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

[missesd]

Once again, I'm just having a quick skim of the replies, and I don't have time to reply right now - argghhhh!! I can't believe how involved this thread got - I really appreciate all your input!!

 

Because I probably won't have time later tonight now, or tomorrow (birthday celebrations all day!), and might have to wait til Monday to dig into this thread; I just want to ask if you all could keep trying to keep the thread mostly on track with my OP. Please? So many people have had VERY helpful things to say to me, and I see that missesd has some great questions going on and I'm fine with that. I'm just asking that the thread doesn't derail into debates about which denomination is right about which particular beliefs, etc.. I'm seeing places where the line is fine between just short answers, and what could be interpreted as short, snappy answers. Cuz I just don't have time today or tomorrow to reply to what I want to reply to, and I don't want the thread to get locked before I get a chance! :D

 

Thank you all again, and please carry on with helping me out with my OP!

 

I'm sorry... if you like I can start my own thread??

[mommaduck]

Colleen, I do think that there is a call back to certain things and I believe that those that continue to work their way back in history, without stopping or assuming, are making that journey. For dh and I, we were raised baptist with many assumptions. We jumped around a bit in our twenties (Methodist, Pentacostal, Non-denominational, Mennonite, Semi-Messianic/Semi-Calvinist Non-denominational, Reformed Baptist)...then we became Reformed. I saw a wave heading towards Reformed, then again I found out I was part of a wave of Reformed that were becoming Orthodox or Catholic (found out because we were all being hush-hush about it and we would pick up on little things with each other and contact each other privately to find out, "oh, we aren't the only ones!")

[mommaduck]

I'm sorry... if you like I can start my own thread??

 

If you do, please link here so that I may subscribe (I'm being quiet because of my pregnancy and limited ability to construct decent replies right now :glare::lol: )

[milovany]

I guess I want to know if there is anyway for us to *truly* know this? When I watched The DaVinci code, I think one of the parts that bothered me the most was the scene with the canonization. I know a lot of Catholics did not like that movie, though I don't know why.

 

I was going to post this article this morning, in a different post, but didn't. It seems more appropriate here.

 

Scripture and Tradition

 

It speaks to the fact that Holy Scripture cannot stand alone (as an LDS person, you believed that already), it needs an interpreter. The church is that interpreter. A good example is the scripture being discussed about "no graven images." It can be take/interpreted two different ways (maybe more?). So, who's right? The church is right -- and the church, through councils and discussions (and just by living it out), decided that God did not prohibit icons, nor the veneration of them.

 

We don't think of the way things played out (which letters made it into scripture, the leadership of the church, whether there could be icons, etc.) as things of man -- we think the Holy Spirit actively led the church leaders to decide what they did.

[Caitilin]

Just a group of church heads sitting around a big table in a HUGE room, arguing about what should and should not be included. It just came off as presumptuous, and one has to ask *why* they get the right to decide for generations of man what should and shouldn't be in the Bible. Especially when he seemed no one could agree... that certainly doesn't portray God's hand in it :confused:

 

Aha! No wonder you got confused. Ok. Canonization is the term in the Catholic church for the process by which a person is recognized as a saint. This has nothing to do with how the books of the NT came to be assembled. :001_smile: I claim no knowledge of how that came to pass, so i won't try to explain something I don't know about. :tongue_smilie:

 

If you want to ask more things on a new thread, I will be happy to take a shot at answering what I can, though.:D

[Colleen in NS]

I'm sorry... if you like I can start my own thread??

 

No, no need - I said I was fine with your questions here. Well, you can start one if you want, but I had no problem with your questions.

[missesd]

Aha! No wonder you got confused. Ok. Canonization is the term in the Catholic church for the process by which a person is recognized as a saint. This has nothing to do with how the books of the NT came to be assembled. :001_smile: I claim no knowledge of how that came to pass, so i won't try to explain something I don't know about. :tongue_smilie:

 

If you want to ask more things on a new thread, I will be happy to take a shot at answering what I can, though.:D

 

Ok, than I used the wrong word :blushing: Maybe it's canonized?? It has nothing to do with Saints, but the meeting that took place to determine scriptures in the Bible.

[milovany]

No, no need - I said I was fine with your questions here. Well, you can start one if you want, but I had no problem with your questions.

 

Colleen, back to your original question. I think the reason this is happening is because many people feel that protestant evangelical Christianity is a mile wide, but only an inch deep. There are almost an infinite number of types of churches to choose from. And with so many out there, it's left to me to decide what I want in a church. I can be at the church I choose for a time, but if something comes along that I don't really like, I know I can just pack up and go find something else. I'm like a water skimmer, skating around on the surface of Christianity.

 

If I get tired of this "dance," I might feel bold enough to look at other approaches -- including approaches that I never, ever thought I'd consider; ones that might say "this is the church -- you need to fit into it." It's a shocking approach, compared to what I'm used to -- but strangely appealing too.

 

This is our story. Two years ago, after numerous years as born again, charismatic, evangelical Christians (but always feeling like something was missing), we started looking into Orthodox Christianity -- and thought we were crazy for doing so. But now that we're a part of this Church (we were baptized a little over a year ago), we are finally seeing the depth and the fullness that is available by entering into it.

 

ETA - I wrote this post from my perspective. I'm not saying others who are evangelical feel the same way I did, although I know for a fact many, many do.

Edited March 19, 2011 by milovaný

[Giraffe]

Colleen -

 

I'm one of the searchers. I was raised conservative baptist. As an adult I switched to the PCA church - reformed and more liturgical. I liked it. As I've progressed I've found a growing interest in understanding the origins of the church. That logically follows to inquiries into the RC and EO church. I am more comfortable with RC at the moment but am continuing to read, study, and search.

 

Is it classical homeschooling that started this? I don't think so, but I do think that a drive to learn, understand, and know does lead to further inquiry and searching in history, which leads you to RC and EO.

 

YMMV.

[Parrothead]

moving along...

Edited March 19, 2011 by Parrothead

[simka2]

I thougth I'd sit down and help out with this thread. But now that I've read six additional pages I've got to go to church for a meeting. I'm going to just leave this post like this (I don't want to have to read the six pages again and multi-quote them over) then come back this evening about 8ish and answer from a Catholic perspective.

 

I was hoping you would! I'm really curious!

[Punchie]

Do you have any examples of this?

 

Various movements would include:

gnositism

nestorianism

arianism (everything be different if the Arian Goths had defeated Charlemagne and his Franks)

monophytism

marcionism

 

All of my books are packed away at the moment, so I can't dig around too mcuh, but in terms of creating the cannon, there was a political agenda involved (solidifying the authority of the clergy). Yes, most churches tended to have overlap, but there were outlier gospels that didn't sit well w/church leadership (gnostic ones, for example). They were not necessarily nice about it either - kidnappings of rival doctrinal clergy, jostling to get your guy in the seat and not the other guy. Those opening centuries after the Crucifixion were NOT sunshine and roses by any means.

[missesd]

Do you ever ask someone to pray for you?

That is what we ask the Saints to do. We can ask them for this because God is not the God of the dead but of the living.

 

Ok, but when I ask someone to pray for me, they are living. Are Saints not passed on?

[mommaduck]

Ok, but when I ask someone to pray for me, they are living. Are Saints not passed on?

 

Only in the earthly sense. They are alive...alive and with Christ! The Church is not just physical, it's spiritual.

 

With comparison to the LDS, you baptise by proxy for the dead and believe they can choose after death to accept or reject those works. We don't believe this, but by the same token, we see it in the other way...we can ask them to pray for us and they can/do pray for us.

Edited March 19, 2011 by mommaduck

[Rosie_0801]

Why did they need to be canonized? Why did man get to decide what scriptures made it in and which did not? Aren't ALL of Christ's teachings/scriptures important and relevant??

 

Still trying to get an answer to this too...

 

While Christians would say that God said so, I'm inclined to think:

 

1. Politics happens with the best of us.

2. Some people need there to be one right way, for a variety of reasons I can think of, so there was an attempt to provide that.

 

I guess I understand that. But when we talk a bout Christ setting up his church before his death, and we knew he had Apostles, I guess I just figured that would continue on with his church :confused:

 

There was a serious lack of mass technology back then, remember!

 

Rosie

[tntgoodwin]

re: the canonization of Scripture.

 

The way I understand things, back in the day there were a lot of manuscripts floating around claiming to be divinely inspired. The problem is, many of these "gospels" and writings conflicted with each other. So, they got together and hashed out which books belong in the canon of Scripture. I believe they were divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit as to which books made it in and which were left out.

[justamouse]

Why did they need to be canonized? Why did man get to decide what scriptures made it in and which did not? Aren't ALL of Christ's teachings/scriptures important and relevant??

 

I'll have to look into it but I don't think cannonization is about the books in the bible.

 

Why did they pick and choose? Because as soon as the first believers started meeting, false apostles popped up. Simeon, the magician was one, from there branched Gnosticism, and others (and those same branches are still alive and well to this day, although in different names). So in trying to teach the believers the *truth*, they had to draw lines in who was heretical. Simeon, the one that tried to buy the Holy Spirit, made himself quite a shadow church-even with a Eucharist. He claimed he had knowledge the apostles didn't and then some services went on to be drunken debaucheries which the Apostles said proved that they were not of Christ or His teachings.

 

When it came to which books would be allowed into the bible, it was the same way-there were *many* writings from the gnostics and other heretical 'branches' and the true teachings had to be chosen on what was not considered heresies.

 

One of his biggest complaints is that he has read/heard that we are not to worship "graven images". Until last night I had never heard that or that term.

 

 

These things are not worshiped.

 

Saints are people who have done great things for God. Some are martyrs, some have done great works, some have overcome great difficulties. We learn from them, their walks strengthen us for our troubles.

 

Why do you come here when you have homeschooling problems? To know that there are other people who have gone before you and fought the same battles. Sometimes moms come on and ask for prayers when they are going through a trouble spot with their families, health, what have you. Well, there are saints that have overcome some of the things we are dealing with now, and so we can find a saint who overcame and not only look to their story for hope that we too can, but we can ask them to pray for us. Simka said it best-the perfect words, "that great cloud of witnesses". They, themselves are not worshiped. They are glorified in heaven, and alive in Christ, and we ask them to pray for us.

 

And, for most Protestants, Mary is the biggest bump in the road. It was mine. But learning of her veneration from the OC as Theotokos, God Bearer, is what made me realize her importance. First, we believe in the virgin birth (not believing so in ancient church was considered heretical) and in that she was chosen of God to bear Christ.

 

Can you imagine being such a good person that *you* were called to bear Christ into the physical world and be His mother? (and yet with Christ's death, this is exactly what we are, God Bearers.)

 

THAT is why she is respected. May we all look to her example and be God (Light) Bearers.

 

*also* in history, Mary was venerated, along the time that the church fathers were preaching about the Oneness of the church and that whoever brought schism to the Church was not Christian, they were considered in te deepest sin. Those fathers sent letter upon letter (Ignatius, I think is the best I've read) about those that broke up the church and preaches heresies-and at *no* time did they write that the veneration of Mary was heretical.

 

Now, I may be wrong, but I believe somewhere in 1975 the Pope did write and realign some believers in that worship of Mary was not right.

 

 

 

 

 

This rings true to me. I came to traditional Anglicanism in college, while I was attending a great books program, and the two events were very linked for me. I came into this church, and there they were, praying in the words of St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, John Donne, George Herbert - the very authors I was studying in school . . . and every week they said the creed - the same creed I was finally learning the significance of, as I read the Apostolic fathers, the church councils, etc. I couldn't help but stay. Finally, my heart and my head (and my body) were in concord when I worshipped.

 

I still am abundantly, terribly, overwhelmingly grateful for the Book of Common Prayer.

 

I have felt the same way.

 

2. Isn't there a scripture stating that baptism is to be by immersion? Am I right in remembering, in what I have seen on TV, that RC baptism is done by sprinkling?

 

You're going to have to read some historical church writings. Justin the Martyr would be a good one for you. They give a break down of , "If you can't do full immersion, do this...if you can't ... then ...."

 

If someone wants to be baptized where there is no water, you shouldn't not baptize them with what you have is the main thrust.

 

 

Colleen, back to your original question. I think the reason this is happening is because many people feel that protestant evangelical Christianity is a mile wide, but only an inch deep. There are almost an infinite number of types of churches to choose from. And with so many out there, it's left to me to decide what I want in a church. I can be at the church I choose for a time, but if something comes along that I don't really like, I know I can just pack up and go find something else. I'm like a water skimmer, skating around on the surface of Christianity.

 

If I get tired of this "dance," I might feel bold enough to look at other approaches -- including approaches that I never, ever thought I'd consider; ones that might say "this is the church -- you need to fit into it." It's a shocking approach, compared to what I'm used to -- but strangely appealing too.

 

 

 

Yes, yes, yes.

 

As you read through the histories, you begin to realize that YOU are the one that needs to fit into IT. It does not need to change for *You*.

 

My biggest moment of clarity happened after reading Justin the Martyr and his letter to Marcus Aurelius. At the time, the Christians in Rome are being killed, and were worshipping in secret. Deacons would watch guard at the door and only let believers in to worship.

 

Because they ahd to worship in secret, there were lies being spread about how they worshiped-that they are real flesh, that they sacrificed humans, it was horrible. Well, Justin, being a philospoher, decided that appealing to Antonius's intellect might set some things straight, and wrote a letter, detailing exactly what those Christians did. It was a Catholic Mass. Almost exactly. And now, archeoliogical evidence is supporting this. They are finding the first churches, there are baptismals, there are mosaics of miracles, there are pictures in the walls. They are amazing.

Edited March 19, 2011 by justamouse

[simka2]

And, for most Protestants, Mary is the biggest bump in the road. It was mine. But learning of her veneration from the OC as Theotokos, God Bearer, is what made me realize her importance. First, we believe in the virgin birth (not believing so in ancient church was considered heretical) and in that she was chosen of God to bear Christ.

 

Can you imagine being such a good person that *you* were called to bear Christ into the physical world and be His mother? (and yet with Christ's death, this is exactly what we are, God Bearers.)

 

THAT is why she is respected. May we all look to her example and be God (Light) Bearers.

 

*also* in history, Mary was venerated, along the time that the church fathers were preaching about the Oneness of the church and that whoever brought schism to the Church was not Christian, they were considered in te deepest sin. Those fathers sent letter upon letter (Ignatius, I think is the best I've read) about those that broke up the church and preaches heresies-and at *no* time did they write that the veneration of Mary was heretical.

 

Now, I may be wrong, but I believe somewhere in 1975 the Pope did write and realign some believers in that worship of Mary was not right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I actually just wrote my first blog post on what my intial issues were with EO. Mary was the first big issue I had to deal with, and it actually took me quite awhile. Granted, my approach won't work for all, but it is how I resolved some things ;).

[Melinda in VT]

If I get tired of this "dance," I might feel bold enough to look at other approaches -- including approaches that I never, ever thought I'd consider; ones that might say "this is the church -- you need to fit into it." It's a shocking approach, compared to what I'm used to -- but strangely appealing too.

 

This scares me. (For me personally. It doesn't scare me that you feel this.)

 

I've done this before. I've tried to suppress thoughts and beliefs that didn't match what the church told me I should think or believe. And then I discovered that that I thought was The Church was not The Church.

 

So I am very, very hesitant to turn over that degree of control to another church. Which is a bit of a sticky wicket given that I am drawn to highly liturgical churches. Episcopalian may be as far back as I can go.

[simka2]

This scares me. (For me personally. It doesn't scare me that you feel this.)

 

I've done this before. I've tried to suppress thoughts and beliefs that didn't match what the church told me I should think or believe. And then I discovered that that I thought was The Church was not The Church.

 

So I am very, very hesitant to turn over that degree of control to another church. Which is a bit of a sticky wicket given that I am drawn to highly liturgical churches. Episcopalian may be as far back as I can go.

 

Melinda, I get that, more than most!!!! I won't set myself up like that again. I need to think about how I respond to this, so hopefully I come back ;)

[simka2]

Melinda, I get that, more than most!!!! I won't set myself up like that again. I need to think about how I respond to this, so hopefully I come back ;)

 

 

Okay, here's my attempt. What is the fear based in? For me, the fear is based in a churches ability to control and shame me, if I don't meet some sort of expectation. It's that issue of "Shame." :glare:

 

When EO refers to themselves as ''The Church." They believe it whole-heartedly.That said, there are a couple things to remember. One is as Kallistos Ware say's, "We know where God is, not where He is not." The other is that the EO does not pass judgement outside of itself.

 

It's basically a, "we know what we are, but we are not going to speculate or pass judgement outside of ourselves. That's not our job." That's a bit different than saying, "We are The Church, and you are all d*amned to H*ell if you don't believe as we do."

 

You might call it "a quiet confidence."

 

Again, it's the issue of Mystery that I found so appealing ;). Hope that helped a bit! (Also, I am not the foremost authority, but this is my understanding as of right now)

[In2why]

Colleen, back to your original question. I think the reason this is happening is because many people feel that protestant evangelical Christianity is a mile wide, but only an inch deep. There are almost an infinite number of types of churches to choose from. And with so many out there, it's left to me to decide what I want in a church. I can be at the church I choose for a time, but if something comes along that I don't really like, I know I can just pack up and go find something else. I'm like a water skimmer, skating around on the surface of Christianity.

 

If I get tired of this "dance," I might feel bold enough to look at other approaches -- including approaches that I never, ever thought I'd consider; ones that might say "this is the church -- you need to fit into it." It's a shocking approach, compared to what I'm used to -- but strangely appealing too.

 

This is our story. Two years ago, after numerous years as born again, charismatic, evangelical Christians (but always feeling like something was missing), we started looking into Orthodox Christianity -- and thought we were crazy for doing so. But now that we're a part of this Church (we were baptized a little over a year ago), we are finally seeing the depth and the fullness that is available by entering into it.

 

ETA - I wrote this post from my perspective. I'm not saying others who are evangelical feel the same way I did, although I know for a fact many, many do.

 

 

Your description is so simple and really resonates with me. I got tired of the dance and left church all together, even though I know it isn't forever, because it all seemed so wrong somehow. Yet I feel a need for something different growing.

[bkpan]

Hi Colleen,

To answer just a few of your questions from our experience - I was raised in traditional protestantism, left the church for some pretty rebellious years and returned to the evangelical and parachurch groups in grad school. My dh was raised Catholic, but met Jesus in the evangelical church. I was the one that began to search and time of questions in my mid-30s. My deeply Christian father, brother and stepmother has all converted to Orthodoxy and after several years and many questions I became more open to the "why" of their conversion. This led me to READ of course;)

 

My dh came along a few years later (I mean in interest, I did not convert until he was on board and our whole family was chrismated together). I think that many of the others have hit on things like the slow but very real realization that the Church had been around for centuries and that dh and I knew nothing about Her! To discover the teachings of the Church Fathers, the rich, rich stories of the Saints and the countless stories of the martyrs was mind-blowing! There is a great book title that really summed it up for me, Thirsting For God in a Land of Shallow Wells, at least my last few years in the protestant faith. We wanted more and the rich depth of the EO church wrapped Her arms around us and welcomed us in.

 

As I said I read a ton of amazing books, but the holy experience of the Church over time, is what led us to convert. (My dh had agreed to "visit" an EO church for one year, which turned into 2!) We attended Inquirer classes, read, prayed and trusted the Holy Spirit to guide us into TRUTH. It is not an easy road, but we are grateful for the Church's guidance in "working out our salvation with fear and trembling".

 

So, you had asked some specific personal questions as to the why we sought out the more traditional Church, and I can say that I certainly wasn't looking for it. I just knew that I was becoming more and more frustrated with our experience at our non-denom. community church. Going to Bible studies with wonderful Christians for years, BUT it eventually ends up with what does this passage mean to "ME" and since I knew that my heart was not always reliable I wanted more DIRECTION, not the opinion of the guy next to me.

 

The Church has 2000 years of experience and wisdom to teach me. My role is to find the humility enough to listen. You mentioned the perception that Tradition is dull/restrictive/controlling/fake. I eventually discovered that it is truly the opposite. There is FREEDOM in obedience, in praying the deep, eloquent, prayers of the saints that He is SO worthy of. I find that personal worship comes more freely when the Liturgy joins us to the heavely worship described in Revelation.

 

Enough for now, but I'm sorry if this is really disjointed. I didn't realize how hard it is to articulate a mystical, holy experience. Words just don't cut it:tongue_smilie:

 

Kim

[KarenNC]

Do you have any examples of this?

 

Research Constantine and the Council of Nicea 325 CE. http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac61 will give a beginning.

[Alenee]

If someone wanted to start with praying the hours, where would they begin?

 

ETA: Are these the prayers?

 

http://www.antiochian.org/orthodox-prayers

Edited March 20, 2011 by Alenee

[simka2]

If someone wanted to start with praying the hours, where would they begin?

 

ETA: Are these the prayers?

 

http://www.antiochian.org/orthodox-prayers

 

Yes! Those little links at the bottom are a perfect place to start. I combine those with the daily scripture readings(in the am), but more important than how much and how, is just the fact that you are praying ;)

 

PS. You don't have to buy the red book! I haven't yet.

[Parrothead]

I am finding all of these threads about returning/finding the more traditional churches very fascinating.

 

I would probably best be described as a seeking agnostic :D. The only churches that even remotely interest me are the EO and Catholic Church and that is because of their traditions. They seem comforting in a world that seems to be spinning faster and faster each day.

 

I think that is part of why many are looking into them. The liturgical year has a predictability that feels comforting and secure.

 

just my 2 cents

Yes, both the EO and the RC are very slow to change. Personally I like tradition, the trappings and pageantry. I also like the fact that I can go to any English speaking RC church and know exactly what is going to happen and when. The only thing that changes from parish to parish is the father's (or deacon's) homily.

 

Why did they need to be canonized? Why did man get to decide what scriptures made it in and which did not? Aren't ALL of Christ's teachings/scriptures important and relevant??

Canonization, and being canonized, is a term that usually refers to the sainthood of a person. What was done with the Bible was codify, not canonize.

 

Lisa, the LDS canon, which is derived from the Greek and meaning rule or measure, would be your Book of Mormon. Also any Bible can be referred to as canon. There is a Jewish Canon and a Christian Canon. Basically a scripture of canon is any list or group of books authoritative by a particular religious community.

 

There were many councils and eventually what we know of as the Bible was officially codified. In the first centuries of Christanity there was one Bible. Now there are several. The Catholic Bible has 7 more books than the Protestant Bible, The EO Bible has still more books. Here is another Wiki article about the Bible Canon. Scroll down and you'll see a list of what is in each version.

 

Ok, so I have been following this thread and discussing it with hubby... we've had some very "spirited" debates... LOL One of his biggest complaints is that he has read/heard that we are not to worship "graven images". Until last night I had never heard that or that term. He used the golden calf as na example... again I am not very familiar with the stories, so I was :confused: But he has taken this story from Exodus and applied it to the images within the Catholic church... the cross, statues, etc... So does anyone have an answer that may appease him on this?? Cause I am clueless... LOL

 

Thanks :)

"Graven images" are going to depend on your particular translation of Bible. Exodus 20:4 is about idols/graven images. It tells the faithful not to make an idol and pray to it with the idea that the idol or graven image itself will do anything. If I were to make a duck of mud and pray to my Oh, Great and Powerful Mud Duck I'd be breaking that particular commandment. That mud duck isn't going to do a thing for me. It isn't the creator of the universe. It is just dirt.

 

If I'm looking at an icon or picture or or a statue of Jesus, thinking of Jesus and praying to Jesus, the icon, picture or statue is simply there to help focus my mind on Jesus. I'm not praying to the idol/graven image. Hopefully you can see where the use of religious art is not breaking any of the commandments.

 

 

okay, so i agree that the statues, crosses, necklaces, might not be 'idol' worship as per the old testament examples. however, if you bow before anything that isn't Christ or pray to anyone who isn't Christ, isn't that idol worship?

The Catholic "praying to the saints" is not literally praying to as in worshiping. So Catholics are not idol worshiping when asking the saints and the Blessed Virgin Mary for their intercession. Catholics will venerate (hold in high regard) crucifixes, icons, etc., but not pray to it. The terminology is where things get muddled. We do say we will pray to the saints and we will kneel before the cross but we aren't worshiping them.

 

I agree with the bolded, that was my take too.

 

As for the scripture, are you sure that's the right one?? It says nothing about "graven images". It talks about worshiping other idols (I take that to mean persons) or Gods.

It is dependent on which translation you have. There are many translations of the Bible. The most common translation for Protestants is probably going to be the King James Version. Catholics like the New American Bible, the Ignatius Bible and the Douay-Rhimes.

 

I know your trying your best to answer questions, so please don't take this an I am attacking you per se. But again, to the underlined *why*?? Why would we pray to Saints :confused: That makes no sense to me. And why would we need an "intercessor"?? Isn't prayer a direct line of communication to God??

 

I have to agree... good question.

Say I need your dh to come change a light bulb for me. I've asked him to come change the light bulb. Just to be on the safe side side so he remembers to come change the light bulb, I'll ask you to remind him to come change the light bulb.

 

Essentially I've asked you to intercede on my behalf with your husband. Catholics believe that the BMV and the saints are in Heaven. They are up there doing whatever it is they do, hanging with The Man. They have His ear. He is one busy Guy. It is nice to ask someone in the in crowd to put in a good word for you.

 

By no means is it that casual, but I'm using the casualness as an example.

 

 

Why did they need to be canonized? Why did man get to decide what scriptures made it in and which did not? Aren't ALL of Christ's teachings/scriptures important and relevant??

 

Still trying to get an answer to this too...

Again, the books needed to be codified. There were many many gospels running around at the time. The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, even one called the Gospel of Jesus. The councils were guided by the Holy Spirit to pass over or include the various books and gospels. Any teachings of Christ left out were left out because Matthew, Mark, Luke and John already contained them. Kind of like "How many versions of the Good Samaritan do you want to read in one Bible?"

 

Hope that helps some.

[KarenNC]

Catholics do not 'worship' the statues of the saints or the cross but pray to Christ and the saints. The statues are simply images....It isn't like the ancient Greeks who worshiped their god images. [/qUOTE]

 

Agreed regarding the role of icons and religious statuary, etc, but I'll take it a step further. It's not only the Catholics and Orthodox who can understand the role of representation in worship.;) Celsus addressed this in the 2nd century CE when the Christians accused the Greeks of believing that the statues themselves were the gods:

 

""Let us pass on," says he, "to another point. They cannot tolerate temples, altars, or images. In this they are like the Scythians, the nomadic tribes of Libya, the Seres who worship no god, and some other of the most barbarous and impious nations in the world. That the Persians hold the same notions is shown by Herodotus in these words: 'I know that among the Persians it is considered unlawful to erect images, altars, or temples; but they charge those with folly who do so, because, as I conjecture, they do not, like the Greeks, suppose the gods to be of the nature of men.' Heraclitus also says in one place: 'Persons who address prayers to these images act like those who speak to the walls, without knowing who the gods or the heroes are.' And what wiser lesson have they to teach us than Heraclitus? He certainly plainly enough implies that it is a foolish thing for a man to offer prayers to images, while he knows not who the gods and heroes are. This is the opinion of Heraclitus; but as for them, they go further, and despise without exception all images. If they merely mean that the stone, wood, brass, or gold which has been wrought by this or that workman cannot be a god, they are ridiculous with their wisdom. For who, unless he be utterly childish in his simplicity, can take these for gods, and not for offerings consecrated to the service of the gods, or images representing them?"– Celsus , a 2nd century Greek philosopher (as quoted in Origen, Contra Celsum 7.62, my emphasis added). To be clear, Celsus was *not* Christian. His writings exist because Origen, one of the Church Fathers, quoted him extensively in an effort to answer Celsus' criticisms of the Christianity of the time.

(see http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04167.htm scroll down to chapter 62)

 

Basically, Celsus (agreeing with Heraclitus--a Greek philosopher who lived from 535-475 BCE) is saying that, indeed, it is useless to pray to or before images *if you don't understand what those images represent* because they are representations only. It isn't the images themselves that are divine--only a child or simpleton would believe that they were.

 

Unfortunately, it seems that many people are rather quick to assume that anyone who believes or worships differently from them, either in content or form, is indeed a simpleton because of that difference or that they "must be" doing such and such ("worshiping Mary," etc), despite the practitioner's statements to the contrary.

Edited March 20, 2011 by KarenNC

[Giraffe]

Colleen, back to your original question. I think the reason this is happening is because many people feel that protestant evangelical Christianity is a mile wide, but only an inch deep. There are almost an infinite number of types of churches to choose from. And with so many out there, it's left to me to decide what I want in a church. I can be at the church I choose for a time, but if something comes along that I don't really like, I know I can just pack up and go find something else. I'm like a water skimmer, skating around on the surface of Christianity.

 

If I get tired of this "dance," I might feel bold enough to look at other approaches -- including approaches that I never, ever thought I'd consider; ones that might say "this is the church -- you need to fit into it." It's a shocking approach, compared to what I'm used to -- but strangely appealing too.

 

Milovany said it so much better than I did. Mile wide, inch deep.

 

When we moved to a new state we started "church shopping". I found/find the whole process annoying and wrong. Wrong in that we were/are trying to find a church that fits us. Why? Why are we trying to find a church we like, rather than THE church that IS right? Going to the RC church is a relief.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Hopscotch67

[Parrothead]

Going to the RC church is a relief.

;)

[KarenNC]

I believe I was the one who introduced the word "canon" into the conversation, so let me hopefully help clear up an apparent misunderstanding. From Merriam Webster (http://www.m-w.com)

 

Canon: noun definition 3a an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture (so the Council codified or decided which books were to be considered "canon.")

 

Canonize: verb : to declare (a deceased person) an officially recognized saint

 

This site gives a timeline http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/canon.html.

 

An aside: The DaVinci Code is a work of fiction. Please don't mistake it for accurate history!

Edited March 20, 2011 by KarenNC

[Parrothead]

I'll have to look into it but I don't think cannonization is about the books in the bible.

Codify is the word we are all looking for. The Bible is a canon which was codified. The process of determining sainthood is canonization.

[mcconnellboys]

Those are not the ones I happen to be using, but yes, those are beautiful. I think they would make a good base for you....

[missesd]

Parrothead-

 

EXCELLENT explanations!! You put in a way I could understand :) And even though I know nothing with Jesus is casual, I appreciate you putting it on a level that one with no knowledge could understand.

 

Thank you!!

[LidiyaDawn]

Yes, both the EO and the RC are very slow to change. Personally I like tradition, the trappings and pageantry. I also like the fact that I can go to any English speaking RC church and know exactly what is going to happen and when. The only thing that changes from parish to parish is the father's (or deacon's) homily.

 

Can I ask a 'Catholic church' question? I visited one a few months back on a Sunday morning and was surprised - I expected it to be very formal, possibly parts in (is it Latin?), hymns/organs/etc... and while there was some obvious 'tradition' going on (a lot that I didn't understand, but stuff that "everyone did" - the sign of the cross, kneeling at certain times, etc), I was VERY surprised by the fact that they had a 'worship band', playing contemporary Christian music! (and there was no Latin or whatever)

 

So now I'm curious...are there both "traditional" and "contemporary" Catholic churches? Or do we have some sort of 'unusual' one here? (There are actually two, I've never been to the other..maybe one is traditional and the other is contemporary...)

 

It just surprised me.. the same music, from a band, as is played in the very contemporary Baptist church here....

[mcconnellboys]

I have pulled some things from this site:

 

http://prayerfoundation.org/dailyoffice/z_daily_office_000_index.htm

 

Here's another site I like with some short prompts for prayer that you might build upon:

 

http://palm.philippians-1-20.us/hours.htm

[Parrothead]

 

So now I'm curious...are there both "traditional" and "contemporary" Catholic churches?

Yup. Within the same parish you could conceivably have several different types of Mass. You can have a Latin Mass (Watch EWTN's Daily Mass to see Latin Mass), Spanish Mass, a more contemporary Mass and a charismatic mass all in one weekend.

 

I'm more of a traditionalist. I'd prefer to go to what most people refer to as Latin mass. At Vatican II a second mass was developed. It is called the Novus Ordo. Most of the time you'll find some version of the NO mass. The parish I belong to now actually has a bit of both the pre-Vat II mass and the NO mass. Father faces the congregation, most of the mass is in English but some of the prayers are said in Latin. It is all good.

 

I will say if I ever go to a parish for mass and someone gets up and starts the so-called liturgical dance, I'll pack my self up and walk out. Politely, of course, but still I'll get myself to the next parish down the road.

[Parrothead]

Parrothead-

 

EXCELLENT explanations!! You put in a way I could understand :) And even though I know nothing with Jesus is casual, I appreciate you putting it on a level that one with no knowledge could understand.

 

Thank you!!

Your welcome.

 

These threads keep me on my toes so I don't mind answering at all. If ever you feel the need to ask something privately my PM box is usually pretty lonely.

[missesd]

Your welcome.

 

These threads keep me on my toes so I don't mind answering at all. If ever you feel the need to ask something privately my PM box is usually pretty lonely.

 

I don't know why, but somehow I thought you were LDS :confused: I've been wanting to ask questions on here for awhile, but when I first joined I "met" several of the LDS moms on here. They all seem very nice, but my experience has been once you make the decision to leave or stop going, they generally shun you :( I just didn't want to start more stuff for myself. This place has become my sanctuary and I don't want that to end.

[Punchie]

DH was raised Catholic, and I was raised in a very anti-Christian household. DH wants our children raised with Christianity b/c he wants them to have a strong moral foundation. This isn't to mean that you can't have a strong moral foundation elsewhere, but he felt that since Christianity as a whole is such a globally encompassing religion, that it helps w/a contextual understanding. We decided on the Episcopal church as it has a definite separation of the sacred from the profane. We want ritual. Ritual (and tradition) is comfort. I like walking into a church and knowing it's a church - not some modernist rendering.

 

B/c I am not comfortable w/aspects of the Catholic church, and neither of us like how many of the evangelical churches seem to cheapen and gimmick-ize Christianity, the Episcopal church is a good middle ground. Maybe that is why there seems to be a movement going back to the traditional churches? B/c really....how does "4x4 for the Lord" bring you closer to Jesus? Do you really need the gimmicks and silly slogans to gain/retain parishoners?

 

On a note, my journey to Christianity really stems from college. I majored in Religious Studies and the more I learned academically/historically about Christianity, the more I was drawn to it spiritually.

[Alenee]

;)

 

Just to be clear, it was Hopscotch (not me) who said going to the RC was a relief. :)

[Xuzi]

I don't know why, but somehow I thought you were LDS :confused: I've been wanting to ask questions on here for awhile, but when I first joined I "met" several of the LDS moms on here. They all seem very nice, but my experience has been once you make the decision to leave or stop going, they generally shun you :( I just didn't want to start more stuff for myself. This place has become my sanctuary and I don't want that to end.

Been lurking in this thread, (I've been reading most of the religious-themed ones, very interesting!) and I hope I haven't done anything to make you feel shunned. :( I honesly wish you the best in your Spiritual journey. All of us are here to take a Spiritual journey, and no two will look alike.

[Parrothead]

I don't know why, but somehow I thought you were LDS :confused: I've been wanting to ask questions on here for awhile, but when I first joined I "met" several of the LDS moms on here. They all seem very nice, but my experience has been once you make the decision to leave or stop going, they generally shun you :( I just didn't want to start more stuff for myself. This place has become my sanctuary and I don't want that to end.

 

Nope, not me. I'm what is called a cradle Catholic.

Really, if you are shunned by anyone here someone else will more than likely step in and fill the void.

[justamouse]

The Church has 2000 years of experience and wisdom to teach me. My role is to find the humility enough to listen. You mentioned the perception that Tradition is dull/restrictive/controlling/fake. I eventually discovered that it is truly the opposite. There is FREEDOM in obedience, in praying the deep, eloquent, prayers of the saints that He is SO worthy of. I find that personal worship comes more freely when the Liturgy joins us to the heavely worship described in Revelation.

 

Enough for now, but I'm sorry if this is really disjointed. I didn't realize how hard it is to articulate a mystical, holy experience. Words just don't cut it:tongue_smilie:

 

Kim

 

Not disjointed at all-beautiful.

 

Milovany said it so much better than I did. Mile wide, inch deep.

 

When we moved to a new state we started "church shopping". I found/find the whole process annoying and wrong. Wrong in that we were/are trying to find a church that fits us. Why? Why are we trying to find a church we like, rather than THE church that IS right? Going to the RC church is a relief.

 

This is exactly how we feel, it's such a relief. And my whole family feels this way-not *just* me-because pleasing all of us is impossible.

 

Yup. Within the same parish you could conceivably have several different types of Mass. You can have a Latin Mass (Watch EWTN's Daily Mass to see Latin Mass), Spanish Mass, a more contemporary Mass and a charismatic mass all in one weekend.

 

I'm more of a traditionalist. I'd prefer to go to what most people refer to as Latin mass. At Vatican II a second mass was developed. It is called the Novus Ordo. Most of the time you'll find some version of the NO mass. The parish I belong to now actually has a bit of both the pre-Vat II mass and the NO mass. Father faces the congregation, most of the mass is in English but some of the prayers are said in Latin. It is all good.

 

I will say if I ever go to a parish for mass and someone gets up and starts the so-called liturgical dance, I'll pack my self up and walk out. Politely, of course, but still I'll get myself to the next parish down the road.

 

I am *loving* the return to the more traditional things, the more traditional mass. By what I've been reading, it seems that the Latin is making a return, of which I am very grateful. And, it seems that a lot of younger Catholics are wanting a return to many pre NO things.

[missesd]

Been lurking in this thread, (I've been reading most of the religious-themed ones, very interesting!) and I hope I haven't done anything to make you feel shunned. :( I honesly wish you the best in your Spiritual journey. All of us are here to take a Spiritual journey, and no two will look alike.

 

No, not at all. I guess I was afraid of what some of the LDS mothers on here would think :(

[missesd]

So now that's it's been brought up... what are the differences between Lutheran and Episcopalian and RC and EO?? There were 2 here I was considering looking at. But, not only did all the rites, rituals and words I have never heard of scare me off, but I was told Lutherans do no believe the Bible is the literal word of God :confused:

[Rosie_0801]

No, not at all. I guess I was afraid of what some of the LDS mothers on here would think :(

 

If they did anything other than wish you the best, they are meanies. And we should do our best to ignore meanies unless we are married to them, working for them or they run our country. ;)

 

Rosie

[justamouse]

No, not at all. I guess I was afraid of what some of the LDS mothers on here would think :(

 

 

:grouphug::grouphug:

[Melinda in VT]

No, not at all. I guess I was afraid of what some of the LDS mothers on here would think :(

 

I've been pretty open about my status as an ex-Mormon here on the boards, and I have to say that I can't remember a single incident of an LDS member treating me unkindly because of it in the seven + years I've been posting. Obviously, we sometimes post differing opinions on theology threads ;), but the conversation has always been polite.

[Parrothead]

So now that's it's been brought up... what are the differences between Lutheran and Episcopalian and RC and EO?? There were 2 here I was considering looking at. But, not only did all the rites, rituals and words I have never heard of scare me off, but I was told Lutherans do no believe the Bible is the literal word of God :confused:

 

Briefly since I'm on my phone... One ancient church that split at the Great Schism. Then a Catholic priest named Luther essentially split from the RC and we get Lutherans. Yes,I think Lutherans are figure of speechers. The Episcopalians are a split from one of the Protestant churches. There is a "family tree of Christianity " you can Google or I'll post a link tomorrow.

 

I'm for bed. I'll check back in the am.