanted to say thanks for sharing your knowledge and experience.

 

It is rather typical for former Catholics to be quite anti-Catholic. :-)

[Gretchen in NJ]

I truly appreciate that I share faith in Christ with people of different denominations, and the friendship and prayer of other Christians has been very uplifting and inspiring.

 

As a Catholic, though, I have found so much anti-Catholicism among fallen away Catholics. In most cases, the former Catholics I have met, I can honestly say, were simply poorly catechised so they never really learned their faith, and they may say things like they didn't feel like they were being "fed" in their Catholic church (which is inconceivable if you were taught and believe in the Real Presence).

 

However, I'm my limited experience, I have found that the most vehement anti-Catholics are people who grew up in nominally Catholic families that had serious problems, dysfunctional relationships, things like alcoholism or abuse, and somehow they have put the blame of all of that on the Catholic Church or on God.

 

I have seen this again and again, and it has led me to believe that our relationship with God and our view of the Church is strongly influenced by our childhood family dynamics and experiences.

 

When I see situations in which personal wounds have negatively influenced someone's faith and relationship with the Church, I need to pray for that person and remember that Christ can heal all things.

 

Kelli,

You have a good point here. I have seen this first hand irl. My Catholic education was not so hot. My parents grew apart from the church and into the flower children of the 60s and 70s. I was the one that pulled them back to their faith when I was a young around 76. My mother had a tough childhood. She lost her father to cancer when she was 16.

Edited January 2, 2011 by Gretchen in NJ