I've noticed a LOT of threads on switching to traditional churches, and I have ???s.

[Colleen in NS]

I've been reading these boards for YEARS, and have seen the seasonal cycles of topics, but I've never seen threads on the topic I've seen a lot of over the past year or so: becoming drawn (back?) to a more traditional/liturgical/ritualistic church experience. I wonder why this is. You people are getting me to think!

 

I grew up Catholic, but after my parents got divorced and my Mom went through a "born again" experience in the Catholic charismatic movement in the 70s, we slowly went through a transition from the Catholic church to non-denominational churches. So, I attended a non-denominational church in my late teens, then joined an interdenominational missions organization (Youth With A Mission) and spent almost 7 years working with that, then got married and attended a foursquare church for a couple of years, then a Vineyard (movement which started in the 70s, I think) church for the past 14 years or so. I am steeped in the lingo and concepts of non-traditional churches, lol.

 

But I can't help but start questioning some things that I've been steeped in, and then when I read all these threads of late, I find myself thinking, "Hey, yeah, I know what you mean!" to many of the stories I've read. I didn't expect that. Not that I'm thinking about going back to the Catholic church, but at my Nana's funeral four years ago, I must say it was somewhat of a comfort to be in a ritual service, where I knew what to expect. Maybe it's my age (43 this Sunday), maybe it's my place in life (homeschooling a 13 and a 10 yo), maybe it's my desire for peace/comfort/stability/feeling of control over my mind and how I personally relate to God, but I'm a little tired of.....hype?.....the unexpected?......expectations to act in a way that I am not comfortable with and never have been and never will be, no matter how much I am told that this and this and this is the way to demonstrate your love for God and neighbour?

 

What is this string of threads all about? Is there a bigger move back to tradition out there in N. America, that I am not aware of except for what I read here? Or am I just being influenced by what I've read here (I don't think so)? Who are you, who are moving from non-denom. back to tradition? What age range are you in? What is your religious background? What is your religious teaching/training? What has your past church experience been like? Would you consider yourselves to have been part of the mainstream American Christian culture, say, in the late 70s, 80s, and 90s? Why the change?

 

And then I read things that made me think traditional church experience also encompasses, gasp, learning classically and learning to think! What do you think? My Catholic father is the ONLY IRL person I know who really GETS my strong desire to teach my kids Latin, logic, and rhetoric. I was shocked a few years ago to learn that he knew exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned it, because most people seem to think I'm overzealous with this homeschooling bit. And I was reading about a local Eastern Orthodox church, and the priest was described as being highly educated, and the website listed all the things he has studied: classical languages, piano, history, literature, sciences, theology, etc.. I was floored. I have never met a pastor who had that background. This guy has a piano in his house and plays classical pieces for people for fun. It just went against all my non-denominational experiences. And I was very impressed.

 

So, why? Why this new wave? You see, my understanding was that non-denom. churches were started because traditional churches were too dull/restrictive/controlling/fake/etc. - but now that seems to be reversing, or am I nuts?

[Sugarfoot]

No, I don't think you're crazy. Our church feels like it's bursting at the seams sometimes, which it usually does during Lent, but I've definitely noticed the same things that you're describing.

 

I can think of all kinds of reasons for it, but truthfully, I think it's all God.;)

 

From the Litany of Welcome, paraphrased: "Whoever you are, you belong to us, because you belong to Christ. If you've been away, you can come back. Christ is the Host here, and all are welcome."

 

Just between you and me,;) I prayed hard every time one of those "Catholic- bashing threads" used to come up a couple of years ago. It totally amazes me the way things have turned here. It's lovely to behold.:)

 

I hope your journey is an awesome one!

[Alenee]

I don't think you're nuts. :grouphug: I'm right there with you. Hoping to attend my first EO service in May with Milovany. I just don't think my family is going to want to follow. When my 12yo dd found out I was going to go to an EO service, she froze and asked if we were thinking about switching churches. We've only moved churches once but it did a number on her.

 

I know that as I read these threads, I cannot seem to completely let the ideas go. I find myself constantly questioning things I've been taught...especially when around my pastor's wife. She's a true Protestant yet her husband, our pastor, comes from a very colorful background and tries to incorporate more orthodox teaching. The problem with discussing it is that he believes all Christian churches are just different "flavors" based on the same thing. You know, different interests means groups of people who are alike, flocking together.

 

I'm rambling...sorry. Just know you aren't alone!

[newlifemom]

I wonder if it has anything to do with the idea of classical education. I know for myself, this home schooling journey that I began, with SWB at the helm, had/has me questioning things I never did before. I have certainly, through the study of history come to respect more traditional forms of worship. Heck, I have even crossed over to the dark side and am now reformed. :tongue_smilie:

 

I have chalked it up to that in my own mind. It may have nothing to do with it, but what do I know. :D

[simka2]

I came across this quote some time last summer and it just got me thinking. "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." That statement was made by Cardinal John Newman, a convert to Catholicism from the Anglican Church.

[silliness7]

We came to the "dark side" several years ago and it all started with homeschooling. I wonder if the rise in homeschooling is affecting the rise in interest in traditional worship.

[Koerarmoca]

While I am baptist and not catholic. I grew up dragged to a lot of different Churches some really over the top (I wont go into detail what I mean by over the top because I don't want to offend anyone) When I found my church that is very traditional steeped heavy in old old old hymns, deeply bible based, using KJV (which I love the flow of the words and it feels old, traditional and comforting to me)It was a prefect fit. We do have quite a few homeschoolers. We also have a wonderful pvt school, thought its too much $$$ to send 3 kids my kids attend a different pvt school. It just fits. I love it their. I can't imagine being anywhere else. Our "classical" schooling thought process had nothing to do with any of it. If classical schooling draws anyone into traditions surrounding the Church that is AWESOME :D

[Wayfaring Stranger]

I came across this quote some time last summer and it just got me thinking. "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." That statement was made by Cardinal John Newman, a convert to Catholicism from the Anglican Church.

 

It is a lot easier to look deep into history in the age of the internet. I went to my first Orthodox service within weeks of getting my first email account 14 yrs ago. That is not how I was introduced to Orthodoxy but the internet has been very helpful at times.

[Sugarfoot]

"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." That statement was made by Cardinal John Newman, a convert to Catholicism from the Anglican Church.

 

This is one of my favorite quotes.

 

I think you might have something with the classical education connection. Our (older) priests are the only other people we know who understand Latin. One of them said to me, "I never understood English grammar until I learned Latin." He's 80. With the Latin Mass coming back, Latin will likely be once again a major part of a priest's education.

 

When I was in high school, my friends who went to Catholic school were required to learn Latin, as well as things that weren't even offered at my school, like logic. It was just part of the tradition.

[Dolphin]

I was raised Anglican. In my 20's I tried some community churches, a four square etc... I am now back in a very traditional Anglican Church.

 

I could be very off base here, but for me it was politics, or wanting to be away from politics when I am worshiping. Politics have crept into a lot of churches. Including the more modern one I was attending a few years ago. I bounced around trying to find a place where politics was not present in church, and I found it in an traditional Anglican church.

 

One thing with the more modern churches, they are newer. They have had less time to figure out how to keep politics out of church. The Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist (and I am sure a few others). Have been around for centuries and I think they understand that worship on Sunday is about God.

 

That is just my thought on a possible reason

[simka2]

It is a lot easier to look deep into history in the age of the internet. I went to my first Orthodox service within weeks of getting my first email account 14 yrs ago. That is not how I was introduced to Orthodoxy but the internet has been very helpful at times.

 

Yes, it is easier :D. What really stood out to me was the, "cease to be protestant" part. I found myself questioning the very "way" I viewed the christians of different time periods. I couldn't interpret pre-reformation christianity thru the lens of my protestant theological understanding.

 

In fact, I think it was you, who challenged me on my knowledge of christian archeological finds :D! (that was another big push that made me take a closer look)

[GWOB]

I grew up with parents who grew up nominally Catholic. They knew absolutely nothing about the Catholic church, though they attended all their lives. When they finally left the Catholic church to attend a fundy Baptist church, they had developed a hatred toward the Catholic church. I grew up with that hatrred. They felt as though they were missing out on some great message, when really they just never looked.

 

For a while after I left home I attended a number of different Protestant churches. While in San Diego, I attended a huge mega-church with a full band and an awesome pastor. It was great for the hour and a half or so while I was there, but I felt as though I had nothing to take home with me. When we moved away, we visited a number of different churches and denominations, though I absolutely refused to enter a Catholic church. My youthful indoctrination had been quite thorough:glare:. We attended an LCMS (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod) church for a while, but never joined. We moved again (thanks to the Navy) and kept searching. We mostly attended a Congregational church, mostly because we could walk to it. Full band, at least 30 minutes of dramatic praise and worship music, big fancy VBS program, etc. It served a purpose, but I felt as though I was being fed on bread alone. You know, enough to keep me going, but not enough to meet all my nutritional needs. Then we moved again, lather, rinse, repeat.

 

We searched for a while and finally settled on an LCMS congregation. For the first time in 10 years I actually joined a church. I loved the liturgy. I loved the traditional worship. I liked the fact that the pastor was not just an actor on a stage, but more of a facilitator. It was my first real experience with a traditional, liturgical church. However, now I want more. I feel drawn to the Catholic or EO church. I want something that is not just a fad, and I honestly think given the time between Christ and now, many fundy churches tend towards the faddish side. And now that I feel drawn to the Catholic or EO church, I am scared. I have purchased bookes on Church history, and I'm scared to open them. I'm scared to find out the truth. I was raised flaming Protestant. I think I am supposed to be morally opposed to traditional churches. Heck, my Southern Baptist preacher dad flipped when he heard we joined a Lutheran church. I don't even want to imagine his reaction if I told him we went to a Catholic or EO church.

 

So what is the deal with all these people wanting to know more about the Catholic or EO church? Like the anology I used before, I just think many people are tired of being fed just bread. Yes, it sustains, but many people want the meat and veggies. Maybe the Catholic or EO church holds the meat and veggies. Many of us want more than smoke and mirrors. We want something that has lasted. We want something concrete and real. We want to enter a church and be able to say "Hey, I suck at this Jesus thing, but I'm trying. Help me without judging." I just haven't found that in any of the Protestant churches I have attended so far.

Edited March 19, 2011 by wendilouwho

[GWOB]

I was raised Anglican. In my 20's I tried some community churches, a four square etc... I am now back in a very traditional Anglican Church.

 

I could be very off base here, but for me it was politics, or wanting to be away from politics when I am worshiping. Politics have crept into a lot of churches. Including the more modern one I was attending a few years ago. I bounced around trying to find a place where politics was not present in church, and I found it in an traditional Anglican church.

 

One thing with the more modern churches, they are newer. They have had less time to figure out how to keep politics out of church. The Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist (and I am sure a few others). Have been around for centuries and I think they understand that worship on Sunday is about God.

 

That is just my thought on a possible reason

 

I was so ready to agree with your post until you mentioned Lutherans being able to keep church politics separate. I thought the same thing when I left the Baptist church to attend a Lutheran congregation. Umm, we have politics, but it is very German and stoic. Apparently it is not ok to disagree with anything the church leadership/people-who-have-been-there-forever decides to do. Ask me how I know.:glare:

[iwka]

Colleen,

 

I have a very similar story to yours, I think. I grew up Catholic and went through the Charismatic Renewal (full blown, i.e. worship, healings, street preaching, evangelism - everything that a good Evangelical Charismatic could get - I had in the Catholic Church). I drifted away toward more fundamentalistic theology, mostly bc of wanting to go after "signs & wonders" and away from formalized religion. Went through YWAM's DTS (first one in Poland, first one in the Eastern Europe!), went to be a missionary in Russia, met my Protestant future husband. Got married in AG, joined Vineyard, got ordained there, went through Toronto blessing :-), went to plant churches in Russia and Poland, then to Saudi Arabia and Qatar, back in the US for International House of Prayer in KC.

 

Because we have traveled so much, we've seen and experienced so many ideas of how Christians should live and 'do the Church" that I was provoked slowly but surely to find what the church should really look like.

When back in the US, I started to read Church Fathers. It shocked me how Catholic they were. I started to read about how the Bible was made, history of the Church, doctrines, councils etc. I came to the conclusion that the Church that Jesus Christ started was THE Catholic Church and the only way the unity can be achieved is by building His church. I also had a spiritual experience that sealed my decision.

 

My husband's story is a bit different. He had a desire to live like saints, St. John of the Cross, St. Theresa of Avila, St. Francis of Assisi and while at the IHOP-KC (focus there was on prayer and intercession) he read a book "Fulfillment of All Desire" by Ralph Martin, Catholic Charismatic leader. He came to the conclusion that he was very presumptuous of wanting the grace that these saints had and their closeness to God without believing and practicing what they had believed. He realized that all of them talked about intimacy coming mostly from receiving Holy Communion as the real Body and Blood. He wanted it. One day he decided he will stop protesting. Few months later he went to his first confession.

 

You can pm me if you want.

Blessings.

[abacus2]

I'm seeing the same thing and thinking some of the same things. I'd agree that it's a God thing. I grew up Protestant, non-denominational, but much like Baptist doctrinally. I think there are several specific factors that are playing in. The internet forums, like this one, have allowed me to "meet" and better understand Christians with very different beliefs from my background. Growing up I was taught that most Catholics (or insert other very different Christian group) didn't really understand the gospel of Christ and are following tradition rather than Christ. Now I know that this is just not true. I've learned that different people seeking God and trusting Christ with their whole heart can have much different interpretations of the Bible than I previously thought possible. Also, the Protestant church in the USA is way too involved in politics. Conservative Christians started voting Republican because of abortion and now many "Christian leaders" hold to the whole Republican party line as God's way. This disconnect from what the Bible really says has caused many, especially younger, conservative Protestants to re-evaluate everything about their theology. They are re-examining scripture, Church history, and other denominations.

[Sparkle]

And I was reading about a local Eastern Orthodox church, and the priest was described as being highly educated, and the website listed all the things he has studied: classical languages, piano, history, literature, sciences, theology, etc.. I was floored. I have never met a pastor who had that background. This guy has a piano in his house and plays classical pieces for people for fun. It just went against all my non-denominational experiences. And I was very impressed.

 

:D My EO priest has a piano and enjoys entertaining us. He's great!

 

 

I'd be happy to PM you more about my experiences later.

[milovany]

So, why? Why this new wave? You see, my understanding was that non-denom. churches were started because traditional churches were too dull/restrictive/controlling/fake/etc. - but now that seems to be reversing, or am I nuts?

 

This part of the OP really struck me, since part of the story of our conversion to the Orthodox church from charismatic, non-denominational, ministry-oriented, evangelical Christianity is a thrift store book find about a Pentecostal preacher's conversion to Roman Catholicism. When I saw the title and sub-title of this book, I thought, "WHAT?!" I had heard of conversions from the Catholic church to the evangelical church, but never had I heard of a conversion the other way! Why would someone convert from the freedom that is found in the evangelical church to (what I understood to be) a stifled form of the faith? I bought the book, took it home and asked my husband if I could read it. I don't really have to ask my dh to read books, but I knew he'd ask "Why?" and to that I smiled and answered, "What if it rocks our world?" We had changed churches numerous times over the years (usually at my instigation), because it always seemed something was missing. And it did -- rock our world.

 

Why? Well, the one thing that book did for me (even though I knew we wouldn't travel the road to Rome as that preacher did; we couldn't get behind papal supremacy) was to show me that there is a church history you can KNOW. In all my 23 years of Christianity to that point I did not know that. I think I just sort of thought it didn't matter -- that the Spirit of God was moving TODAY in the "new things." I had a vague idea that the church sort of fell into error early on, and traveled through dark times until things started getting straightened out at the Reformation. Things really started returning to the early church with the charismatic revival of about 100 or so years ago! And the church has been moving in the powerful ways of God ever since then.

 

How sadly wrong I was. It CAN be known -- it IS known. Where the apostles went, how they started churches and placed bishops/priests, what they believed, the martyrs and how/why they died, how the leadership functioned (to our relief, we learned that papal supremacy was not part of the early church), the decisions of the councils, etc. This is all known. And once we discovered that, and once we learned that the Church that truly (apostolically, not just "spiritually") has its roots in the New Testament still exists today, we found that we got to a point of asking ourselves, if this church is still around, why would we not want to be a part of it?

 

I think it goes along with what Simka said; I appreciate the quote she shared. We wanted a church with roots. We wanted something that's been around longer than 100 years or even 500 years. We wanted to go all the way back. So it's not that we were necessarily looking for a liturgical church, or a sacramental church. It's that we wanted the historical church. And the historical church is a liturgical, sacramental church. The fullness of God is found in the way He designed the church to function; it's His truth given to the world. Christ (God's Word) is the truth, and the Church is His Body. The church is the "pillar and ground of truth." Ultimately we wanted truth, not the newest/latest thing. And, you know what? It doesn't always make sense. It's not always rational (a God that's larger than our minds won't always make sense to our minds). It's often mysterious. But it's still always true.

 

So, that's our story. I hope it helped a bit. If you're interested in asking questions of some of the Orthodox Christians on this board, we do have a pretty active social group called Exploring Orthodox Christianity.

ETA -- I don't think it's classical home schooling or even home schooling specific. The Orthodox church a few years ago was being called "the best kept secret in America" since until pretty recently it was seen as a cultural church; something people from different cultures were a part of, but not mainstream Americans. More recently, the church has been becoming more well known and is seeing pretty significant growth. I saw an independent study at one point about two years ago that showed that while most denominations/groups were that saw growth at all were growing between .5% and 2% each year, whereas the Orthodox Church in America has been seeing numbers more like 4%. Pretty interesting.

Edited March 19, 2011 by milovaný

[iwka]

One thing that I would like to underline, and it would be totally appropriate for the classical forum (since logic is part of classical education), is that people who are honest, really, really honest, and are searching for the deep things of God, sooner or later will come to the crossroad in where they have to answer a question: how do I determine that what I believe is an objective truth. Faith will follow or will lead to this point. Reason will agree with faith, bc there is no other way (St. Augustine said: I believe, so I can understand.)

 

The search people are on is not only determined by a longing to fulfill their desires and feelings, although it does play a crucial role. It is not that someone suddenly desires to get smells and bells each week or history and tradition in place of 'worship and preaching' service. It is the search for the ultimate truth. The price is high and it will cost us all. But it's worth everything.

 

Once you agree that there is no place for ecclesial consumerism, and you are not trying to find the next 'something' to fit your world, you will probably get to a place where your heart (and mind) will look first of all for the truth, and then will accommodate accordingly. Otherwise, looking for high liturgy, ancient traditions etc. is just another fashion and trend that will leave you in short lived fascination with the means, not the cause.

[Rosie_0801]

I wonder if it isn't part of a general trend of trying to recover lost skills and ideas of community.

 

Rosie

[12Stars]

Colleen,

 

I have a very similar story to yours, I think. I grew up Catholic and went through the Charismatic Renewal (full blown, i.e. worship, healings, street preaching, evangelism - everything that a good Evangelical Charismatic could get - I had in the Catholic Church). I drifted away toward more fundamentalistic theology, mostly bc of wanting to go after "signs & wonders" and away from formalized religion. Went through YWAM's DTS (first one in Poland, first one in the Eastern Europe!), went to be a missionary in Russia, met my Protestant future husband. Got married in AG, joined Vineyard, got ordained there, went through Toronto blessing :-), went to plant churches in Russia and Poland, then to Saudi Arabia and Qatar, back in the US for International House of Prayer in KC.

 

Because we have traveled so much, we've seen and experienced so many ideas of how Christians should live and 'do the Church" that I was provoked slowly but surely to find what the church should really look like.

When back in the US, I started to read Church Fathers. It shocked me how Catholic they were. I started to read about how the Bible was made, history of the Church, doctrines, councils etc. I came to the conclusion that the Church that Jesus Christ started was THE Catholic Church and the only way the unity can be achieved is by building His church. I also had a spiritual experience that sealed my decision.

 

My husband's story is a bit different. He had a desire to live like saints, St. John of the Cross, St. Theresa of Avila, St. Francis of Assisi and while at the IHOP-KC (focus there was on prayer and intercession) he read a book "Fulfillment of All Desire" by Ralph Martin, Catholic Charismatic leader. He came to the conclusion that he was very presumptuous of wanting the grace that these saints had and their closeness to God without believing and practicing what they had believed. He realized that all of them talked about intimacy coming mostly from receiving Holy Communion as the real Body and Blood. He wanted it. One day he decided he will stop protesting. Few months later he went to his first confession.

 

You can pm me if you want.

Blessings.

 

 

First off I want to say what a wonderful thread this is. I have been part of many discussions on other forums that bash all forms of Catholicism.

 

The above is what drew me to the Catholic Church, reading the Early Church Fathers was intrumental. The way they described the Eucharist was so beautiful. Along with the countless Saints that had a deep relationship with Jesus. I had been away from the Sacraments for so long, yet I never understood the depth of them until a few years ago.

 

Cardinal John Newman is a wonderful starting point moving away from Protestantism. He started off trying to find fault with the Church.

[12Stars]

One thing that I would like to underline, and it would be totally appropriate for the classical forum (since logic is part of classical education), is that people who are honest, really, really honest, and are searching for the deep things of God, sooner or later will come to the crossroad in where they have to answer a question: how do I determine that what I believe is an objective truth. Faith will follow or will lead to this point. Reason will agree with faith, bc there is no other way (St. Augustine said: I believe, so I can understand.)

 

The search people are on is not only determined by a longing to fulfill their desires and feelings, although it does play a crucial role. It is not that someone suddenly desires to get smells and bells each week or history and tradition in place of 'worship and preaching' service. It is the search for the ultimate truth. The price is high and it will cost us all. But it's worth everything.

 

Once you agree that there is no place for ecclesial consumerism, and you are not trying to find the next 'something' to fit your world, you will probably get to a place where your heart (and mind) will look first of all for the truth, and then will accommodate accordingly. Otherwise, looking for high liturgy, ancient traditions etc. is just another fashion and trend that will leave you in short lived fascination with the means, not the cause.

 

Very well put. I also see you are in Steubenville ;)

I saw this article posted on my FB a while back I just had not had the time to read it. I think I will tonight. Thanks.

[missesd]

I may be naive here, but what it Orthodox? Or Liturgical? No one on here knows this but since I November, I have stopped going to the LDS church. I wrote some threads on here about the control issues I had with their stepping on my parenting in the name of "counsel". Which is implied to be a "suggestion" that we of course have our own "free agency" to use or deny, but when you do that, of course it is looked upon as going against "counsel" and therefore the Prophet.

 

The problem is I have really begun looking deep into what I know to be true in my heart. In what I believe. Into my own understanding of the Atonement, what was taught to me, and how it reflects with how I feel now. About Jesus, God and the Bible. I find myself searching for more... for knowledge, a quest. My children need more, too. I have been in limbo since November, too afraid to see what else is out there. Scared by the unknown, by change and differences. The idea of a woman preaching makes me take a step back. The idea of an electric guitar in church makes me cringe. I am a traditionalist, I suppose. Not to say I am against equal rights, or mainstream Christian music... just time and place, I suppose.

 

Anyway, I looked into a Lutheran church, a Methodist, and even started to look at a Catholic, but the learning curve seems mind boggling. I hear words like "________ saints day", and go "huh?", or liturgical, or Eucharist. I feel like I am lost in a sea of mass religion :confused:

[12Stars]

I may be naive here, but what it Orthodox? Or Liturgical? No one on here knows this but since I November, I have stopped going to the LDS church. I wrote some threads on here about the control issues I had with their stepping on my parenting in the name of "counsel". Which is implied to be a "suggestion" that we of course have our own "free agency" to use or deny, but when you do that, of course it is looked upon as going against "counsel" and therefore the Prophet.

 

The problem is I have really begun looking deep into what I know to be true in my heart. In what I believe. Into my own understanding of the Atonement, what was taught to me, and how it reflects with how I feel now. About Jesus, God and the Bible. I find myself searching for more... for knowledge, a quest. My children need more, too. I have been in limbo since November, too afraid to see what else is out there. Scared by the unknown, by change and differences. The idea of a woman preaching makes me take a step back. The idea of an electric guitar in church makes me cringe. I am a traditionalist, I suppose. Not to say I am against equal rights, or mainstream Christian music... just time and place, I suppose.

 

Anyway, I looked into a Lutheran church, a Methodist, and even started to look at a Catholic, but the learning curve seems mind boggling. I hear words like "________ saints day", and go "huh?", or liturgical, or Eucharist. I feel like I am lost in a sea of mass religion :confused:

 

I am sure others can step in as I am only touching the tip here. Looking at religion through out history can be a great beginning point.

I know when we start searching it is a prompt from the Holy Spirit. We must look for objective truth rather than the subjective.

Maybe when the time is right you will venture out to understand other faiths. I understand how much the vocabulary of a particular religion can be daunting. It was for me initially learning all things Catholic. So you are not alone in feeling that way.

[Sugarfoot]

 

The search people are on is not only determined by a longing to fulfill their desires and feelings, although it does play a crucial role. It is not that someone suddenly desires to get smells and bells each week or history and tradition in place of 'worship and preaching' service. It is the search for the ultimate truth. The price is high and it will cost us all. But it's worth everything.

 

 

Yes, absolutely, people are searching for truth, and a classical education gives one the tools to be able to do that.

 

I may be naive here, but what it Orthodox? Or Liturgical? No one on here knows this but since I November, I have stopped going to the LDS church. I wrote some threads on here about the control issues I had with their stepping on my parenting in the name of "counsel". Which is implied to be a "suggestion" that we of course have our own "free agency" to use or deny, but when you do that, of course it is looked upon as going against "counsel" and therefore the Prophet.

 

The problem is I have really begun looking deep into what I know to be true in my heart. In what I believe. Into my own understanding of the Atonement, what was taught to me, and how it reflects with how I feel now. About Jesus, God and the Bible. I find myself searching for more... for knowledge, a quest. My children need more, too. I have been in limbo since November, too afraid to see what else is out there. Scared by the unknown, by change and differences. The idea of a woman preaching makes me take a step back. The idea of an electric guitar in church makes me cringe. I am a traditionalist, I suppose. Not to say I am against equal rights, or mainstream Christian music... just time and place, I suppose.

 

Anyway, I looked into a Lutheran church, a Methodist, and even started to look at a Catholic, but the learning curve seems mind boggling. I hear words like "________ saints day", and go "huh?", or liturgical, or Eucharist. I feel like I am lost in a sea of mass religion :confused:

 

:grouphug: It sounds like you've been through a lot. I'd always say to start with prayer, obviously, asking God for direction. You can learn about Catholicism just about anywhere, you can attend Mass at your local parish (just don't take communion,) and if you feel that it's the direction you're meant to go in, you can join an RCIA class (they usually begin in the fall.)

 

There's no pressure to know or learn everything. It would take several lifetimes to do that, I think. All you need is an open heart. God will do the rest.

[milovany]

Lisa, I'm so sorry for all you're going through. :grouphug:

 

I think a very brief (probably too brief), general summary of church history goes something like this: in the beginning, after Christ's resurrection, there was one church. There were no denominations or sects. This church grew and spread. While there were issues that came up and heresies to deal with as time went on, the church remained one. Eventually the Great Schism occurred in AD 1054 (I won't go into the why here), with the Bishop of Rome (aka, the Pope) separating from all the other bishops. The Roman (western) side is now known as the Catholic church, and the other side is now known as the Orthodox (eastern) church. About 500 years later, because of some things he saw in the Catholic church that he did not believe were correct, based on his interpretation and understanding of Scripture, Martin Luther "fathered" the Reformation. He was a Catholic monk and hoped to reform the Catholic church, not start something new. But the door was opened, as it were, and from there hundreds and even thousands of different groups (now called denominations) got started. On the eastern side of things, the Orthodox church continued on with no more major schisms. So today, the main three parts of Christianity (if one is generalizing) are Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.

 

I tried to keep the description as general as possible so as not to sound like I'm favoring one over the other. If I did a poor job, please forgive me.

 

As an Orthodox Christian, it's my belief that the eastern Orthodox Church, which still exists, stems from the New Testament times. It's not a re-start, a "do-over" or a re-creation, but the original church. There are many protestant denominations that claim to be the "restored" church (of which the LDS church is one, from what I understand), with the underlying related belief that the original church no longer exists. From where I stand, I would say "But it does still exist; it doesn't need to be re-stored." I fully understand that not everyone agrees with that, or thinks it matters. I'm just trying to give the historical perspective of the Orthodox church since you specifically asked about that.

 

Liturgical -- the word is from a Greek word that means "the work of the people." When people use it as an adjective regarding churches, generally it means a structured service with set prayers, priestly vestments (what they wear), incense/candles/bells, the serving of the Eucharist, etc. No body is "winging" anything -- the services are spelled out, based on ancient practice, and how we the people participate is spelled out, too. (I feel like I'm doing a poor job of explaining.)

 

Eucharist -- from a Greek word meaning "thanksgiving." The Eucharist is communion -- receiving the body and blood of Christ. Usually liturgical churches do not think of this as symbolic. They believe the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ (not just represent those things).

 

The early church was undeniably liturgical. And it undeniably believed the Eucharist was the literal body and blood of Christ (although it says how this happens is a mystery). So that's why you hear those words when you read/hear discussions about Orthodoxy and Catholicism. (Some of the protestant churches are also liturgical and believe in the literal body and blood of Christ, too.)

 

I hope some of this helps. I commend you for being bold enough to question, to seek, to wonder, to long for the truth of God. I pray that you find His fullness on your journey.

Edited March 19, 2011 by milovaný

[missesd]

milovaný-

 

Wow, no you did a very good job. Just to give some background- I went to a Baptist church once or twice when I was little. My grandparents ended up raising me and they are Pagan/Wiccan. When I was 11, I moved across the street from a girl who later became my best friend, but is no longer, her family was Mormon. My grandparents, though I love them, are VERY strict and controlling. I wasn't even allowed across the street without someone watching me walk- at 11 :glare: So when I met her and her family, the church gave me an outlet away from grandparents and a way in which to feel "normal". I started taking the lessons, and going to activities, but they would not let me join. That summer I ended up moving away to live with my mom, who was codependent with a very big time drug dealer (think FBI), because of her situation and abuse I put myself in foster care. One of the first things I sought out was the Mormon church. I believe now, it was because it was like an old comfortable blanket. It brought me peace from home. But the problem became that I was really too young to know what I was deciding. There was no one there asking questions for me, and I was a ward of the state- which meant to no one to take me to activities, church, or help keep practicing the very strict and moral principles of the church... I, alone, failed. I was a teen with no one watching me, acting out cause I had a crappy life. Later things got better, but I never settled the big questions about church, God, etc... I just took everything I was taught and took it without ever asking my own questions. As I got older, I began to wonder what else was out there, but I am a creature of comfort, and tend to go back to what I know. Asking questions is hard. And having not ever known anything other then "Mormon" is harder. They assume after you have been in as long as I have, you've had all your discussions, classes, questions answered... to question now, to question your faith, gets more ten a few eyebrows turned up at you.

 

Anyway, I did have some questions based off the things you said-

 

 

 

1. Martin Luther- is that where the Lutheran faith comes from?
   
2. I have an idea of what Catholic is, and even Protestant- though I believe there are MANY off-shoots of this, right? But what exactly is Eastern Orthodoxy? Like what church names or religion would it be called (i.e. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is known also as Mormon, etc...)
   
3. Are you saying the EO does not believe in the Old Testament at all?
   
4. Isn't there a scripture in the Bible (not sure about this) that says something about repeated prayers not being good?
   
5. Now this is going to sound weird, because as a Mormon, I did take Sacrament- which is basically representative of the blood and body of thy Son. But the idea that people could actually, literally, believe that they are eating the blood and body of Christ... I have to ask why? I know it seems weird, but I am trying to get it. It seems so morbid, in a way. In the LDS faith it is to take his name upon us, in the memory of the Atonement. So I am just trying to understand the sentiment, feeling, and idea behind it.
   

 

 

Thank you all for taking the time to explain some of these things to me. And OP sorry for hijacking your thread :blushing:

[Ibbygirl]

Lisa, I can't add anything more to the wonderful replies you've gotten already but I just wanted to give you a big HUG. :grouphug: I pray that God leads you exactly to where He wants you to be and gives you a place you can call home. God bless you. :grouphug::grouphug:

[NatashainDFW]

Thank you for hijacking the thread (sorry OP). I am sitting here learning so much. We are in a search for a new church and without this forum and thread I may never have heard of the Orthodox church. Some of the reading I am doing resonates with my beliefs.

[Colleen in NS]

Oh, wow, I didn't expect this many responses so quickly!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you! Please carry on with this fascinating conversation. I may not be able to check back in until late this evening, but PLEASE keep adding your perspectives!!!!!!!

[TravelingChris]

Well I was Catholic and switched after College due to the politization in the Catholic Church (Sandanistas and all that). I found plenty of traditional in Protestant churches along with much more biblical focus. Here I am in a church that isn't as traditional in one way as I would like- it barely acknowledges any church seasons. In my next location, I will look for a church that does have seasons along with all the other things I look for.

[missesd]

Well I was Catholic and switched after College due to the politization in the Catholic Church (Sandanistas and all that). I found plenty of traditional in Protestant churches along with much more biblical focus. Here I am in a church that isn't as traditional in one way as I would like- it barely acknowledges any church seasons. In my next location, I will look for a church that does have seasons along with all the other things I look for.

 

Seasons??

[SEP]

After my husband and I (boyfriend/girlfriend at the time) both were saved/born again/trusted Christ as our Savior (whatever you'd like to call it) in college we decided that we were going to search for the church that followed the Bible the closest.

 

The sign on the front of the church is not as important as the way the church is run, what the preacher teaches, and how the people live their lives.

 

If any church does anything to make less of Jesus and more of something else then that church is not going to be the most Biblical choice.

 

If any church ignores Scripture or adds in things to be as important as Scripture that aren't, you should be leery.

 

There are 'lists' on the internet that can help you focus some questions to ask any preacher when you are visiting a church. I used to call preachers before I visited and ask them questions that were important to us so that I would not waste our Sunday visiting them. They were always nice and accommodating, after all they are preachers. :)

 

Once you have a few Biblical churches to choose from it will come down to personal taste and style. We go to a very traditional church, which is also very conservative. I like it because I want to be challenged every Sunday to strengthen my walk with Christ.

 

Now, if you don't know what the Bible says about how churches should run or what the Bible says about certain topics, a church hunt will be more difficult. An internet search of good lists/questions would help you.

 

However, reading John in the Bible will help anyone with her own walk/salvation experience.

[....]

The sign on the front of the church is not as important as the way the church is run, what the preacher teaches, and how the people live their lives.

 

 

Yeah, isn't that the truth. :D

 

missesd - yeah, the church calendar has seasons. Right now, we're in the Season of Lent (which is leading up to the time of Holy Week). The seasons are: Advent, Christmas, Epiphany (we say like the 3rd Sunday after Epiphany or something like that), Lent, Easter and Pentecost. Disclaimer: I am in no way shape or form a church season expert. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. (We're a very traditional/conservative Lutheran.)

[Parrothead]

Not Millovay, but I can answer your questions for you. I come from the opposite side of the Catholic/Orthodox fence.

 

Martin Luther- is that where the Lutheran faith comes from? Yes. Martin Luther was a devoted Catholic priest who said that the Church needed to change/reform desperately. He did not desire to split the Church, but, to put it mildly, things got away from him. Hopefully a Lutheran can chime in and explain best how the Lutheran church came from Luther and his 99 Thesis.

 

I have an idea of what Catholic is, and even Protestant- though I believe there are MANY off-shoots of this, right? But what exactly is Eastern Orthodoxy? Like what church names or religion would it be called (i.e. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is known also as Mormon, etc...)

There is and always has been one Catholic church. The Eastern Orthodox Church is just that. Way back about 1000 years ago disagreements and failures to communicate between East and West (think the split of the Roman Empire - Rome and Constantinople) resulted in the split (the Great Schism). The Orthodox say the Catholics caused the schism, the Catholic view says it was the Orthodox. We say we haven't changed. They say they haven't changed. You'll have to decide for yourself which side of the fence you are on. Up to the Schism it was as Milovany explained earlier - one church for the first 1000 years or so. Milovany and I do pick at each other about it in a good natured way.

 

So we have one church, then we have the Great Schism which split the church into East and West. About 500 years later Luther nailed his 99 Thesis on the door of the Wittenburg, Germany (Catholic) church. This was the beginning of the Reformation. So now we basically have 3 Christian churches.

 

The Catholic church and the Orthodox church carried on. The Catholic church did reform - no more selling of indulgences, etc. The Lutheran Church started splintering. Those splinters split and split again. Those splinters are the Protestant denominations we have today. This really is a nutshell explanation.

 

 

Are you saying the EO does not believe in the Old Testament at all?

I tried, but Milovany or may be MommaDuck or FatherofPearl can explain it best.

 

Isn't there a scripture in the Bible (not sure about this) that says something about repeated prayers not being good?

This is a misunderstanding. Yes, verbatim there is a verse that says repeated prayers are not good or acceptable. But the thing needs to be read in its entirety and with a lens that looks at the Bible in its entirety. There are many examples of "repeated prayer" in the Bible. Even Jesus in Matthew 26:44 "He (Jesus) began to pray for a third time saying the same words as before."

 

Now this is going to sound weird, because as a Mormon, I did take Sacrament- which is basically representative of the blood and body of thy Son. But the idea that people could actually, literally, believe that they are eating the blood and body of Christ... I have to ask why? I know it seems weird, but I am trying to get it. It seems so morbid, in a way. In the LDS faith it is to take his name upon us, in the memory of the Atonement. So I am just trying to understand the sentiment, feeling, and idea behind it.

Thank you all for taking the time to explain some of these things to me. And OP sorry for hijacking your thread :blushing:

The Catholic church does believe that the Holy Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ. It looks and tastes like bread and wine. Check out Eucharistic Miracles on Google. Here is one of many sites. Again, this is something that each person has to decide for him/herself. There were many disciples that walked away from Jesus when he said, "Take and eat. This is my body given up for you." They couldn't get past the idea of the bread being the literal flesh of Jesus.

Good luck with your search. If you have more questions about the Catholic church I can try to help.

Edited March 19, 2011 by Parrothead
Uggh. who can spell this early in the morning

[Parrothead]

Seasons??

Here is a good breakdown of the Liturgical year.

 

I should specify that the is the the Catholic liturgical year.

Edited March 19, 2011 by Parrothead

[Melinda in VT]

[*]Isn't there a scripture in the Bible (not sure about this) that says something about repeated prayers not being good?

 

Former Mormon here. The verse in the Bible actually talks about "vain repetitions." Mormons tend to focus on the repetitions part, but I've come to believe the focus should be on the "vain."

 

The important thing is whether you are thinking and feeling and engaged in the prayer or whether you are just going through the motions.

 

Mormons have their own stock phrases that get used unthinkingly. (Or at least, I did when I was Mormon. "Bless this food that it will nourish and strengthen our bodies" I'd say, right before we served the brownie sundaes at YM/YW. :tongue_smilie:)

[Parrothead]

Lisa, you asked about the Liturgy. This Wiki article has a fairly accurate description of the Catholic Liturgy or Mass. And to be fair, here is a Wiki article about the EO Divine Liturgy. I have no idea how accurate it is.

 

Former Mormon here. The verse in the Bible actually talks about "vain repetitions." Mormons tend to focus on the repetitions part, but I've come to believe the focus should be on the "vain."

 

The important thing is whether you are thinking and feeling and engaged in the prayer or whether you are just going through the motions.

 

Mormons have their own stock phrases that get used unthinkingly. (Or at least, I did when I was Mormon. "Bless this food that it will nourish and strengthen our bodies" I'd say, right before we served the brownie sundaes at YM/YW. :tongue_smilie:)

There you go! Vain repetitions. I've not enough caffeine in me yet to be able to pull the correct terms out of my sleep deprived brain.

[tntgoodwin]

Fascinating thread!

[BikeBookBread]

After having grown up in basic non-denominational Bible Churches, my husband and I just joined a PCA church (Presbyterian Church in America).

 

Lots of reasons, but primarily because we wanted more. More Bible teaching, more history, more substance than we had found in recent years in Evangelicalism.

[KarenNC]

I think a very brief (probably too brief), general summary of church history goes something like this: in the beginning, after Christ's resurrection, there was one church. There were no denominations or sects.

 

I'm afraid this is much too brief. In actuality there were dozens, if not hundreds, of different sects (as we understand the word--representing different teachings about what "true" Christianity involves) in the early years of Christianity. These gradually developed into what became known as orthodox (small "o") Christianity----a single idea of what was to be considered, literally, right thinking for all Christians. This occurred as various leaders and movements gained power or influence over each other, more followers, political backing, etc until one took ascendancy. Theologically, one could (and pretty obviously would) say that the true one won out and all the others were heresies, but it is inaccurate to say that there was from the moment of the Resurrection a monolithic "Church" that was readily identifiable and all the other movements were just heresies in the eyes of the majority of the people at that time.

 

Take a look at something like the Early Christian Writings site http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/. The plethora of different strands of Christian teaching in the second century alone is staggering (and these are just the documents that have survived---there were likely many more). What was considered canon was not determined finally until the Council of Nicea in 325 CE. It's at that point that one can really start talking about "The Church" as an entity with a single, agreed-upon doctrine.

[KarenNC]

I came across this quote some time last summer and it just got me thinking. "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." That statement was made by Cardinal John Newman, a convert to Catholicism from the Anglican Church.

 

I'd have to say that, personally, "to be deep enough in history is to cease to be monotheist," but that's just us.;)

 

Overall, I think it is an example of the inevitable pendulum swing. Society swings far to one side then starts heading back the other way, passing through the middle. Remember that what we see as "traditional" now was at one point in history as fully "out there" in the terms of its culture as anything existing today, sometimes more so. Witness the shocked reaction of many "traditionalist" Roman writers to the (real or perceived---they didn't always have a full understanding or accurate information) activities of early Christians. "The Christians as the Romans Saw Them" by Robert Wilkin is a fascinating study in that.

Edited March 19, 2011 by KarenNC

[Gooblink]

Great stuff.

 

I'm reading a book called "Early Christian Doctrines," by J.N.D. Kelly, right now, using it as a spine, so to speak, for further reading of church history from the time of Christ. Primarily my education in church history has been filtered through a non-denominational, Protestant view and I want to go deeper into what the earliest church fathers taught and worshipped.

 

Right now, if I had to guess why there are so many threads on switching to traditional churches, I'd have to agree with a pp that it is God working in lives. Calling, moving. Having said that, I am still not sure whether that calling is, indeed to traditional worship, or just a calling to honest worship. I see such emptiness in modern evangelical churches - a club-like atmosphere that is off-putting to the outsider. But, honestly, I've seen the same emptiness in the traditional congregations. This leads me to believe it's not the brand of church you attend, but the focus of your individual worship to God.

 

The Body of Christ is not confined by a building or sporting a denominational label. If you go looking for Jesus in a "church" you might be disappointed. I think, first, we need to be in earnest prayer of guidance, then be prepared to follow where He leads.

[tntgoodwin]

After having grown up in basic non-denominational Bible Churches, my husband and I just joined a PCA church (Presbyterian Church in America).

 

Lots of reasons, but primarily because we wanted more. More Bible teaching, more history, more substance than we had found in recent years in Evangelicalism.

 

You say "we," but did one of you feel this way first, and then convince or talk the other one into it, or did you both spontaneously feel this way simultaneously? I am in sort of a similar situation, but my wife isn't on board...

[Tammyla]

Colleen,

I've noticed it too, and find myself pondering our/my choices here.

[simka2]

I'd have to say that, personally, "to be deep enough in history is to cease to be monotheist," but that's just us.;)

 

 

 

Actually, in the grand scope of history, I agree with you ;). The problem I had with that, was my own personal experience with the Divine, you might say :D.

 

I don't know how this all plays out, in every detail, after we die. Thankfully, in EO, I don't HAVE to know it all! That was another draw for me, the emphasis on Mystery and personal humility.

 

As we say during Lent and other fasts, I get to "Keep your(my) eyes on your(my) own plate." ;)

[iwka]

I'm afraid this is much too brief. In actuality there were dozens, if not hundreds, of different sects (as we understand the word--representing different teachings about what "true" Christianity involves) in the early years of Christianity. These gradually developed into what became known as orthodox (small "o") Christianity----a single idea of what was to be considered, literally, right thinking for all Christians. This occurred as various leaders and movements gained power or influence over each other, more followers, political backing, etc until one took ascendancy. Theologically, one could (and pretty obviously would) say that the true one won out and all the others were heresies, but it is inaccurate to say that there was from the moment of the Resurrection a monolithic "Church" that was readily identifiable and all the other movements were just heresies in the eyes of the majority of the people at that time.

 

Take a look at something like the Early Christian Writings site http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/. The plethora of different strands of Christian teaching in the second century alone is staggering (and these are just the documents that have survived---there were likely many more). What was considered canon was not determined finally until the Council of Nicea in 325 CE. It's at that point that one can really start talking about "The Church" as an entity with a single, agreed-upon doctrine.

 

Although there were SOME sects, the unity was visible from the very beginning. It is documented in the Scriptures (the order of authority and functionality of the early Church) and in the works of the pre-Nicean church fathers. Although the Scriptures were canonized (officially decided upon) in the fourth century, the majority of Christian local churches have already used mostly the same writings that later formed NT. The OT that was used was Septuagint, as this is what Jesus quoted while on earth.

 

It wasn't, as some would like to have, hundreds of views and opinions about what Christianity was, and then by a democratic vote or mysterious process decided upon who was right. The church was one from the very beginning. If you read the early church fathers you will see at least this: it's unity. Facing heresies? Yes, but unity was visible.

Edited March 19, 2011 by iwka

[KarenNC]

Actually, in the grand scope of history, I agree with you ;). The problem I had with that, was my own personal experience with the Divine, you might say :D

 

I fully understand. It has been my own personal experience with spiritual reality that's lead me to polytheism.:) That experience was the problem with trying to remain monotheist. But that's another thread.

[Gooblink]

I fully understand. It has been my own personal experience with spiritual reality that's lead me to polytheism.:) That experience was the problem with trying to remain monotheist. But that's another thread.

 

I'd love to hear about that! Offline, if you think it best and only if you're willing to share. :)

[KarenNC]

Although there were SOME sects, the unity was visible from the very beginning. It is documented in the Scriptures (the order of authority and functionality of the early Church) and in the works of the pre-Nicean church fathers. Although the Scriptures were canonized (officially decided upon) in the fourth century, the majority of Christian local churches have already used mostly the same writings that later formed NT. The OT that was used was Septuagint, as this is what Jesus quoted while on earth.

 

It wasn't, as some would like to have, hundreds of views and opinions about what Christianity was, and then by a democratic vote or mysterious process decided upon who was right. The church was one from the very beginning. If you read the early church fathers you will see at least this: it's unity. Facing heresies? Yes, but unity was visible.

 

The post to which I responded indicated that there were *no* sects at all. "...in the beginning, after Christ's resurrection, there was one church. There were no denominations or sects."

 

Bear in mind, (theological as well as political) history is written by the victors. While it might be a reasonable record for the internal development of the strand that eventually became considered orthodox, I would think using primarily the internal writings of that group to prove that there were no other competing ideologies considered accurate by people at that point in history rather suspect, at least from the point of view of the historian rather than the theologian. The difference in definition between "heresy" and "sect" is extremely relative to one's point of view.;)

 

I'll refer you back to "The Christians as the Romans Saw Them." Compare the writings of the contemporary Romans with those of the Christian writers---you will see very different views of the same groups, their relative importance in the society of the time, etc. The epistles of the New Testament show that there were various interpretations (again, "heresies" is very relative, and much easier to claim after the fact), including those in large Christian communities of the time.

 

My main point is that there was not at that time the kind of very organized, doctrinally-cohesive, religious infrastructure in Christianity that we see today in *any* of the "traditional" churches. That sort of thing develops over time. Religion is a dynamic process, not a static one.

Edited March 19, 2011 by KarenNC

[milovany]

Lisa,

 

I see that Chucki did a great job answering the questions you asked, so I do not need to repeat. I would add a couple of comments:

 

I have an idea of what Catholic is, and even Protestant- though I believe there are MANY off-shoots of this, right? But what exactly is Eastern Orthodoxy? Like what church names or religion would it be called (i.e. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is known also as Mormon, etc...)

 

You probably will pretty much always find the word "Orthodox" in the full name of any eastern Orthodox church. At the same time, not every church that has the word "Orthodox" in its name, or mission statement, is an eastern Orthodox church (specifically I'm thinking of the "Orthodox Presbyterian" congregations, but they are Protestant; there are other examples as well). The word "Orthodox" means "right teaching" or "right worship." In its use in the eastern Orthodox church, it means the same faith that the early church had, the "right worship/teaching" they had developed and handed down to the Church.

 

Are you saying the EO does not believe in the Old Testament at all?

 

I'm scratching my head, because I'm not sure what I said that indicated this. Forgive me for causing confusion! Was it because I used the words "New Testament Church" a couple of times? In the Orthodox church we definitely believe in the Old Testament. I can attempt an answer if I know what I said that indicated we didn't.

 

Now this is going to sound weird, because as a Mormon, I did take Sacrament- which is basically representative of the blood and body of thy Son. But the idea that people could actually, literally, believe that they are eating the blood and body of Christ... I have to ask why?

 

It's a valid question! Don't hesitate to ask questions. Biblically you see it in John 6 -- Christ himself said it would be his real body and blood and that whoever "eats of this bread, he will live forever." In the early church, and until after the protestant reformation, the Eucharist was seen as Christ's body and blood, not symbolic of it.

 

= = = = =

 

Here are a couple of articles about the Orthodox church if you are interested:

 

 

• What on Earth is the Orthodox Church?
  
• Finding the New Testament Church