Jump to content

Menu

Catholicism, Christianity, Denominations?


Recommended Posts

I was about to say that. The brouhaha with the Nicene Creed wasn't in 381 with the "one holy catholic church" bit - it was the "proceeds from the father and the son" bit (the filioque) in 589! THAT was what started the ball rolling for the schisms...

 

This has to do with the difference between Catholic and Orthodox teachings? Yes?

 

Can anyone explain the difference?:confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 530
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This has to do with the difference between Catholic and Orthodox teachings? Yes?

 

Can anyone explain the difference?:confused:

Basically, the filioque turns the Trinity on it's head. some would say that it's not even the filioque itself, but more a matter of how the Roman Patriarch presented it, trying to shove it onto the entire Church when that is not how the Church is run. You not only have to have agreement of a Council (or other Patriarchs) but the Patriarchs can be overruled if the Church (the laypeople) reject it. These are the checks and balances. It's not one person at the top that can arbitrarily make changes.

 

Like everything, there are at least two sides to everything: this is coming from the EO perspective. The RC would view it differently ;)

Edited by mommaduck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yowza. I've been struggling for months with Catholicism vs. Protestantism and thought I'd reconciled my way to staying Protestant. But reading this post has me thinking - again - about the history of the church, the origins or the Bible, and the sources of our beliefs. And whether or not I've gotten it right.

 

I really like the church we've found (Presbyterian PCA) - but I still think the Catholics are the ones that really do have it right.

 

My spirit aches.

 

:grouphug::grouphug::grouphug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your local Catholic church has Adoration available' date=' the Blessed Sacrament (Eucharist) exposed, go and spend some time there quietly talking with Jesus. See if you can feel His presence. I'll bet that your spirit will rejoice. :)[/quote']

 

I think this is great advice!

 

ETA: If there is Adoration at a parish, anyone can go and sit or kneel before the Eucharist. You don't have to be Catholic.

 

Adoration is sometimes/usually in a smaller chapel, not on the main altar. You may have to look around.

 

If you decide to go, you can just sit or kneel as you feel led. You might see some people with pray books and some people simply sitting or kneeling.

 

HTH

Edited by unsinkable
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a former Catholic, I know that Catholics don't have open communion. I was wondering why President Obama and his family were given communion at the Catholic Christmas service they attended. Is there a different rule for military chapels? Or was it simply that the military chaplain (Catholic priest) didn't think it was advisable to not serve communion to the President?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has to do with the difference between Catholic and Orthodox teachings? Yes?

 

Can anyone explain the difference?:confused:

It is more that the filioque was the last straw. Secular history plays a part in the story, as well as various little things that added up over a thousand years. Here is a fairly decent article about the Great Schism. (It doesn't seem biased to my Catholic eyes, but it might to those who have Orthodox eyes) If you scroll down to "Trinity" it explains what the controversy of the filioque is about.

 

There is ongoing work on both sides to heal the schism, but after a thousand years much needs to be worked out. If each side had continued in a straight line it would be easier. But at least one side (Catholic) made several turns during that time. It would be nice and I pray for it, but I don't think I'll see reconciliation or east and west in my lifetime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a former Catholic, I know that Catholics don't have open communion. I was wondering why President Obama and his family were given communion at the Catholic Christmas service they attended. Is there a different rule for military chapels? Or was it simply that the military chaplain (Catholic priest) didn't think it was advisable to not serve communion to the President?

 

This is an article I found:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101226/ap_on_go_ot/us_obama_church

 

It was a multi-denominational service, on Dec. 26. The article also said:

Obama was the first worshipper to take communion, dipping the wafer in wine before placing it in his mouth.

 

That (intincture) is not a Catholic practice.

 

Now, granted, I only read this one article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a former Catholic, I know that Catholics don't have open communion. I was wondering why President Obama and his family were given communion at the Catholic Christmas service they attended. Is there a different rule for military chapels? Or was it simply that the military chaplain (Catholic priest) didn't think it was advisable to not serve communion to the President?

I can't find anything about this on the internet. Not saying you're lying, just trying to find a source to answer your questions.

 

If there is any kind of different rule for military chapels it may be that it was more of an ecumenical service instead of Mass. Otherwise at some point a quite a number of someone's will have to answer some tough questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a former Catholic, I know that Catholics don't have open communion. I was wondering why President Obama and his family were given communion at the Catholic Christmas service they attended. Is there a different rule for military chapels? Or was it simply that the military chaplain (Catholic priest) didn't think it was advisable to not serve communion to the President?
I think this didn't happen; it would certainly have been all over the Catholic blogs! Are you thinking of an earlier incident when then-President Clinton was given Communion by a priest? There was a great deal of stink about that; there was some reason to believe that the priest was blindsided by the President's handlers/security informing the priest that the President would be receiving Communion and how it would be done, and the priest didn't feel like he could put his foot down. But that was many years ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to thank the OP and the rest of the posters here for a very interesting and informative discussion.:001_smile:

 

I agree.

 

And thank you to everyone who sent hugs and advice my way. I've got the Catholic message board Ellie recommended bookmarked and will probably be making an appointment with the priest at the Catholic Church ACROSS THE STREET (yes, really) after the New Year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an article I found:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101226/ap_on_go_ot/us_obama_church

 

It was a multi-denominational service, on Dec. 26. The article also said:

Obama was the first worshipper to take communion, dipping the wafer in wine before placing it in his mouth.

 

That (intincture) is not a Catholic practice.

 

Now, granted, I only read this one article.

 

I can't find anything about this on the internet. Not saying you're lying, just trying to find a source to answer your questions.

 

If there is any kind of different rule for military chapels it may be that it was more of an ecumenical service instead of Mass. Otherwise at some point a quite a number of someone's will have to answer some tough questions.

 

I think this didn't happen; it would certainly have been all over the Catholic blogs! Are you thinking of an earlier incident when then-President Clinton was given Communion by a priest? There was a great deal of stink about that; there was some reason to believe that the priest was blindsided by the President's handlers/security informing the priest that the President would be receiving Communion and how it would be done, and the priest didn't feel like he could put his foot down. But that was many years ago.

 

I am quoting myself so you ladies can see what I found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree.

 

And thank you to everyone who sent hugs and advice my way. I've got the Catholic message board Ellie recommended bookmarked and will probably be making an appointment with the priest at the Catholic Church ACROSS THE STREET (yes, really) after the New Year.

 

That's awesome!

 

I hope you find what you need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who studied/researched a faith before choosing, what solidified your choice?

 

Does anyone feel that a particular Christian denom. is closest to the truth and why?

 

The OP told me, although I don't adhere to the original specifications, that I am welcome to answer.

 

I am a cradle Presbyterian USA. So much so that I didn't know that "conservative Christian" existed until I moved south and got online and eventually homeschooled.

 

Over the years, I've been in varying depths of intimacy with God. In 1991, I got sober from alcoholism and consider the following few years to have been very close. I attended AA, but not church. When my oldest (now nearly 16) was born, my xh and I started attending a PC-USA church. I felt at home. Worship didn't resonate with me, but Sunday School did. Doctrinally, I felt ok, but I now see I was beginning to question some things. I don't embrace predestination, for example. I don't believe in baptism for salvation for infants, although I did baptise my babies and felt I could repeat/say the words used in the service with integrity.

 

My relationship with God plummeted the summer I was served custody papers. That was 4 years ago. I continued to attend church throughout mostly because I felt it was the best choice for my family.

 

I believe that the God I wasn't talking to lead my to my graduate school. In a freaking seminary of all places. :lol: Students and professors range from ultra conservative to liberal for Christian standsards. The school's roots are Quaker, and that influence is still present. I believe I am supposed to be there (I was also accepted to U of Houston) because I can bring my kids, I got a job there and other reasons.

 

There have been some defining moments in churches/church settings/with church people that have been a part of the distancing of me from accepting the Christian community, the typical Christian take on the Bible, contemporary issues.

 

I now attend a Lutheran, MS church. Ultra contemporary worship, which my family likes. I can not in good faith ever join. I'm not sure I could ever join another Christian church.

 

I've emerged from this experience not believing in exclusive faith. I don't believe that the "Bible says what it says".

 

I do believe in Jesus, his conception, birth, ministry, death and resurrection. I'm not sure about the "trinity".

 

I am definitely not sola scriptura.

 

I have also studied Buddhism and earth-based paths. I guess spiritually eclectic would work as a label.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has to do with the difference between Catholic and Orthodox teachings? Yes?

 

Can anyone explain the difference?:confused:

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OP told me, although I don't adhere to the original specifications, that I am welcome to answer.

 

I am a cradle Presbyterian USA. So much so that I didn't know that "conservative Christian" existed until I moved south and got online and eventually homeschooled.

 

Over the years, I've been in varying depths of intimacy with God. In 1991, I got sober from alcoholism and consider the following few years to have been very close. I attended AA, but not church. When my oldest (now nearly 16) was born, my xh and I started attending a PC-USA church. I felt at home. Worship didn't resonate with me, but Sunday School did. Doctrinally, I felt ok, but I now see I was beginning to question some things. I don't embrace predestination, for example. I don't believe in baptism for salvation for infants, although I did baptise my babies and felt I could repeat/say the words used in the service with integrity.

 

My relationship with God plummeted the summer I was served custody papers. That was 4 years ago. I continued to attend church throughout mostly because I felt it was the best choice for my family.

 

I believe that the God I wasn't talking to lead my to my graduate school. In a freaking seminary of all places. :lol: Students and professors range from ultra conservative to liberal for Christian standsards. The school's roots are Quaker, and that influence is still present. I believe I am supposed to be there (I was also accepted to U of Houston) because I can bring my kids, I got a job there and other reasons.

 

There have been some defining moments in churches/church settings/with church people that have been a part of the distancing of me from accepting the Christian community, the typical Christian take on the Bible, contemporary issues.

 

I now attend a Lutheran, MS church. Ultra contemporary worship, which my family likes. I can not in good faith ever join. I'm not sure I could ever join another Christian church.

 

I've emerged from this experience not believing in exclusive faith. I don't believe that the "Bible says what it says".

 

I do believe in Jesus, his conception, birth, ministry, death and resurrection. I'm not sure about the "trinity".

 

I am definitely not sola scriptura.

 

I have also studied Buddhism and earth-based paths. I guess spiritually eclectic would work as a label.

 

What caused you to question the beliefs you were brought up with? Was it life experiences where you felt God had left you? What about the Bible? Did you find it contradictory? How did you come to the conclusion that it does not say what is says?

 

I am currently struggling with seeing outside Sola Scriptura as this is how I was raised (I was raised LCMS). I was baptized as a baby as was my DD. We took an oath to raise our DD according to God's word. I do not believe infant baptism gives the child salvation. I def. don't believe that individuals are predestined to ****ation. As far as salvation, I believe that is given to us through Christ's suffering, death, and resurrection-not predestination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference as I know it is to picture a triangle. In the Roman Catholic view the Father and Son are on the top, and both have arrows pointing to the holy spirit below. In the Orthodox view the Father is at the top, and has two arrows pointing to the Son and the Holy Spirit below.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree.

 

And thank you to everyone who sent hugs and advice my way. I've got the Catholic message board Ellie recommended bookmarked and will probably be making an appointment with the priest at the Catholic Church ACROSS THE STREET (yes, really) after the New Year.

 

That's great! I also would encourage you to explore Eastern Orthodoxy as well. Attend a service, and read up here: http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/

 

Although I went through the RCIA process, and currently attend an Episcopal Church (husband's preference), I honestly think that too many people overlook the Orthodox church. And personally, I LOVE the theology as well as the family atmosphere. I also think that their perspective, that Priests can be married, is more correct and more feasible. Something to consider.

 

I am NOT trying to bash Catholicism, as technically I AM Roman Catholic, but wanted to make sure all options are explored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's great! I also would encourage you to explore Eastern Orthodoxy as well. Attend a service, and read up here: http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/

 

Although I went through the RCIA process, and currently attend an Episcopal Church (husband's preference), I honestly think that too many people overlook the Orthodox church. And personally, I LOVE the theology as well as the family atmosphere. I also think that their perspective, that Priests can be married, is more correct and more feasible. Something to consider.

 

I am NOT trying to bash Catholicism, as technically I AM Roman Catholic, but wanted to make sure all options are explored.

:iagree:I also suggest checking out the link I posted above linking to a chart that compares Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant based Christianity. As someone who has a lot to learn, this really helped me see the differences in practices and beliefs-which I feel is helping me determine the right direction on my journey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference as I know it is to picture a triangle. In the Roman Catholic view the Father and Son are on the top, and both have arrows pointing to the holy spirit below. In the Orthodox view the Father is at the top, and has two arrows pointing to the Son and the Holy Spirit below.

 

Fascinating! Does this have anything do do with the RC's and Orthodox making the sign of the Cross differently?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone mentioned above, it took a good 300 years for anyone to even sit down and start gathering everyones writings, letters, etc. and start arguing over what was "important enough" to be bound in a book to be handed down through the generations. Quite a bit simply got tossed aside - where, none of us really knows. I mean, periodically, something shows up in a jar in a desert somewhere (Gospel of Judas, anyone?) to show that it did, in fact, exist, but we don't know why it wasn't deemed important at the time. We weren't there.

That it took 300 years to decide which books were canon does not mean that the Church was not organized. It was. There was an unbroken chain of popes and bishops between the Resurrection and the Nicene Council. Nothing was "tossed aside"--there was Sacred Tradition. You and I weren't there, but the early Church fathers were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference as I know it is to picture a triangle. In the Roman Catholic view the Father and Son are on the top, and both have arrows pointing to the holy spirit below. In the Orthodox view the Father is at the top, and has two arrows pointing to the Son and the Holy Spirit below.

Correct...and that is why I used the phrase "turning it on it's head". Though I agree with the statement made by Tea Time that they are equal and one cannot exist without the other two. At the same time, the rest of the Church aside from Rome, did not feel the need to change or add to the Nicene Creed. And perhaps it would have been accepted if it had been presented with a different approach (there were major political, cultural, and lingual issues between East and West at the time...the approach was seen as a political, Church politics, power play by Rome...you can see that this was only one of many issues that drove the two sides apart).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That it took 300 years to decide which books were canon does not mean that the Church was not organized. It was. There was an unbroken chain of popes and bishops between the Resurrection and the Nicene Council. Nothing was "tossed aside"--there was Sacred Tradition. You and I weren't there, but the early Church fathers were.

 

This is where-with any faith, I struggle. I don't really know if all of the Church Father's were honest, moral, ethical etc.-so either way I really have no idea what happened. I struggle with completely believing that man absolutely 100% made no errors during this process.

 

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference as I know it is to picture a triangle. In the Roman Catholic view the Father and Son are on the top, and both have arrows pointing to the holy spirit below. In the Orthodox view the Father is at the top, and has two arrows pointing to the Son and the Holy Spirit below.

 

Do you have a link for this? I have not seen this in Catholic theology and it seems grossly oversimplified and misleading. In Catholic theology the Holy Spirit is "on par" with God. Please note the very last line of this link:

 

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101sbs.asp

 

God is not a picture. There is no top and bottom. But I agree with Mommaduck that this way of thinking drove the Church apart and a lot of it was cultural and political - and it still is. :confused:

 

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.

 

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 - which is also a person, and proceeds but is not "created"). 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.

 

 

But this is very off topic and truly is way beyond the scope of this discussion, so I will not elaborate further on this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fascinating! Does this have anything do do with the RC's and Orthodox making the sign of the Cross differently?

http://www.orthodox.net/articles/about-crossing-oneself.html

 

1. We place our thumb and first two fingers together in a point, and our last we fingers flat against our palm. The three fingers together represent the Holy Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and the two fingers in the palm represent the two natures of Christ.
We don't just cross ourselves "backwards" (as RC's would say...my son gets this question at school also), but we do this part, with which fingers touching and which ones down, differently also.

 

The act of "Placing the cross on oneself" is a request for a blessing from God. We make if from right to left to mirror the actions of the priest when he blesses us. The priest, looking at the parishioners, blesses from left to right. Therefore, the parishioners, putting on the sign of the cross on themselves, do it from right to left.

 

Because the Lord separated the sheep from the goats, putting the faithful sheep on His right side, and the goats on the left, the Church always treats the right side as the preferred side. We only cross ourselves with our RIGHT hand. The priest, when blessing a person, first touches or points to their RIGHT side, then their left. Also the censing of the Holy Table in the Altar is always done from the RIGHT side first; censing of the Ikonostasis, the Congregation and of the Church itself always begins with the right side. The priest always gives communion with his RIGHT hand, even if he is left handed. There are other examples of this right side preference.

 

When a parent makes the sign of the cross over a child, they will cross them from left to right, just as the priest blesses. When they make the sign of the cross over themselves, they would do it, logically, the other way.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states that in the Roman Catholic Church, the faithful crossed themselves from right to left, just as the Orthodox do, until the 15th or 16th century. They must explain why they have changed an ancient and apostolic tradition. We cannot answer as to their motivations. I would be curious as to their reasoning ;)

 

Is it important to cross ourselves a particular way? In a word, YES. We do not have the authority to choose willy-nilly what parts of the Christian Tradition we want to follow. Our fathers, and countless saints crossed themselves from right to left. Ancient icons show Christ or bishops beginning a blessing from right to left. the right side is referred to in a preferential way many times in scripture and our sacred hymns What should we want to change?

btw, as a left handed person that carries her babies on her right hip, it took some time and practice to remember to use my RIGHT hand to cross myself...my right hand was always preoccupied LOL! Edited by mommaduck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is where-with any faith, I struggle. I don't really know if all of the Church Father's were honest, moral, ethical etc.-so either way I really have no idea what happened. I struggle with completely believing that man absolutely 100% made no errors during this process.

 

Thoughts?

:lol: Of course they weren't! They were humans after all.

 

The real question is this: Do you believe the Holy Spirit could protect the Church - His Bride? He said it would prevail against the gates of Hell. He did not say it would be populated with perfect people the whole way through.

 

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches are not filled with perfect people who follow God's word to the letter, but neither are any of the Protestant faiths that I have explored. They all digress into their own human foibles. So why choose one of them over that which is more ancient? Those faiths have kept their way through 2000 years of pressure to change. But they have changed very little on important issues. Amazingly little, I think. Between the East and West, so little as to make outsiders scratch their heads in confusion. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have a link for this? I have not seen this in Catholic theology and it seems grossly oversimplified and misleading. In Catholic theology the Holy Spirit is "on par" with God. Please note the very last line of this link:

 

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101sbs.asp

 

God is not a picture. There is no top and bottom. But I agree with Mommaduck that this way of thinking drove the Church apart and a lot of it was cultural and political - and it still is. :confused:

 

 

 

But this is very off topic and truly is way beyond the scope of this discussion, so I will not elaborate further on this point.

 

Sorry, no link right now. But I didn't mean that one or the other was "above" the other in importance or spirituality. You could put them sideways if you want. The point was to illustrate who/what flows from whom.....that was all. And since we as humans picture "flowing" as being a downward thing I put them that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference as I know it is to picture a triangle. In the Roman Catholic view the Father and Son are on the top, and both have arrows pointing to the holy spirit below. In the Orthodox view the Father is at the top, and has two arrows pointing to the Son and the Holy Spirit below.

 

Circle, not triangle.

 

 

That it took 300 years to decide which books were canon does not mean that the Church was not organized. It was. There was an unbroken chain of popes and bishops between the Resurrection and the Nicene Council. Nothing was "tossed aside"--there was Sacred Tradition. You and I weren't there, but the early Church fathers were.

 

You misunderstand me.

 

I'm aware that there is an unbroken line of popes.

 

However, there were written documents that were not included in the final compilation of the New Testament. The Gospels of Judas, Mary Magdalene, and Thomas would be examples. Sacred Tradition would not be an example of something "tossed aside" because it was not a written document.

 

I don't mean to offend with the term "tossed aside", but the reality is that the book that was passed down through history has been edited for content. By many people.

 

 

a

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.orthodox.net/articles/about-crossing-oneself.html

 

We don't just cross ourselves "backwards" (as RC's would say...my son gets this question at school also), but we do this part, with which fingers touching and which ones down, differently also.

 

btw, as a left handed person that carries her babies on her right hip, it took some time and practice to remember to use my RIGHT hand to cross myself...my right hand was always preoccupied LOL!

I'm all mixed up. I've never in my life done it the "right way." I make the sign of the cross forehead to breast, right shoulder to left. So I would not think you do it backwards. :lol: Also, I have made the sign of the cross with my left hand a time or two when I've had something in my left hand and someone says, "Let us pray."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wanted to add, briefly...

 

We shopped for a long time, coming to Christianity in our mid-twenties. We started at a very dynamic evangelical church. My dh is an historian, so later we attended an Orthodox church for over a year, but did not convert. It was a mission church with many American converts. They followed the dizzying array of fasting rules rigourously, stood or kneeled through the services, and kissed icons. They met in a rental house. (I've heard since that they have successfully expanded their facilities.) I was never comfortable, even though everyone was very nice. We tried other Orthodox churches, but they were too ethnic for us (we don't speak Greek or Russian). For a while we attended a Lutheran church, where I was happy, but it wasn't pure enough for dh. Finally, we finished the RCIA program last year at a Catholic church. It really does feel like coming home, even though neither of us were raised Christian. I always felt that Catholicism is Orthodox-light, which suits me fine.

 

On a side note, my bff is very evangelical, and although she doesn't say much, I can tell she does not approve of our conversion. I don't think she believes we are truly saved or something, since we don't follow sola scriptura. Her mega church does offer delicious coffee, exciting childcare programs, and many adult groups, but it always seemed so shallow... like we were getting a lot of frosting and no meat.

 

Best of luck to you and your journey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Catholic Encyclopedia states that in the Roman Catholic Church, the faithful crossed themselves from right to left, just as the Orthodox do, until the 15th or 16th century. They must explain why they have changed an ancient and apostolic tradition. We cannot answer as to their motivations. I would be curious as to their reasoning

 

 

Uh... the Protestants made us do it??? :tongue_smilie:

 

I really don't know the history on that point. 'Tis a good question, and I imagine it has to do with the liturgy, too. We do end up on the right (in the right), however. :D (Just Kidding!)

 

I love, love, love the ancient Churches, the sacred Tradition, the liturgy and the Hope that they hold. Be blessed, my friend!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all mixed up. I've never in my life done it the "right way." I make the sign of the cross forehead to breast, right shoulder to left. So I would not think you do it backwards. :lol: Also, I have made the sign of the cross with my left hand a time or two when I've had something in my left hand and someone says, "Let us pray."

LOL! You are one of the few Catholics I know that cross themselves that way :) We usually phrase it...Orthodox, push not pull LOL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh... the Protestants made us do it??? :tongue_smilie:

 

I really don't know the history on that point. 'Tis a good question, and I imagine it has to do with the liturgy, too. We do end up on the right (in the right), however. :D (Just Kidding!)

 

I love, love, love the ancient Churches, the sacred Tradition, the liturgy and the Hope that they hold. Be blessed, my friend!

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: Of course they weren't! They were humans after all.

 

The real question is this: Do you believe the Holy Spirit could protect the Church - His Bride? He said it would prevail against the gates of Hell. He did not say it would be populated with perfect people the whole way through.

 

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches are not filled with perfect people who follow God's word to the letter, but neither are any of the Protestant faiths that I have explored. They all digress into their own human foibles. So why choose one of them over that which is more ancient? Those faiths have kept their way through 2000 years of pressure to change. But they have changed very little on important issues. Amazingly little, I think. Between the East and West, so little as to make outsiders scratch their heads in confusion. :D

:iagree:But those on the inside know just how wrong the other group is. :lol:

 

"It's a circle not a triangle."

"No, it is a triangle, not a circle."

"You are supposed to go right to left not left to right."

"No, it is left to right, not right to left."

"East or West?"

West or East?"

"Symbolic"

"No. actual"

"Sola Scriptura"

"Sacred Tradition"

 

And on and on etc, and so forth.

 

Really if politics and power struggles hadn't been involved ever (read humans) we'd all be Christians (those that are Christians now, not the entire populace of the world) belonging to the same single 2000 year old church.

Edited by Parrothead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, no link right now. But I didn't mean that one or the other was "above" the other in importance or spirituality. You could put them sideways if you want. The point was to illustrate who/what flows from whom.....that was all. And since we as humans picture "flowing" as being a downward thing I put them that way.

 

Right, right, I understand. But we humans also tend to think that down is "lesser" or "inferior," and that understanding clouds the whole thing, which is my point. If it leads to someone thinking the RC Church perceives it that way, then that would be very inaccurate and lead to misunderstanding. It is not an authority issue, and when we used the term "turning upside down" we get those flawed ideas about authority mixed into it. And I don't even think the Orthodox Churches' problem with it is understood along those lines. It is more complex than that. But I have seen many people who are pondering RC or Orthodox try to grasp the idea by deciding which church has the authority within the Trinity "right" (the "flow" being understood as "who is the boss"). I don't think that is a good way to understand the Trinity, and I don't think it is an accurate way to understand the Great Schism.

 

Make no mistake, Authority is a big issue clouding all of our understanding of religion in so many ways it is hard to describe. But that is not a problem inherent in the nature of God.

 

Very confusing. I said I would drop this. Forgive me. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: Of course they weren't! They were humans after all.

 

The real question is this: Do you believe the Holy Spirit could protect the Church - His Bride? He said it would prevail against the gates of Hell. He did not say it would be populated with perfect people the whole way through.

 

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches are not filled with perfect people who follow God's word to the letter, but neither are any of the Protestant faiths that I have explored. They all digress into their own human foibles. So why choose one of them over that which is more ancient? Those faiths have kept their way through 2000 years of pressure to change. But they have changed very little on important issues. Amazingly little, I think. Between the East and West, so little as to make outsiders scratch their heads in confusion. :D

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:iagree:But those on the inside know just how wrong the other group is. :lol:

 

"It's a circle not a triangle."

"No, it is a triangle, not a circle."

"You are supposed to go right to left not left to right."

"No, it is left to right, not right to left."

"East or West?"

West or East?"

"Symbolic"

"No. actual"

"Sola Scriptura"

"Sacred Tradition"

 

And on and on etc, and so forth.

 

Really if politics and power struggles hadn't been involved ever (read humans) we'd all be Christians (those that are Christians now, not the entire populace of the world) belonging to the same single 2000 year old church.

 

Such a luxury to do this when we could all be dying for our faith as they are in parts of the world. God forgive us for our ingratitude. :sad:

 

Peace be with you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Ah, but the church is still standing. She is just as strong now as she was before, probably more so. Yes, the child sexu@l abuse was a horrific thing to happen to those children at the hands of men who should have protected them. No question about it. Now that it has come to light there are many programs and rules throughout the church that have been put in place to protect the children.

 

The church did prevail against the evil perpetrated, and it is just that much more difficult for Evil to enter through that avenue again.

 

As for the priests that committed the crimes I believe they will answer for their crimes - if not in this world then certainly in the next. Not every pope is canonized, nor every cardinal or bishop or priest. "The old white men" who tried or are trying to cover things up won't prevail.

 

As a cradle Catholic I firmly believe that the Holy Spirit is what brought the crimes to the light so things could be "fixed." The church will heal. I pray the children involved do also. This is by far not the first scandal in 2000+ years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, but the church is still standing. She is just as strong now as she was before, probably more so. Yes, the child sexu@l abuse was a horrific thing to happen to those children at the hands of men who should have protected them. No question about it. Now that it has come to light there are many programs and rules throughout the church that have been put in place to protect the children.

 

The church did prevail against the evil perpetrated, and it is just that much more difficult for Evil to enter through that avenue again.

 

As for the priests that committed the crimes I believe they will answer for their crimes - if not in this world then certainly in the next. Not every pope is canonized, nor every cardinal or bishop or priest. "The old white men" who tried or are trying to cover things up won't prevail.

 

As a cradle Catholic I firmly believe that the Holy Spirit is what brought the crimes to the light so things could be "fixed." The church will heal. I pray the children involved do also. This is by far not the first scandal in 2000+ years.

 

Thank you for your response:001_smile: You have def. given me food for thought.

It makes me wonder tho-why did the HS wait so long:confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your response:001_smile: You have def. given me food for thought.

It makes me wonder tho-why did the HS wait so long:confused:

That, my friend, may be a mystery our puny human minds cannot grasp while on this earth.

 

But seriously, how would you feel if it had been one priest, one time, with one child? Probably not as scandalized. You might think it was bound to happen sooner or later at least once as it sexu@l abuse happens so often in the secular world. It may not have had the impact that it actually does. Why would it need to be this way? Why child sexu@l abuse instead of some crime perpetuated toward many adults? I don't know. I don't have the answer for that. My faith carries me through and with it I am confident that somewhere somehow something more awful did not or will not occur.

Edited by Parrothead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

The Church is the Body of Christ, not building or parishes. Out of my depth (again), but I think His Holy Spirit acts through the Church but its effects are wide and far reaching. Prayer is going on all the time for everyone, and I do mean everyone.

 

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.

 

It would not really be a Catholic discussion until this came up now would it. :tongue_smilie:

 

Please go to some Catholic websites, including the Vatican, to get some perspective on this. The media, on the whole, is not even handed.

 

The same things go on outside the Catholic Church all the time - in public schools for instance, yet individuals get the blame (as they should) and the organization as a whole is not held liable very much. If a child in a public school is abused, do we immediately hold the president responsible? Hardly. Maybe we should. But it is because we have such high hopes for the Church that we are so devastated when she fails us. It breaks our hearts whereas no expectation is held for other organizations. They get a pass. This is not hard for me to understand at all.

 

Remember, Judas was one of the Twelve. Evil was in the Church from the beginning, and so it remains. There is little else I can say, except that Good is also there. When all we remember is the evil people in the Church, then we cooperate with evil, and we do a terrible injustice to all the people who are doing so much good.

 

The Church teaches us all through her errors, so perhaps children everywhere will be better protected now. Over history she has made many mistakes and has had to be held accountable - an ongoing process. She has matured, too, admitted wrongs and made restitution imperfectly. But I see no other organization in history that has improved its character over time as much as the Catholic Church and remained so intact, still the same organization. Amazing, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your response:001_smile: You have def. given me food for thought.

It makes me wonder tho-why did the HS wait so long:confused:

 

To help you understand the Christian view of suffering in the world in general, I recommend reading C.S. Lewis - especially The Problem of Pain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Church is the Body of Christ, not building or parishes. Out of my depth (again), but I think His Holy Spirit acts through the Church but its effects are wide and far reaching. Prayer is going on all the time for everyone, and I do mean everyone.

 

 

 

It would not really be a Catholic discussion until this came up now would it. :tongue_smilie:

 

Please go to some Catholic websites, including the Vatican, to get some perspective on this. The media, on the whole, is not even handed.

 

The same things go on outside the Catholic Church all the time - in public schools for instance, yet individuals get the blame (as they should) and the organization as a whole is not held liable very much. If a child in a public school is abused, do we immediately hold the president responsible? Hardly. Maybe we should. But it is because we have such high hopes for the Church that we are so devastated when she fails us. It breaks our hearts whereas no expectation is held for other organizations. They get a pass. This is not hard for me to understand at all.

 

Remember, Judas was one of the Twelve. Evil was in the Church from the beginning, and so it remains. There is little else I can say, except that Good is also there. When all we remember is the evil people in the Church, then we cooperate with evil, and we do a terrible injustice to all the people who are doing so much good.

 

The Church teaches us all through her errors, so perhaps children everywhere will be better protected now. Over history she has made many mistakes and has had to be held accountable - an ongoing process. She has matured, too, admitted wrongs and made restitution imperfectly. But I see no other organization in history that has improved its character over time as much as the Catholic Church and remained so intact, still the same organization. Amazing, really.

 

I guess I hold the church-any church- to a higher esteem than a public school. I would expect more from a Priest/church official-maybe that is naive, but it is how I feel. Getting perspective from the Vatican seems like I would be getting a biased point of view. As it would be from someone who was out to get the Catholic church. What are your thoughts on this as I have an very general understanding of the Catholic church. I am very touched by the rest of your response. Again, it gives me much food for thought and I really apprecaite you taking the time to answer:grouphug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kindly ask that you do not post if your response will be negative, demeaning or unhelpful.

I believe the Bible is the infallible word of God and was not meant to be added to by man after it's completion. I also believe in the Trinity. I respectfully ask that if you deem yourself of Christian faith and do not believe the aforementioned statements, that you do not respond.

 

After reading many thought provoking threads here, I have begun to search deeper into my own spiritual beliefs (raised MS Lutheran and have been non-demon. for years). My search also began because so many churches (mostly non-demon, but not all) are too worldly and soft on the Bible for my liking.

 

I ask these question with sincerity and honesty.

 

For those who studied/researched a faith before choosing, what solidified your choice?

 

Does anyone feel that a particular Christian denom. is closest to the truth and why?

 

What are the major differences between Catholicism and Protestant Christianity? (Edited to specify)

 

Tell me anything thing you deem helpful. Tell me your own story. My heart and mind are wanting to hear!

 

Please PM me if you are more comfortable doing so.

 

I was raised Lutheran (the precedents to ELCA). As a teen I left the church and tried Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist (boyfriend, lol). I went to a non-denominational baptist slanted church for a few years, then quit for 10 years, then back to a baptist non-denominational church and have been to MS Lutheran for the last 2 years.

 

Now you have the history. Here are my basic beliefs:

1. The Bible is the word of God and it is literal, but we not always understand exactly what God means. We are not meant to have total understanding until the rapture.

2. Christ died for the sins of all but you must be baptized and believe that Christ died for your sins to attain Salvation.

3. I believe in the Trinity.

 

I researched several other religions and found more than MS Lutheran that agreed with my spiritual beliefs and understanding. I prayed a lot and felt led to MS Lutheran. I am comfortable there, in my church. I also know that I am not married to church and I seek God's guidance on a regular basis; when listening to Pastor's sermon, when serving in the church, when praying outside of church. I believe that God will guide where I worship. Dh is not an outwardly religious man and does not attend church. I know that when he decides to attend it will not be MS Lutheran because he's not comfortable there so I will be ready to attend with him. I believe that is God's will for me and my family. At some point during my research I got the feeling that I just needed to get to church; that I was hiding behind the research.

 

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!:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a good time to point out that Catholics do not own the market on sexual misconduct by priests.

I agree wholeheartedly. I used the Catholic example because it is most prevalent (not the abuse, just the issue).

 

Even with the evidence his credentials were not revoked :001_huh:,

 

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 accountability. 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.

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I hold the church-any church- to a higher esteem than a public school. I would expect more from a Priest/church official-maybe that is naive, but it is how I feel. Getting perspective from the Vatican seems like I would be getting a biased point of view. As it would be from someone who was out to get the Catholic church. What are your thoughts on this as I have an very general understanding of the Catholic church. I am very touched by the rest of your response. Again, it gives me much food for thought and I really apprecaite you taking the time to answer:grouphug:

 

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?

 

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.

 

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. 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...