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

[Wayfaring Stranger]

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.

 

Various movements would include:

gnositism

nestorianism

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

monophytism

marcionism

 

 

 

I have quoted the thread I was originally responding to. I am looking for an example in the first four centuries were "leaders and movements gained power or influence over each other, more followers, political backing, etc until one took ascendancy." Charlemangne lived from about 724-814. He was a the Holy Roman Emperor (ie Catholic). I am Orthodox so from my point of view very little would have changed if Charlemagne had lost.

 

I am not saying that the early church was a utopia of unity. I know of one early leader who said that another leader was a heretic but the church considers both of them as Saints. But saying that canon is the way it is because of politics or power struggles is not supported by history. St. Athunasius did not list the 27 books of the NT until 367 well after the First Council of Nicaea in 325. He was also exiled by St Constantine (the emperor at the time) to Trier in the Rhineland. He did not have power or political backing. I think this broad assumption that we, in this time and place in history can do a better job of choosing the books of the Bible is problematic.

 

As for what is in the canon and what is not...the Orthodox Church has never closed the canon. The church agrees that the books accepted in all times and in all places are what is in the cannon. It has been a long time since there was any real controversy about what books are canon in the Orthodox Church.

[missesd]

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.

 

Really?? Cool... I'll look for it.

 

Good night, and thank you for all your help :)

[KarenNC]

I think this broad assumption that we, in this time and place in history can do a better job of choosing the books of the Bible is problematic.

 

Not sure where this is coming from? I don't see anything in what I have written or in what the other poster you quoted wrote that said anything about this?

 

As for what is in the canon and what is not...the Orthodox Church has never closed the canon. The church agrees that the books accepted in all times and in all places are what is in the cannon. It has been a long time since there was any real controversy about what books are canon in the Orthodox Church.

 

Interesting.

[justamouse]

As I was washing dishes I remembered another reason I made the change (because all thinking is done washing dishes, no? :p ).

 

I left a non denom church about 9 years ago. One that I attended from its teeny beginnings, to the point that it grew to a huge, multi million dollar enterprise.

 

Then I tried the house church thing. And, the thing about house churches is that they seems to be no better than the effort the people put into them. No matter how much I wanted for it to congeal, there were people that didn't take it as seriously as I did. This one didn't want to go to that one's house because they didn't like the way they cleaned. Soccer, whathave you.

 

Then I just got to the point that I needed to be IN a church. I wanted to sit in a pew and feel the years of worship and reverence seep out of the walls. I wanted to lie, prostrate on the floor under the apse, in front of the altar, knowing that the Eucharist was there-and that feeling, no matter how hard I tried to shake it off, never went away. On my most worried days, I wanted to be IN that church, on my knees, and that never went away, either.

 

So when it came to my FILS funeral it was just a big, huge, relinquishing for me. I had been talking to the EO ladies here, asking so many questions, and it opened me up enough to take up the researching on my own, which was that last bit of me holding onto all of that Protestantisim I had been taught. I had to work myself through my objections -and I had a few-but as I learned, I realized that I held onto nothing but misconceptions. And they were a weak argument.

 

So I went. And my family has never been more happy-every one of us love it. I didn't have to beg, cajole or demand. Happy, for many of the reasons I already stated, but most of all because I had been fighting what I knew in my heart that God wanted my family to do, and when you finally give up that fight, it's a weight off your shoulders. It's not the right way for everyone, but I know it's right for us.

 

Some of the writings that helped me:

 

The Didache

Four Witnesses

The Mass of the Early Christians

The writings of Justin the Martyr and Irenaeus (who was taught by Polycarp, who was taught by John the Apostle) (Irenaeus)

Polycarp and his Letter to the Philippians (there's a pdf file on the bottom of the page)

Edited March 20, 2011 by justamouse

[Wayfaring Stranger]

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

 

I have. Arius said Jesus was created but was still God. St Constantine liked this idea because if Arius was right it left the door open for the Emperors of the Roman Empire (including himself) to be considered gods (just like they had been up to the point that he took power) even as created beings. In short St Constantine backed Arius to be right. The Bishops disagreed and Ariaus was condemned. St Constantine was not baptized until his deathbed and it was preformed by Eusebius of Nicomedia a follower of Arius. The side with the political backing was rejected by the church despite the Emperor. The reason the controversy stayed alive is because the Emperor and his sons did not like the results of the Council of Nicea.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Father of Pearl

[ktgrok]

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.

 

No, Episcopalians are the United States branch of Anglicanism, which separated directly from the Roman Catholic Church. We are of of the minority in Protestant Churches in that we didn't split off of Lutheranism.

 

Katie

[simka2]

No, Episcopalians are the United States branch of Anglicanism, which separated directly from the Roman Catholic Church. We are of of the minority in Protestant Churches in that we didn't split off of Lutheranism.

 

Katie

 

Katie, I breifly looked into the Episcopal church, and it was my understanding that it holds to the idea of predestination (like many calvinists.) I found that confusing.

[ktgrok]

Katie, I breifly looked into the Episcopal church, and it was my understanding that it holds to the idea of predestination (like many calvinists.) I found that confusing.

 

No, we definitely do not. There MAY be something in the prayer book about it, but in a historical sense, in the back with the historical documents. The church definitely is not calvinist.

 

Katie

[simka2]

No, we definitely do not. There MAY be something in the prayer book about it, but in a historical sense, in the back with the historical documents. The church definitely is not calvinist.

 

Katie

 

See, I wanted to think that! Really, I did. But this say's that the Anglican Church follows the 39 Articles. It may not be specficaly Calvinist, but predestination is there. :confused:

 

http://www.anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html

 

Specifically, #17

[ElizaG]

At Vatican II a second mass was developed. It is called the Novus Ordo.

Just to clarify (warning to Lisa... specialized terminology ahead :)) -- to Catholics, there is only one mass. Due to long-standing traditions, there are different rites, including the Roman (the one that's used at the vast majority of American Catholic parishes) and the Byzantine Divine Liturgy. But the "Novus Ordo" isn't even a different rite, let alone a different mass. It's just a newer form of the Roman rite.

 

 

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.

Mixing the two forms isn't permitted. Is it possible that the pastor is just saying part of the "Novus Ordo" in Latin? This isn't unusual, and it's actually what Vatican II called for. (See "Sacrosanctum Concilium", par. 36 & 54) Latin is still the standard language of the Roman Rite, and the NO was written in Latin (hence the name :)). Priests have the option of using the local language instead, but Latin is the default setting.

 

With respect to church music, before the 1960's, parishes were limited to pipe organ, choir, Gregorian chant, and solemn hymns. Then the Second Vatican Council (also in SC, chapter VI) gave permission for some limited variations, such as the use of other musical instruments and styles, as long as the resulting music retained its "sacred character." Some people have interpreted this more broadly than others. Let's just say that a lot of experimentation has gone on over the last few decades, and the results have been... interesting. :001_huh: Our current pope is concerned about this trend, and has written extensively about the need for new church music to be a truly organic development from our tradition.

 

"Not every kind of music can have a place in Christian worship. It has its standards, and that standard is the Logos. (...) Does it integrate man by drawing him to what is above, or does it cause his disintegration into formless intoxication or mere sensuality? That is the criterion for a music in harmony with logos, a form of that logike latreia (reasonable, logos-worthy worship)"

 

He evidently doesn't believe that pop and rock qualify, calling the former "a cult of the banal," and the latter "the expression of elemental passions." So while the Church hasn't issued a specific rule against the use of Protestant-style "praise and worship" bands -- and you might find them in some American parishes, especially at, say, a 6:30 Youth Mass -- that doesn't mean we have to get all PC and say that they're just as appropriate as a traditional choir and organ.

 

Personally, I don't object to their existence per se, but I think they should stick to doing youth rallies and the like. That way, people could wave Bic lighters without worrying about setting their neighbor's missal on fire. ;)

[ktgrok]

See, I wanted to think that! Really, I did. But this say's that the Anglican Church follows the 39 Articles. It may not be specficaly Calvinist, but predestination is there. :confused:

 

http://www.anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html

 

Specifically, #17

 

Yes, but that is considered more church history than church belief, if that makes any sense at all. I'm hesitant to say that no one follows the 39 articles, as I'm sure someone is going to pop up and say they do, but honestly, no one does. In Anglicanism the faith is not defined by the 39 articles, it is defined by our worship. What makes us Anglican is our liturgy, our prayer service. There are Anglicans with all sorts of different beliefs, you could believe anything, but what unites us is our recitation of the creed and our liturgy. I hope I explained that properly....it was explained to me in confirmation class about 8 years ago and I'm sure I'm muddling it up.

 

Edited to add: I feel I should admit that I converted to Roman Catholicism several years ago, but am back in the Anglican/Epsicopal church because that is where my husband and son are more comfortable.

[ElizaG]

Oh, and about praying to saints: this doesn't imply worship. The word "pray" just means "ask." As in, "I pray you, kind stranger, please help me." We tend to think of praying as having to do with God, but M-W lists that as a secondary meaning.

 

intransitive verb

1 : to make a request in a humble manner

2 : to address God or a god with adoration, confession, supplication, or thanksgiving

 

So we are just "asking" them for their help and prayers, as we would ask our brothers and sisters on earth. We believe that all who are in the state of grace are part of the communion of saints, and that there's no reason we can't stay in touch. :)

[simka2]

Yes, but that is considered more church history than church belief, if that makes any sense at all. I'm hesitant to say that no one follows the 39 articles, as I'm sure someone is going to pop up and say they do, but honestly, no one does. In Anglicanism the faith is not defined by the 39 articles, it is defined by our worship. What makes us Anglican is our liturgy, our prayer service. There are Anglicans with all sorts of different beliefs, you could believe anything, but what unites us is our recitation of the creed and our liturgy. I hope I explained that properly....it was explained to me in confirmation class about 8 years ago and I'm sure I'm muddling it up.

 

Edited to add: I feel I should admit that I converted to Roman Catholicism several years ago, but am back in the Anglican/Epsicopal church because that is where my husband and son are more comfortable.

 

Thanks for the explanation! Boy, it makes things difficult when you are looking online :D.

[Wayfaring Stranger]

To get back to the OP.

 

 

Who are you, who are moving from non-denom. back to tradition? Paul, a simple man and professionally a City Planner.

 

What age range are you in? 36

 

What is your religious background? My dad is a Disciples of Christ Minister (recently retired) I have also gone to the Assemblies of God, Church of God and some non-denominational churches including a residential community (but I did not join). I went to Eastern College (an American Baptist school).

 

What is your religious teaching/training? Sunday school, college classes and bible studies. I am mostly self taught through the church, Ancient Faith Radio and readings.

 

What has your past church experience been like? Mainline, charismatic and nearly New Monastic before there was anything called New Monasticism (in that order). I went to Egypt to visit St Antony's Monastery after reading St Athanasius' book about St Antony (never made it to the monastery because of embassy travel restrictions) and found the Orthodox Church.

 

Would you consider yourselves to have been part of the mainstream American Christian culture, say, in the late 70s, 80s, and 90s? Yes

 

Why the change? The Orthodox Church (or St George's arm) almost reached out and forced the issue (long story). I was reading protestant books about the early church but they all tried to make the church fathers protestant. Then one of my protestant professors showed me a time line of church history. The Orthodox line was straight and everything branched off from there. I also heard the Coptic Pope (Baba) speak. His message was "read the bible every day." I have been Orthodox for almost 10 years and have only just began to search all of its depths.

 

[OnTheBrink]

OK, I'm responding to the OP's question without getting into the protestant vs. RC/EO stuff.

 

We are members of a PCA church with a formal worship service and a neo-gothic cathedral sanctuary. Many people find the traditional liturgy, hymns (played on a huge pipe organ!), pastors in robes, weekly communion and the large, formal, beautiful building to help them focus on the transcendence of God, on his holiness, on his infinitude and immutability and on his omnipotence. We have people of all ages and from many church background finding our church a home.

 

I think many people find the Jesus-is-your-friend, casual, utilitarian buildings

rock-band approach wears thin after a while. Worship and church can seem just like a regular part of the world. But people are seeking rest, quiet for their souls and eternal truths which do not change with culture or time. Worship which is not all about us, but is clearly about and for God, is a refreshing change in our current culture!

 

Ritual and formal worship, if accompanied by true preaching and teaching of the gospel, can be balm for our weary, busy, self-oriented souls!

 

I agree with this. I've been thinking about this thread all day and I find that I'm searching for more depth of meaning in church. Life is so chaotic and to me, coming to a place of structure, consistency, and peace sounds just...heavenly! LOL

 

My church, however, isn't the Jesus-is-your-friend/rock band kind of church. I did start my Christian journey in a church like that but as I've matured (read: gotten older ;) ) I have gotten weary of that. I want reverence in church. I want to worship a holy God, not my best pal.

 

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.

 

So much of what you wrote resonates with me. So many times, I hear people say, "If your church isn't a good fit, find one that is." How can that be? I've always thought we (people, I mean) need to become molded into the image of God, not make God look like us. I feel the same way about church. If you make a church, or pick a church, that is molded into your own image of what a church should be, then in essence, you're only worshiping yourself.

 

I've not resolved my feelings about my church or the EO. I find myself drawn to the EO and just recently discovered there are some EO homeschooling families in my area. I don't know how this is all going to end up. There are so many issues I struggle with regarding some of the EO traditions and doctrine. Like Mary. Saints. The Eucharist. Infant Baptism. But I don't buy hook, line and sinker every aspect of Calvinism, either.

 

*sigh*

 

I've not answered a single thing the OP has asked and all I've done here is ramble. Maybe I should just go to bed! LOL

[milovany]

There are so many issues I struggle with regarding some of the EO traditions and doctrine. Like Mary. Saints. The Eucharist. Infant Baptism. LOL

 

Michella :001_smile:

 

If you want to PM or email about any of these things again, you are welcome to do so (I'll admit that while I remember PMing with you before, I don't remember all the specifics!). I imagine you've read the whys of why the Orthodox believe these things, and don't see them as contrary to Scripture, but if you want a real-live ear to bounce things off please know I'd be happy to message with you. Or come to the Exploring Orthodox Christianity social group. There's been some good activity/questions there recently.

 

I think in our case it's what I mentioned in the post you quoted. We determined to find the "one holy catholic and apostolic" church, because we felt like it mattered, and then started attending and learning; listening and pondering. As time went on, and we grew in our appreciation of the things that DID appeal to us from the beginning, so did our understanding of (or at least our willingness to consider) the things that were harder. The church doesn't force itself upon you. You can attend without venerating icons, praying to the Theotokos, kissing a priest's hand or the cross he's holding, or even lighting a candle! And you don't have to agree with everything the church teaches, and yet the invitation remains open to all ~ "Come and see."

Edited March 20, 2011 by milovaný

[LidiyaDawn]

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.

 

Ahhh. Thanks :) - I was really surprised by it!

 

I'm not sure what EWTN is, but I'm thinking a specific tv channel? I'm in Canada, not the US, but I can likely have a google and find something online to see what the 'Latin Mass' looks like.

 

There was no dancing. Now, the Pentecostal church that I once visited... but that's another thread. :laugh:

[LidiyaDawn]

 

With respect to church music, before the 1960's, parishes were limited to pipe organ, choir, Gregorian chant, and solemn hymns. Then the Second Vatican Council (also in SC, chapter VI) gave permission for some limited variations, such as the use of other musical instruments and styles, as long as the resulting music retained its "sacred character." Some people have interpreted this more broadly than others. Let's just say that a lot of experimentation has gone on over the last few decades, and the results have been... interesting. :001_huh: Our current pope is concerned about this trend, and has written extensively about the need for new church music to be a truly organic development from our tradition.

 

"Not every kind of music can have a place in Christian worship. It has its standards, and that standard is the Logos. (...) Does it integrate man by drawing him to what is above, or does it cause his disintegration into formless intoxication or mere sensuality? That is the criterion for a music in harmony with logos, a form of that logike latreia (reasonable, logos-worthy worship)"

 

He evidently doesn't believe that pop and rock qualify, calling the former "a cult of the banal," and the latter "the expression of elemental passions." So while the Church hasn't issued a specific rule against the use of Protestant-style "praise and worship" bands -- and you might find them in some American parishes, especially at, say, a 6:30 Youth Mass -- that doesn't mean we have to get all PC and say that they're just as appropriate as a traditional choir and organ.

 

Although I hadn't ever really been to a Catholic church before (aside from attending a wedding at one years ago), the contemporary music just didn't feel right, even to me, coming from an environment where it was the norm. It just didn't belong! :p (and I don't say that in a judgemental tone - obviously the people in this church LIKE and WANT that music. It's just the feeling that I had...

 

Personally, I don't object to their existence per se, but I think they should stick to doing youth rallies and the like. That way, people could wave Bic lighters without worrying about setting their neighbor's missal on fire. ;)

 

:lol::lol::lol:

[LidiyaDawn]

I sorta wish we had an EO church here; I'd like to go & see/experience. Unfortunately, there isn't one in town nor within any sort of reasonable driving distance.

[KarenNC]

I have. Arius said Jesus was created but was still God. St Constantine liked this idea because if Arius was right it left the door open for the Emperors of the Roman Empire (including himself) to be considered gods (just like they had been up to the point that he took power) even as created beings. In short St Constantine backed Arius to be right. The Bishops disagreed and Ariaus was condemned. St Constantine was not baptized until his deathbed and it was preformed by Eusebius of Nicomedia a follower of Arius. The side with the political backing was rejected by the church despite the Emperor. The reason the controversy stayed alive is because the Emperor and his sons did not like the results of the Council of Nicea.

 

Perhaps you would prefer Theodosius http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14577d.htm

 

A great part of the emperor's activity was now spent in establishing the Catholic faith and repressing Arianism. In February, 380, he and Gratian published the famous edict that all their subjects should profess the faith of the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria (Cod. Theod., XVI, I, 2; Sozomen, VII, 4). The conventicles of the heretics were not to be called churches.

 

As soon as he came to Constantinople Theodosius began expelling the Arians, who had hitherto been in possession. The Aryan bishop, Demophilus, left the city (Socr., V, 7; Soz., VII, 5), St. Gregory of Nazianzus undertook the administration of the diocese. In January, 381, the prefect had orders to close all Arian chapels in the city and to expel those who served them. The same severe measures were ordered throughout Theodosius's dominion, not only against Arians, but also in the case of Manichæans and all other heretics. However Sozomen says that the emperor "made severe punishment by his laws but did not carry them out, for he did not wish to punish, but only to frighten his subjects, that they might think as he did about Divine things, And he praised those who were converted of their own accord" (Church History VII.12).

 

As I said before, the difference between "heresy" and "sect" is often in the eye of the victor.;)

 

It would have been interesting to see how different things might have been if Julian had lived more than two years after becoming emperor.

Edited March 20, 2011 by KarenNC

[SEP]

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.

Think about the Transfiguration: when Moses and Elijah appeared with Christ--were they ghosts? Or living people? I had to think about this one, myself.

 

Jane Austen-era people said, "I pray your help!" "I pray you, let me know what has happened to the country!" There is more than one sense to this word, and while one does not hear this word used this way in the modern vernacular, one should not be surprised to hear it in a church that goes back very far into history--before English was even around!

 

We ask the Saints to pray for us, not because we can't pray to Christ ourselves--we DO--and OFTEN--but why not ask for additional pray-ers? The Saints are full of love--that is why they are saints--and they will pray for us.

 

Question- what Biblical evidence do you have to support that the 'saints' can hear you once they have gone into heaven? it just seems to me that i would rather spend my energy praying to Jesus because I know He can hear me. Even if I'm just asking the saints to intercede, it seems like a wasted effort if I have no idea if they can hear me.

[12Stars]

Many great links have been included. If many of you just take the time to read through them, many of these questions asked would be answered. Whether they are from the EO or RC perspective. It is all there.

 

Our faith is a faith for the Living God, that includes all of heaven, those that have passed on are more alive because they are in heaven. It is like our extended family when we call on the Communion of Saints. There is much Biblical eveidence of this. Just to touch a bit on this is this article. Yes while we also do go directly to Jesus Christ, we also use the intercession of the Saints to make our prayer much more powerful. Since they are closer to God than we are they are able to bring prayers to God much faster and efficaciously.

 

Here is another great website that can go down the list of questions many of you have as well.

[Parrothead]

No, Episcopalians are the United States branch of Anglicanism, which separated directly from the Roman Catholic Church. We are of of the minority in Protestant Churches in that we didn't split off of Lutheranism.

 

Katie

I thought so, but I was in bed without the computer so I didn't bother to look it up. So Episcopalians are just a branch, not a split from the Anglicans? Or has so much time passed that they are two separate entities?

 

Lisa, what we are talking about is when when Henry VIII wanted an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon so he could marry Anne Boleyn. Pope Clement VII refused the annulment. Eventually, Henry, though theologically a doctrinal Catholic, made himself the Supreme Head of the Church of England to ensure the annulment of his marriage. He was excommunicated by Pope Paul III.

 

 

Ahhh. Thanks :) - I was really surprised by it!

 

I'm not sure what EWTN is, but I'm thinking a specific tv channel? I'm in Canada, not the US, but I can likely have a google and find something online to see what the 'Latin Mass' looks like.

 

There was no dancing. Now, the Pentecostal church that I once visited... but that's another thread. :laugh:

Eternal World Television Network is the Catholic network started by Mother Angelica. The show is based in Alabama, but available by satellite TV.

 

Question- what Biblical evidence do you have to support that the 'saints' can hear you once they have gone into heaven? it just seems to me that i would rather spend my energy praying to Jesus because I know He can hear me. Even if I'm just asking the saints to intercede, it seems like a wasted effort if I have no idea if they can hear me.

Mark 9:4, Luke 16:24, Rom 12:5, 1 Cor 10:16, 1 Cor 10:17, 1 Cor 12:25-26, Gal 6:2, Gal 6:10, Eph 1:22-23, Eph 2:19, Col 1:18-24, 1 Thes 5:10, Heb 12:1

 

Then there is the earthly evidence. For a saint to be canonized, at least two miracles must have been performed after death. Canonization is a statement by the church that the person certainly enjoys the Beatific Vision.

 

So it isn't as if the Church says So-and-So was a good and Godly person surly he must be in Heaven with God. There is a process to ensure the faithful are not wasting their time.

[Teachin'Mine]

Chucki gave great info!

 

Another way to know that the Saints can hear you is to lose something, and ask St. Anthony to help. He's awesome!!! :001_smile:

[mommaduck]

Ahhh. Thanks :) - I was really surprised by it!

 

I'm not sure what EWTN is, but I'm thinking a specific tv channel? I'm in Canada, not the US, but I can likely have a google and find something online to see what the 'Latin Mass' looks like.

 

There was no dancing. Now, the Pentecostal church that I once visited... but that's another thread. :laugh:

 

EWTN is a tv station..."the Catholic station" we call it. DH is not feeling well today and there are no Orthodox stations, so he's watching mass today while I go.

[ktgrok]

I thought so, but I was in bed without the computer so I didn't bother to look it up. So Episcopalians are just a branch, not a split from the Anglicans? Or has so much time passed that they are two separate entities?

 

 

 

 

/QUOTE]

 

They are the same church, with the same beliefs etc. But around the time of the American Revolution it became less advantageous to be associated with England, so the church here called itself The Episcopal Church (actually a longer name, but that is why people know it by.) Actually, each country calls the church by it's own name, for instance, the Church of England, The Anglican Church of Canada, the Scottish Episcopal Church, etc. The Scots used the word Episcopal instead of Anglican for the same reason the USA did, too downplay the connection to England. But each is in communion with the other, each has the same beliefs and worship structure. We do have different prayer books, but they are VERY similar, and just updates/revisions from the same book.

[Punchie]

I have quoted the thread I was originally responding to. I am looking for an example in the first four centuries were "leaders and movements gained power or influence over each other, more followers, political backing, etc until one took ascendancy." Charlemangne lived from about 724-814. He was a the Holy Roman Emperor (ie Catholic). I am Orthodox so from my point of view very little would have changed if Charlemagne had lost.

 

Arianism has been around since the the early centuries. Arius lived 3rd-4th century AD. Athanasius of Alexandria was against Arianism. Arianism was a cohesive group with a strong leader and many followers.

 

I mentioned the Charlemagne thing b/c I think it's interesting. A different outcome of a single battle in the middle ages could have changed everything.

[Parrothead]

I thought so, but I was in bed without the computer so I didn't bother to look it up. So Episcopalians are just a branch, not a split from the Anglicans? Or has so much time passed that they are two separate entities?

 

 

 

 

 

They are the same church, with the same beliefs etc. But around the time of the American Revolution it became less advantageous to be associated with England, so the church here called itself The Episcopal Church (actually a longer name, but that is why people know it by.) Actually, each country calls the church by it's own name, for instance, the Church of England, The Anglican Church of Canada, the Scottish Episcopal Church, etc. The Scots used the word Episcopal instead of Anglican for the same reason the USA did, too downplay the connection to England. But each is in communion with the other, each has the same beliefs and worship structure. We do have different prayer books, but they are VERY similar, and just updates/revisions from the same book.

 

Okay, cool. Thanks for the lesson. I appreciate it.

[Familia]

I am a cradle Catholic (age and dc same as yours) who never left the church but wished that we had all the social support they had. I found that in our early years of family life, it was our protestant friends who could support us in our faith better than our Catholic friends.

We stumbled upon a Tridentine Mass and DH said, "This is where we need to be." He feels that now he really worships; it is just him and Jesus for that 1+ hour every week. For the weeks he has, he needs that time to connect, to take him out of this world to the closest thing to heaven we have here, the holy Mass.

BTW, we pinch ourselves b/c now our IRL friends we've made at our Mass "think" like us and, generally, educate like us. We always thought we were "weird" and "different" out in the world. Now we are surrounded by friends who are as "weird" as we are:lol:!

God bless you on your journey,

Edited March 20, 2011 by secretgarden
added age

[KarenNC]

Question- what Biblical evidence do you have to support that the 'saints' can hear you once they have gone into heaven? it just seems to me that i would rather spend my energy praying to Jesus because I know He can hear me. Even if I'm just asking the saints to intercede, it seems like a wasted effort if I have no idea if they can hear me.

 

You will never be able to really "get" the workings of the Roman Catholic, Orthodox or Episcopal Churches (at minimum--there may well be others) if you expect them to adhere to a sola scriptura approach. That's just not the way that those churches are structured. The Episcopal Church, for example, is structured on the "three-legged stool" of reason, Scripture and tradition--all are equally important and without any one of them, the stool falls over. Judaism is the same. There is the written Torah and the oral Torah---neither stands alone. In order to have any sort of productive dialogue, you need to have at least a willingness to try to understand the basis for the other person's reasoning. Doesn't mean you have to agree with it.:)

[simka2]

You will never be able to really "get" the workings of the Roman Catholic, Orthodox or Episcopal Churches (at minimum--there may well be others) if you expect them to adhere to a sola scriptura approach. That's just not the way that those churches are structured. The Episcopal Church, for example, is structured on the "three-legged stool" of reason, Scripture and tradition--all are equally important and without any one of them, the stool falls over. Judaism is the same. There is the written Torah and the oral Torah---neither stands alone. In order to have any sort of productive dialogue, you need to have at least a willingness to try to understand the basis for the other person's reasoning. Doesn't mean you have to agree with it.:)

 

I just wanted to comment on this because it is one of the things that blew me away when I began to look into Tradition based (sorry lacking the verbage) faiths. I was scared of Tradition and saw it as a BAD thing! After, being immersed in this for awhile I have come to realize it is SAFER and more balanced.

 

To draw a correlation: It's like our government. We have the President, the houses, and the supreme court. There are checks and balances.

 

Tradition holds extreme interpretations of isolated scriptures in check! Anyway, it was an interesting revelation for me. :D

[TracyP]

I have been feeling drawn to a more traditional church for a while now. I am 31, raised in Assembly of God (dh Lutheran), and attended mostly Baptist throughout our marriage. I can only mostly echo what has been said. I want something deeper, not something that will attract the local teens. There are other opportunities for that but I want a deep, meaningful worship of God that I feel is lacking (even in a church filled with wonderful Christians). I am in limbo right now but the traditional route is pulling me. The more I learn, the stronger the pull. I had so many misconceptions. (sigh)

 

Tradition holds extreme interpretations of isolated scriptures in check! Anyway, it was an interesting revelation for me. :D

 

THIS! This is something I have a huge problem with (in the churches I have attended). I never thought about this being another thing traditional churches would help avoid. And the pull gets stronger.:)

[Wayfaring Stranger]

 

It would have been interesting to see how different things might have been if Julian had lived more than two years after becoming emperor.

 

 

I mentioned the Charlemagne thing b/c I think it's interesting. A different outcome of a single battle in the middle ages could have changed everything.

 

 

History would have been different if things had gone different with Julian and Charlemagne but the church teaching would not have changed. The Church at the Council of Nicaea (325) showed that it did not matter what the powerful or politically favored wanted. The teaching of the church would not change.

 

The Church had struggles in the first few centuries but by the time the original 12 apostles had died the Church was of one mind. The mind of the Church is what determines the victors, not the political powers. There are many documents from the early centuries but only the documents that are read in all places and at all times are canon. Many individual writings and opinions are documented in the early centuries but if the people in the Church reject it then it is not canon. Charlemagne was a key figure in the introduction of the filioque so the Orthodox Church rejects Charlemagne. The First Council of Lyon and the Second Council of Ephesus were both rejected by the layman in the Orthodox Church because they went against the mind of the Church.

 

But just because a ruler supports something does not mean that they are controlling the Church and choosing the victors. In the case of the Arian teachings, the Church rejected the teaching when the emperor supported the teaching and the Church rejected them when the emperor rejected them. This all happened in history and people have had their hands all over the process, but given that fallen people are involved, it is amazingly clear what the Orthodox Church believes and has always believed.

[brehon]

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 :)

 

Disclaimer -- I've read to this post thus far.

 

I heard an interesting view on the Crucifix the other day while in rehearsal. Many people see the Cross and think of the Resurrection, but rarely reflect on the suffering Christ. The Crucifix shows the suffering Christ and is a visible reminder of that suffering. I've probably butchered this explanation as the director said it in relation to a very specific part of Bach's St. John Passion. I'm not sure you'll find it used as an "official" explanation; but, that night, it really resonated with me.

[8circles]

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.

 

I think this is soooo true & it's playing out here in this thread. I get the OP & what many responders are saying about what has drawn them to the RC or EO churches but many responses describe protestantism (or evangelicalism) as something that it is not without the qualifier of "IME" or the like. Some posters have qualified that & I appreciate that. Evangelicalism (or Protestantism) itself isn't shallow or showy etc.

 

I am not inclined to change churches & join an EO church although my beliefs are pretty much in line with their theology with a few (IMO minor) differences. I do consider it to be the true ancient church & also consider myself to belong even though I don't worship in the same way. I'm not sure how the EO church would feel about that but there it is. I know that I belong to God & that's enough.

 

I've enjoyed reading this thread, thanks OP.

[OnTheBrink]

Michella :001_smile:

 

If you want to PM or email about any of these things again, you are welcome to do so (I'll admit that while I remember PMing with you before, I don't remember all the specifics!). I imagine you've read the whys of why the Orthodox believe these things, and don't see them as contrary to Scripture, but if you want a real-live ear to bounce things off please know I'd be happy to message with you. Or come to the Exploring Orthodox Christianity social group. There's been some good activity/questions there recently.

 

I think in our case it's what I mentioned in the post you quoted. We determined to find the "one holy catholic and apostolic" church, because we felt like it mattered, and then started attending and learning; listening and pondering. As time went on, and we grew in our appreciation of the things that DID appeal to us from the beginning, so did our understanding of (or at least our willingness to consider) the things that were harder. The church doesn't force itself upon you. You can attend without venerating icons, praying to the Theotokos, kissing a priest's hand or the cross he's holding, or even lighting a candle! And you don't have to agree with everything the church teaches, and yet the invitation remains open to all ~ "Come and see."

 

Oh, I know I can pm you! You and Patty Joanna are always so gracious (and patient) to answer my questions. I just need to put them down on paper in some sort of order!

[Alenee]

I think this is soooo true & it's playing out here in this thread. I get the OP & what many responders are saying about what has drawn them to the RC or EO churches but many responses describe protestantism (or evangelicalism) as something that it is not without the qualifier of "IME" or the like. Some posters have qualified that & I appreciate that. Evangelicalism (or Protestantism) itself isn't shallow or showy etc.

 

I am not inclined to change churches & join an EO church although my beliefs are pretty much in line with their theology with a few (IMO minor) differences. I do consider it to be the true ancient church & also consider myself to belong even though I don't worship in the same way. I'm not sure how the EO church would feel about that but there it is. I know that I belong to God & that's enough.

 

I've enjoyed reading this thread, thanks OP.

 

I understand what you're saying. I am a Protestant but what I'm finding is that it IS shallow in a lot of ways (that's not to say the people are shallow or that they even recognize that shallowness) and is becoming showy to satisfy the masses in an effort to gain disciples. I'm also finding that there is a widespread misconception of both the RC and EO that is being passed around as TRUTH. That bothers me to no end. I don't think that any side is ever going to get it all right in their *explanations of the other* but what has me saddened is all this wrong information being taught as truth.

 

I was so poisoned against anything traditional that I once said to my mother, "I'm not religious, I'm a follower of Christ." This hurt my mother who enjoys the traditions of her upbringing in the Episcopal church but I thought that tradition in any sense of the word was wrong. Even my pastor, who actually tends toward more orthodox teachings and understanding, usually has us stand while he reads aloud the passage of scripture for the service but occasionally he will say something like, "In the interest of this becoming ritual, you can stay seated tonight." Now as of late, I'm starting to see that ritual in itself isn't bad...it's what each person does with it that can become bad. And that thought itself leads to the Protestant tone that is set...looking out for others spiritual condition, rather than "getting our own house in order" first.

 

Somebody once said that when Luther posted his theses, the Protestant Reformation threw the baby out with the bathwater. I'm seeing that with new eyes and it's startling.

 

Sorry for my rambling...a lot of thoughts are tumbling through my mind right now.

[8circles]

I understand what you're saying. I am a Protestant but what I'm finding is that it IS shallow in a lot of ways (that's not to say the people are shallow or that they even recognize that shallowness) and is becoming showy to satisfy the masses in an effort to gain disciples. I'm also finding that there is a widespread misconception of both the RC and EO that is being passed around as TRUTH. That bothers me to no end. I don't think that any side is ever going to get it all right in their *explanations of the other* but what has me saddened is all this wrong information being taught as truth.

 

I was so poisoned against anything traditional that I once said to my mother, "I'm not religious, I'm a follower of Christ." This hurt my mother who enjoys the traditions of her upbringing in the Episcopal church but I thought that tradition in any sense of the word was wrong. Even my pastor, who actually tends toward more orthodox teachings and understanding, usually has us stand while he reads aloud the passage of scripture for the service but occasionally he will say something like, "In the interest of this becoming ritual, you can stay seated tonight." Now as of late, I'm starting to see that ritual in itself isn't bad...it's what each person does with it that can become bad. And that thought itself leads to the Protestant tone that is set...looking out for others spiritual condition, rather than "getting our own house in order" first.

 

Somebody once said that when Luther posted his theses, the Protestant Reformation threw the baby out with the bathwater. I'm seeing that with new eyes and it's startling.

 

Sorry for my rambling...a lot of thoughts are tumbling through my mind right now.

 

But I guess that's my point - looking out for others spiritual condition as you are describing it is in no way part of Protestantism as a whole any more than "praying to Mary" or worshipping graven images or "just going through the motions without meaning" is part of the RC or EO. I can tell you that there are in fact people who belong to the RC or EO who understand that they are doing those things or are just going through the motions. There are Protestants who lean too far & end up getting things wrong just as there are RC & EO who lean too far & end up getting things wrong. To hold up one as better than the other is a bit :confused: to me.

[ElizaG]

But I guess that's my point - looking out for others spiritual condition as you are describing it is in no way part of Protestantism as a whole any more than "praying to Mary" or worshipping graven images

I can see how this might be confusing, because praying to Mary and the saints is part of our faith. We use "pray" in its historical meaning of "request" -- see my previous post. It doesn't mean that we worship or adore them. We just venerate them, which is a way of saying that we have profound respect for them.

 

or "just going through the motions without meaning"

This is something that can be found in all churches and denominations, unfortunately. I don't think Catholics and EO have cornered the market on it. Though it probably shows up more obviously in liturgical churches, because we tend to have more "motions" to go through. ;)

[justamouse]

I think this is soooo true & it's playing out here in this thread. I get the OP & what many responders are saying about what has drawn them to the RC or EO churches but many responses describe protestantism (or evangelicalism) as something that it is not without the qualifier of "IME" or the like. Some posters have qualified that & I appreciate that. Evangelicalism (or Protestantism) itself isn't shallow or showy etc.

 

 

 

I think though, that though you are getting upset over that broad statement (and, as a general rule they are bad to make), you need to remember that most of us have converted *from* Protestant denominations. We're not complete outsiders looking in, we've walked away from what was our own.

 

But I guess that's my point - looking out for others spiritual condition as you are describing it is in no way part of Protestantism as a whole any more than "praying to Mary" or worshipping graven images or "just going through the motions without meaning" is part of the RC or EO. I can tell you that there are in fact people who belong to the RC or EO who understand that they are doing those things or are just going through the motions. There are Protestants who lean too far & end up getting things wrong just as there are RC & EO who lean too far & end up getting things wrong. To hold up one as better than the other is a bit :confused: to me.

 

Yes, there are always people who go though the motions-you will get that everywhere. But we didn't leave Protestantism because there were those people, we were called to something all together different. I full well know that the RC parishoner standing next to me might be there becasue it's just what they do.

 

When I first started looking into EO, I remember asking the EO ladies of this board (who always had to most wonderful answers) if they were anomalies of their faith--they humbly answered no, but that yes, there are, within every church, those who are just there going through the motions. But that's not our concern.

 

That's not my concern. My concern is my journey. My concern is my own house and myself. My family didn't leave the denominational churches because there were people who judged there-that's ridiculous. We made the change because we wanted something deeper than we had found, we wanted to say prayers that had been prayed since the first Christians started meeting, we wanted something that went beyond ourselves. We wanted to fully enter into sacraments that were, themselves, an act of worship.

[tntgoodwin]

I have been reading this thread with great interest and this directed at no one in particular and I hope it offends no one.

 

To me, all the ritualistic parts seem to interfere with the "personal relationship" aspect of my faith.

 

Also, I understand feeling that your common evangelical megachurch may seem "shallow" to many people, but for me, that has lead to me exploring Calvinism and the Reformed Church. They are anything but shallow. I definitely don't feel the desire to go back to before the Protestant Reformation to a RC or EO faith. I don't understand how someone that is a Protestant can simply reject the "five solas" and all that.

[Caitilin]

I have been reading this thread with great interest and this directed at no one in particular and I hope it offends no one.

 

To me, all the ritualistic parts seem to interfere with the "personal relationship" aspect of my faith.

 

Also, I understand feeling that your common evangelical megachurch may seem "shallow" to many people, but for me, that has lead to me exploring Calvinism and the Reformed Church. They are anything but shallow. I definitely don't feel the desire to go back to before the Protestant Reformation to a RC or EO faith. I don't understand how someone that is a Protestant can simply reject the "five solas" and all that.

Lol. And as a non-Protestant, I don't understand how one could do otherwise. :D It's all about where you start out.

[milovany]

To me, all the ritualistic parts seem to interfere with the "personal relationship" aspect of my faith.

 

 

Coming from the opposite perspective, the liturgical aspects of my faith have increased my relationship with Christ, because the Church is His Body. They can't be separated. Being involved in the faith life the Church (the sacraments, the prayers, the festal cycle, the icons, the lives of the saints, etc.) IS the personal relationship. And it's MORE real than it was as a protestant. In protestantism, IME, the "personal relationship" was basically something contained within my mind and understanding. In Orthodoxy it's holistic, organic, all-encompassing.

[tntgoodwin]

Lol. And as a non-Protestant, I don't understand how one could do otherwise. :D It's all about where you start out.

 

I agree, so how do you explain this thread that seems chock-full of people who apparently started out Protestant and then rejected that to become RC or EO? It's different if you start out that way, sure.

[simka2]

I think this is soooo true & it's playing out here in this thread. I get the OP & what many responders are saying about what has drawn them to the RC or EO churches but many responses describe protestantism (or evangelicalism) as something that it is not without the qualifier of "IME" or the like. Some posters have qualified that & I appreciate that. Evangelicalism (or Protestantism) itself isn't shallow or showy etc.

 

I am not inclined to change churches & join an EO church although my beliefs are pretty much in line with their theology with a few (IMO minor) differences. I do consider it to be the true ancient church & also consider myself to belong even though I don't worship in the same way. I'm not sure how the EO church would feel about that but there it is. I know that I belong to God & that's enough.

 

I've enjoyed reading this thread, thanks OP.

 

First off, I want to apologize if any of my posts were among those that made it sound like the Protestant faith was somehow "less than" RC or EO. Truthfully, that is not my heart or intent, so I humbly ask your forgivness if that is the case.

 

In fact, one of the discussions we had on the EO sub-forum was about being careful about oversimplifying the various protestant groups. It can be a very difficult position to be in, because all any of us can do is answer from our personal experience, and that experience may be of various shallow protestant denominations.

 

A few months ago, I found myself with a foot in both worlds. I was attending an Emergent church that was very liturgical and was very ancient church friendly (sorry I don't know how else to describe it) and we were attending an EO church. I finally sat down one day and thought, "What happens after this particular emergent pastor dies?" Or, "What if he goes of the theological deep end? What tools and resources will I leave my kids?"

 

We decided to put all our eggs in the EO basket, because of the long term stability it offers our family. Where ever my kids go in the world and their lives they can find their way back to an EO church if they choose. I couldn't say the same about the Emergent Church.

 

I don't think the jury is out on Protestant churches, but I don't think they have the same historical depth of the RC and EO. I hope that made some sense ;)!

[6packofun]

I think it's a phase, just like Megachurches were (and are) a phase in the life of the universal church. People get attracted to "new" ways of doing church, especially when others around them are raving about it. They want a different *experience*, which is fine as long as the message of Jesus Christ is not compromised and the traditions of man don't get in the way of the Truth in their hearts and actions (and by actions I mean living as Christ did, not as the church or anyone else says is the "right" way--unless they're preaching JESUS).

[Dolphin]

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:

 

I am sure you can find these for other churches too, but this is a nice guide to the Episcopalian service. This is not my church, but I like the way that it explains everything.

 

If you ever feel like trying a service know that you will most likely be given a print out of the service when you enter the church. It lets you know what to say and when. Don't sit in the front and you will be able to follow when to stand, or kneel. You will find that people do what they want to do. During prayer we have people on there knees, people sitting in the pew with a bowed head and others who stand. Any of the three are fine.

 

I had a lot of friends who were worried before my children's baptisms as they are done as part of the Sunday service, but afterwards they told me that they were pleasantly surprised. It seems scary going in, but once you are there, they really hold your hand.

 

PM me if you ever have any further questions about it.

 

Nicole

[milovany]

I think it's a phase, just like Megachurches were (and are) a phase in the life of the universal church. People get attracted to a "new" ways of doing church, especially when others around them are raving about it.

 

:lol::smilielol5:

 

ETA - 6Pack, I hope you know I'm not laughing AT you ... just the idea of the liturgical churches having a "new way" of doing church. Our Divine Liturgy is 1600 years old! :D

[Avila]

Also, I understand feeling that your common evangelical megachurch may seem "shallow" to many people, but for me, that has lead to me exploring Calvinism and the Reformed Church. They are anything but shallow. I definitely don't feel the desire to go back to before the Protestant Reformation to a RC or EO faith. I don't understand how someone that is a Protestant can simply reject the "five solas" and all that.

 

Well, since you asked :D, in my case, it was because the five solas don't hold up historically. When you look at the ancient Christian Church and the early Church Fathers, all of it is Catholic. The five solas are ideas put up by men 500 or so years ago that clash with everything that was taught for the previous 1500 years.

 

Looking for the historical church in the Reformation is like looking for classical music with the Beatles. The Beatles may seem classical to today's 20 year old, but they still a very modern band! ;)

 

But not everyone is looking for the historical Church. I just simply couldn't ignore it once I found it.

[mommaduck]

I have been reading this thread with great interest and this directed at no one in particular and I hope it offends no one.

 

To me, all the ritualistic parts seem to interfere with the "personal relationship" aspect of my faith.

 

Also, I understand feeling that your common evangelical megachurch may seem "shallow" to many people, but for me, that has lead to me exploring Calvinism and the Reformed Church. They are anything but shallow. I definitely don't feel the desire to go back to before the Protestant Reformation to a RC or EO faith. I don't understand how someone that is a Protestant can simply reject the "five solas" and all that.

 

Because the more you examine them and look at them logically, they eventually fall apart (saying this as a former, hardcore Reformed Puritan/Covenanter of the EP, Geneva 1560, RP, no holidays, etc type of person).