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

[mommaduck]

That could be an important distinction...like "the Word was God" or "the word was a god."

 

:)

 

It is. Either way, the WCF and it's followers did consider the Pope a type of anti-Christ (one of many through history).

[Colleen in NS]

 

That would be interesting to see! Do you have any links I could look at? That maybe are made by different denominations, so I'm not looking lopsidedly?

 

A Time Line of Church History

 

Thanks!!! I'll have a look at it later - I gotta run - I spent a lot of time making my last post.

 

No story :glare:. Just my own inability to spell, checking my spelling, and only correcting some words ;). I get typing, cooking, teaching, and taking care of a sicko, and well...maybe I should go back to my old signature :D.

 

Oh, then I'm sorry!!!!!!!!!! I thought you were making a play on words for some reason - belief, belife - I was reading belife as "be life" Beliefs could "be life" for people - get it? I didn't realize it was just spelling - I thought for sure you were playing with words. I'm so sorry!

[simka2]

This is so over my head. I have no idea what was in the post that you disagree about, unless it has to do with the link. I don't have good internet service. It is still loading.

 

Mommaduck hinted at it in the post above mine. It's a pretty big difference and one that steered me towards EO and not RC. That said, it would probly be a better discussion for the Exploring Orthodoxy sub-group ;)

[simka2]

 

That would be interesting to see! Do you have any links I could look at? That maybe are made by different denominations, so I'm not looking lopsidedly?

 

Thanks!!! I'll have a look at it later - I gotta run - I spent a lot of time making my last post.

 

 

 

Oh, then I'm sorry!!!!!!!!!! I thought you were making a play on words for some reason - belief, belife - I was reading belife as "be life" Beliefs could "be life" for people - get it? I didn't realize it was just spelling - I thought for sure you were playing with words. I'm so sorry!

 

No problem! I wish I was thinking that intelligently right now!

[Carol in Cal.]

You know, I've been very restrained in this thread. I didn't post at all until over 200 posts had gone by. I haven't been personal or mean in my speech here, I don't believe. Certainly I have tried extremely hard to avoid that, and I hope that I have succeeded. I have deliberately avoided catalogueing discrepancies or practices that I consider to be wrong of some Christian denominations. I have consistently said what I think is true, completely so, except in one case, see the last paragraph.

 

But first, I want to say that I believe that we, all of us, hurt the progress of our Faith when we fight in public. I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to defend my statements or summon up a bunch of evidence that some other denomination is terrible or whatever. That serves no useful purpose in a forum such as this. Furthermore, I will not continue a discussion that is rapidly devolving into ad hominem attacks. I'm not going there myself.

 

Christ wants us to be unified in Him. Read the High Priestly Prayer in John, that He prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane. It's undeniable.

 

There are beliefs and relationships worth fighting for and dying for, and some of them separate some of us. We have to be honest about those and about that, but we also have to remember that, at the most fundamental level, if we are Christians we are brothers and sisters and we should be one family. The fact that we are not visibly so does not stop us from being so spiritually. I pray that one day we all will be visibly one. And you other Christians here and elsewhere, you are my brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

Now on to my retraction: It is almost always, but not always, the case that when I read a conversion story toward the RC faith I look at the specific things that the convertee says that he/she values in making that change, and I see that they are all present and valued in my denomination--plus that the Biblical focus that we prize so highly and that a lot of protestants also value is present as well. However, there are some exceptions, and I can think of some on this board. I should not have said 'every time'. I should have said 'often'. For that I apologize and ask forgiveness. And indeed, there are other issues around authority and decision-making that are extremely different between these denominations, that can also weigh in very heavily in these conversions, in which my denomination is VERY different from the others we have discussed here. I hope that you will forgive me for my misstatement earlier in this thread.

 

And now I am finished here, but willing to PM on these subjects if anyone wants to.

[milovany]

My understanding of Matthew 13 shows us that there were always wheat, but that they could not be distinguished from the weeds... they were all growing together. So one group of people would not be distinguished as God's people until the time of the end.

 

What is your understanding of Matthew 13?

 

From the Orthodox Study Bible: "This parable builds on the previous [one]. Here Christ gives attention to the enemy who has sown his seed among the seed of Christ. As falsehood came after truth, and false prophets came after the true prophets, so the Antichrist will come after Christ. Just as the weeds first appear similar to wheat, so the devil fashions his lies to resemble the truth. That the devil sows while men slept indicates that heresy and lies creep in when people are apathetic. This parable also explains why the Church neither condemns nominal members, nor judges those outside the Church (1 Co. 5:12, 13). Just as wheat would be destroyed in weeding out the tares, so also many people who might ultimately find salvation would otherwise be lost if condemned before Christ's judgment."

 

It seems a pretty big jump from saying there are some tares among the life-giving wheat to the life-giving wheat is no longer life-giving wheat because of the presence of tares.

Edited March 22, 2011 by milovaný

[mommaduck]

My pregnancy must be buffering what enters my brain...there were arguments on here? I saw people pointing out different things in history, churches, and clarifying various things...sometimes just pointing out "from their side of the fence". I'm lost on the arguing...

 

That's okay though...I'm going to be a happy clueless person.

[Parrothead]

A Time Line of Church History

Here is a nice one that I personally think is accurate.

[OnTheBrink]

Can someone explain the differences between the Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian church, EO, and Eastern Rites Catholic churches?

 

Or, point me to a site that explains it?

 

And, I'm clueless, too, I guess. I've not seen any arguments. In fact, I was just thinking how nice it was this thread has gone on for so many pages without any deleted posts or it being closed completely. Is this a new record? ;)

[milovany]

Can someone explain the differences between the Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian church, EO, and Eastern Rites Catholic churches?

 

 

I don't know that I can explain the differences in faith practices and doctrine, but the reason the OO, Assyrian, Armenian, etc. churches are different from Eastern Orthodox is because they do not ascribe to all the ecumenical councils. The Oriental Orthodox churches did not agree to what was decided at the Council of Chalcedon (regarding the two natures of Christ), so a separation occurred there. Here's a link. At least I think I have this right, and am open to correction.

 

Eastern Rite Catholicism uses a Byzantine liturgy, but is still under the Pope. I believe it became an entity when the Great Schism occurred, and there were Byzantine churches that were under the Roman Bishop (so they stayed with Rome, keeping their traditions). Again, open to correction.

Edited March 22, 2011 by milovaný

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

In fact, I was just thinking how nice it was this thread has gone on for so many pages without any deleted posts or it being closed completely. Is this a new record? ;)

 

Let's celebrate!!!

 

You know, I teach Catechism to mostly 10yo. One of the subjects is the division within the Church and what we do to fix it. (ok, it's with 10yo, so the discussions aren't very deep). We do present every single denomination as being part of the Body of Christ, or the Church. Orthodox, Catholics, and all of Protestantism put together in one huge group. The materials we have are approved by the Catholic Church. So official teaching now is that we're all part of the same Church. I personally like this quite a bit.

[milovany]

And, I'm clueless, too, I guess. I've not seen any arguments. In fact, I was just thinking how nice it was this thread has gone on for so many pages without any deleted posts or it being closed completely. Is this a new record? ;)

 

Not yet.

 

:001_smile:

[justamouse]

I hear what you are saying here. (cringing, and I'm not trying to change what you think you should do - just once again, wondering aloud) But, couldn't it also be that as we acquire knowledge about something (depending on what it is), we may have a choice of what to do with that knowledge? And that choice may not be so critical? Maybe this question pertains more to how I view the way God interacts with people. I realize there are different views on this, too. It's just that I used to be so caught up in worrying about "doing the right thing for God."

 

 

I think we (the poster you were answering) and I are saying things like this because we've read some of the church fathers and came to the same conclusion-just like Cardinal Newman's quote. When you are smacked upside the head with knowledge that takes you from one paradigm to another, you know you have to *do* something about it. You can't sit in the same spot anymore. It's simple in the beginning, you see yourself considering things you've never considered before (God may have softened your heart in places), and then, it comes to bigger thing-things are crossing your path that are building, and then, the biggest of them all, the knock out of the park and you have to stand there and say no, I'm not going to Nineveh, or instead, we say, "Be it unto me according to thy will."

 

I don't think we're doing to do the 'right thing for God' just to not be in trouble, but because we have no alternative knowing what we know. To *not* do it would be, for us, to turn away from Him.

 

It's like a person knowing they are supposed to make any other huge life change (quitting your job to open up the ___ you always wanted)-there's a time when you are learning, then you see the path, then you rev up to make the change because you know it's right for you, and then you come to the jump-but can you be brave enough to do it?

 

For us, doing anything else was not an option.

Edited March 22, 2011 by justamouse

[Lovedtodeath]

Okay, so I am back because I was starved and I surf when I eat. :P

So official teaching now is that we're all part of the same Church. I personally like this quite a bit.

I have also seen things being more loving and less judgmental recently in my neck of the woods. My brother says that it was always there though, and it is just me. IDK

 

To *not* do it would be, for us, to turn away from Him.

Exactly.

[H.S. Burrow]

I found timelines of various Christian denominations, a family tree if you will, and wondered at the mess on the Protestant side and how straight those trees grew on the RC/EO side.

 

That would be interesting to see! Do you have any links I could look at? That maybe are made by different denominations, so I'm not looking lopsidedly?

 

I also believe once you have knowledge your are obligated to use that knowledge. Now, that doesn't mean that anyone reading this should convert - that's not what I'm saying at all! I simply mean that God impressed on *ME* this knowledge, and that *I* am obligated to follow up on it......that it would be wrong to ignore it and Him.

 

I hear what you are saying here. (cringing, and I'm not trying to change what you think you should do - just once again, wondering aloud) But, couldn't it also be that as we acquire knowledge about something (depending on what it is), we may have a choice of what to do with that knowledge? And that choice may not be so critical? Maybe this question pertains more to how I view the way God interacts with people. I realize there are different views on this, too. It's just that I used to be so caught up in worrying about "doing the right thing for God."

 

 

 

 

In searching, I found this chart of different denominations. I have at home the Rose Book of Bible Charts, Maps, and Time Lines that I use as a reference. When I searched "family tree of denomination", I found many other websites that broke each denomination down into a more comprehensive family tree. I didn't know it was even more complicated than *I* thought it was! :001_huh:

 

 

I think that what we do with our new found knowledge *IS* our choice, in that we can choose *how* we use it. For *ME*, I will continue to learn and grow in faith and *I* choose to sign up (is that even the right phrase?) for RCIA classes because that is where *MY* knowledge has led *ME*. You (and everyone else) have a different lense (your life and your knowledge) that you see through. We may not view the knowledge the same way, because at this point in our journey, we're not supposed to. I'm thinking of the blind men and the elephant......the each touch a different part of the same animal and come to very different conclusions. Only if their sight was restored would they all see the same thing. Maybe we are like the blind men and will not see until our sight is restored (return of Christ). Maybe we can only see what we are able to see. Maybe what is true for one, is not true for the other.

[Parrothead]

Can someone explain the differences between the Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian church, EO, and Eastern Rites Catholic churches?

 

Or, point me to a site that explains it?

 

And, I'm clueless, too, I guess. I've not seen any arguments. In fact, I was just thinking how nice it was this thread has gone on for so many pages without any deleted posts or it being closed completely. Is this a new record? ;)

The Assyrian church, if memory serves, is what came about when Thomas and Bartholomew headed east toward Turkey. By the time the Council of Nicea came about they were already starting down a different path. They are not in communion with the RC, EO or the OO.

 

The OO or Oriental Orthodox rejected the councils after the Council of Ephesus. The Coptic church mentioned briefly a few pages back is part of the OO church.

 

The Eastern Rite Catholic churches are in full communion with Rome. Where if you were to walk into a Catholic church in pretty much any city in North America you'd hear the Latin Rite. Not necessarily a Latin Mass. The Eastern Rite Catholics have their own rite. They are self-governing and have the freedom to act independently.

 

I hope you are not even more confused.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

You (and everyone else) have a different lense (your life and your knowledge) that you see through. We may not view the knowledge the same way, because at this point in our journey, we're not supposed to. I'm thinking of the blind men and the elephant......the each touch a different part of the same animal and come to very different conclusions. Only if their sight was restored would they all see the same thing. Maybe we are like the blind men and will not see until our sight is restored (return of Christ). Maybe we can only see what we are able to see. Maybe what is true for one, is not true for the other.

Once again, so eloquent. I am a fan.

[milovany]

In searching, I found this chart of different denominations.

 

It's not very accurate early on, from the Orthodox perspective, but we're used to that. :tongue_smilie:

[mommaduck]

Here is a nice one that I personally think is accurate.

 

That's a good one :)

[H.S. Burrow]

I think we (the poster you were answering) and I are saying things like this because we've read some of the church fathers and came to the same conclusion-just like Cardinal Newman's quote. When you are smacked upside the head with knowledge that takes you from one paradigm to another, you know you have to *do* something about it. You can't sit in the same spot anymore. It's simple in the beginning, you see yourself considering things you've never considered before (God may have softened your heart in places), and then, it comes to bigger thing-things are crossing your path that are building, and then, the biggest of them all, the knock out of the park and you have to stand there and say no, I'm not going to Nineveh, or instead, we say, "Be it unto me according to thy will."

 

I don't think we're doing to do the 'right thing for God' just to not be in trouble, but because we have no alternative knowing what we know. To *not* do it would be, for us, to turn away from Him.

 

It's like a person knowing they are supposed to make any other huge life change (quitting your job to open up the ___ you always wanted)-there's a time when you are learning, then you see the path, then you rev up to make the change because you know it's right for you, and then you come to the jump-but can you be brave enough to do it?

 

For us, doing anything else was not an option.

 

:iagree: Yes, justamouse, you understand me perfectly.

 

[Parrothead]

That's a good one :)

I like it because it splits the RC/EO schism in an unbiased manner. I've seen the ones that "place blame" on one or the other and just feel icky.

[mommaduck]

I like it because it splits the RC/EO schism in an unbiased manner. I've seen the ones that "place blame" on one or the other and just feel icky.

 

I understand.

[eema]

Whew, I just finished all 44 pages, and I'm sure by the time I post it will have grown so much more! I'm an avid lurker on these boards, and this thread has intrigued me more than any others, so I am stepping out of my shyness to reply to the OP:

 

Who are you, who are moving from non-denom. back to tradition?

What is your religious background? I was baptised Presbyterian but after that my parents fell away from church. I came back to Him (or rather He brought me back) when I was 21. I began attending Baptist churches, as I lived then in the South and that was what was readily available;) But then when we moved to New England and found that "Baptist" didn't mean the same thing in every church, we looked outside of that and began attending a Reformed church. We found the teaching and the worship to be closer to right than anything we'd been able to find, but when it came time to join we were told we had to be baptised again in order to do so. Our question (dh was baptised in an Episcopal church as a baby) at that point was who would we be doing that for? We were already baptised, wasn't once enough? We felt that, for Christ, it was, and that was all that mattered. So the search continued, until we found a Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod), ironically at the recommendation of a Catholic friend of mine. The liturgy is everything I had been missing, and everything that Carol said (I believe on page 30?;) describes very closely what our church believes, though I've never heard the term 'confessional' Lutheranism. It took me a while to be comfortable with the Eucharist, after 10+ years of thinking of it as symbolic only, but now that I understand it I would never go back to a church that saw it in that light. There's much more I could say about it, but as I said I did read all 44 pages, so real life awaits...

Best of luck to you in your journey!

[milovany]

'm an avid lurker on these boards, and this thread has intrigued me more than any others, so I am stepping out of my shyness to reply to the OP:

 

Welcome to the board, Eema.

[MamaSheep]

I think we (the poster you were answering) and I are saying things like this because we've read some of the church fathers and came to the same conclusion... You can't sit in the same spot anymore.... you have to stand there and say no, I'm not going to Nineveh, or instead, we say, "Be it unto me according to thy will."

 

I don't think we're doing to do the 'right thing for God' just to not be in trouble, but because we have no alternative knowing what we know. To *not* do it would be, for us, to turn away from Him.

...

For us, doing anything else was not an option.

 

I love how you said this. This is just how I feel about where I am.

[H.S. Burrow]

It's not very accurate early on, from the Orthodox perspective, but we're used to that. :tongue_smilie:

 

 

No, it's not, but it's better than the only other one I could find that showed Orthodox as a split branch way off from the tree trunk!! (It was an actual "tree" that was used.) I didn't realize just how many different Family Trees there were!! :001_huh: My preferred is similiar to the one that Parrothead found, that shows an even split in 1054, but I couldn't find a good link to it. :)

[Hedgehogs4]

We attend an Anglican Church for the very reasons you are expressing. It's not Catholic, but it's not Vineyard! It is a very nice expression of the catholic (not RC, but catholic as in all Christians) church with roots that go back to the beginning of the faith.

 

There is a book you might like called Evangelical Christians on the Canterbury Trail that might explain some of the trends. The guy that wrote it (Robert Webber) has recently passed away, but he was one of my profs at Wheaton--he was amazing.

 

eta i haven't had time to read every response...it's just too long and i came in too late, but i do believe that the Holy Spirit is drawing believers who will worship in Spirit and in Truth and this return to the traditions of the church are a response to that. Some of the PPs have indicated this in their responses as well.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Hedgehogs4

[milovany]

No, it's not, but it's better than the only other one I could find that showed Orthodox as a split branch way off from the tree trunk!! (It was an actual "tree" that was used.)

 

:blink:

[lmkzbcb]

I am posting this because I think it does a fairly decent explanation of the Eastern Rite Catholic churches that are in communion with Rome. I like the history that it gives as well. I found it helpful in understanding where the Eastern Rite of Roman Catholicism came from and how it came about. This does not mean that I agree with every perspective that it has, nor do I think it is without errors. If someone finds an error please point it out; so that misinformation is not propagated.

 

http://www.maryourmother.net/Eastern.html

[Rosie_0801]

Well, why not decorate with icons? Aren't they artwork? (oh, no, going off topic in my own thread!!!) You could just hide them if any religious people came to visit you.:D

 

Coz that goes against my religious beliefs ;)

 

:)

Rosie

[mommaduck]

Coz that goes against my religious beliefs ;)

 

:)

Rosie

 

And I have to say "thank you" in the manner that we appreciate it when people don't treat them as "just artwork". They are sacred (special) to us.

[ktgrok]

 

Now on to my retraction: It is almost always, but not always, the case that when I read a conversion story toward the RC faith I look at the specific things that the convertee says that he/she values in making that change, and I see that they are all present and valued in my denomination--plus that the Biblical focus that we prize so highly and that a lot of protestants also value is present as well. However, there are some exceptions, and I can think of some on this board. I should not have said 'every time'. I should have said 'often'. For that I apologize and ask forgiveness. And indeed, there are other issues around authority and decision-making that are extremely different between these denominations, that can also weigh in very heavily in these conversions, in which my denomination is VERY different from the others we have discussed here. I hope that you will forgive me for my misstatement earlier in this thread.

 

And now I am finished here, but willing to PM on these subjects if anyone wants to.

 

Hopefully you are still around for one quick question, or someone else knows the answer. Does the Lutheran church have/maintain apostolic succession the way the RC/EO/Anglican churches do?

[milovany]

Hopefully you are still around for one quick question, or someone else knows the answer. Does the Lutheran church have/maintain apostolic succession the way the RC/EO/Anglican churches do?

 

I don't think they would be able to say they do, since Lutheranism (as it developed) was a brand new thing in Christianity. It was walking away from the historic churches, based on principle, and starting something new.

[ktgrok]

I don't think they would be able to say they do, since Lutheranism (as it developed) was a brand new thing in Christianity. It was walking away from the historic churches, based on principle, and starting something new.

 

Yes, but if they continued the laying on of hands for ordination, it would still have apostolic succesion. I guess my question was did any Bishops defect also, allowing this to happen, as it did in Anglicanism?

[milovany]

Yes, but if they continued the laying on of hands for ordination, it would still have apostolic succesion. I guess my question was did any Bishops defect also, allowing this to happen, as it did in Anglicanism?

 

Oh, I see what you are saying. I wouldn't see that as apostolic succession (since the faith has changed), but I can see what you're getting at.

[Parrothead]

According to this article some Lutheran churches, typically those in Scandinavia, do claim apostolic succession. Typically the churches from Germany do not.

 

Lutheran churches

 

Wide variations exist within Lutheranism on this issue. Most Lutheran churches in Scandinavian countries (see immediately above and below) are favorable to the traditional doctrine of apostolic succession. Others de-emphasize it, e.g., many German Lutheran churches in former Prussian lands, resulting from their state-ordered union with Reformed (Calvinist) churches in 1817.[/url]

In recent years a number of Lutheran churches at the most Catholic edge of the Evangelical Catholic High Church Lutheran spectrum in the United States of America have accepted the doctrine of apostolic succession and have successfully recovered it, generally from Independent Catholic Churches.

 

[Colleen in NS]

A Time Line of Church History

 

Here is a nice one that I personally think is accurate.

 

Thanks to both of you. I do like that wiki one - it seems to be objective.

 

We do present every single denomination as being part of the Body of Christ, or the Church. Orthodox, Catholics, and all of Protestantism put together in one huge group. The materials we have are approved by the Catholic Church. So official teaching now is that we're all part of the same Church.

 

Wow, I didn't know that, either!

 

Not yet.

 

:001_smile:

 

I've got this thread to read later on another screen - I hadn't read it a few months ago.

 

When you are smacked upside the head with knowledge that takes you from one paradigm to another, you know you have to *do* something about it.

 

OK, I see now. I was looking at it from a more "mind" perspective, but this seems to be more from a "heart" perspective (I don't know how better to explain it - something to do with that right brain vs. left brain thing, only I don't know at the moment which is which). I hear you now. Thanks for taking time once again to explain further. :)

 

In searching, I found this chart of different denominations.

 

Thank you - I'll be looking more closely at that, too.

 

When I searched "family tree of denomination", I found many other websites that broke each denomination down into a more comprehensive family tree. I didn't know it was even more complicated than *I* thought it was! :001_huh:

 

I might try searching with those terms - I don't know why I don't think to do that sometimes.

 

I think that what we do with our new found knowledge *IS* our choice, in that we can choose *how* we use it.

 

I hear you now, too. I think I was responding to the word "obligated" here: "I also believe once you have knowledge your are obligated to use that knowledge. " That's why I was pondering "choice" - as in exactly what you said above. I guess I understood your use of "obligated" differently than what you meant.

 

Whew, I just finished all 44 pages, and I'm sure by the time I post it will have grown so much more! I'm an avid lurker on these boards, and this thread has intrigued me more than any others, so I am stepping out of my shyness to reply to the OP:

 

(I have to paste in your quote)"I was baptised Presbyterian but after that my parents fell away from church. I came back to Him (or rather He brought me back) when I was 21. I began attending Baptist churches, as I lived then in the South and that was what was readily available But then when we moved to New England and found that "Baptist" didn't mean the same thing in every church, we looked outside of that and began attending a Reformed church. We found the teaching and the worship to be closer to right than anything we'd been able to find, but when it came time to join we were told we had to be baptised again in order to do so. Our question (dh was baptised in an Episcopal church as a baby) at that point was who would we be doing that for? We were already baptised, wasn't once enough? We felt that, for Christ, it was, and that was all that mattered. So the search continued, until we found a Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod), ironically at the recommendation of a Catholic friend of mine. The liturgy is everything I had been missing, and everything that Carol said (I believe on page 30? describes very closely what our church believes, though I've never heard the term 'confessional' Lutheranism. It took me a while to be comfortable with the Eucharist, after 10+ years of thinking of it as symbolic only, but now that I understand it I would never go back to a church that saw it in that light. There's much more I could say about it, but as I said I did read all 44 pages, so real life awaits...

Best of luck to you in your journey!"

 

I'm so glad you stepped away from your shyness to share that. Thank you for another story! It helps me to see why various people go from one "genre" of Christianity to another.

 

We attend an Anglican Church for the very reasons you are expressing. It's not Catholic, but it's not Vineyard! It is a very nice expression of the catholic (not RC, but catholic as in all Christians) church with roots that go back to the beginning of the faith.

 

There is a book you might like called Evangelical Christians on the Canterbury Trail that might explain some of the trends. The guy that wrote it (Robert Webber) has recently passed away, but he was one of my profs at Wheaton--he was amazing.

 

Thanks for the book rec - I will look into it, and follow the amazon trail.

 

And thanks for mentioning Anglican.

 

Well, why not decorate with icons? Aren't they artwork?

 

And I have to say "thank you" in the manner that we appreciate it when people don't treat them as "just artwork". They are sacred (special) to us.

 

I quoted myself so that you could see that I did not say "just artwork." I like artwork, and have some throughout my house. I love art, sculpture, craft...beautiful things, to me, can reflect something about God. I was being a little silly with Rosie, in my other part of that blurb, but I was serious about decorating with icons. I do not think they are "just" artwork. Maybe "decorate" was not what you would say, though. "Placing around the home" the icons that are sacred?

 

I've appreciated all of this discussion in this thread.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Colleen in NS

[mommaduck]

Yes, it was the "decorate" part as though they were "just" artwork or comparative to other artwork. These may be placed around the home, but they have a special meaning or reason for being there, not simply because one likes them and wants to decorate with them.

[Colleen in NS]

These may be placed around the home, but they have a special meaning or reason for being there

 

And this is what I tend to do when I "decorate" with anything. :) I guess "decorate" really isn't what I meant - I don't decorate - I place for meaning. Which is why I have no knick-knacks. :lol:

[Lovedtodeath]

And this is what I tend to do when I "decorate" with anything. :) I guess "decorate" really isn't what I meant - I don't decorate - I place for meaning. Which is why I have no knick-knacks. :lol:

Since Rosie is not an Orthodox Christian, or even a Christian the meaning would be simply that it is beautiful, she would not be placing them with a meaning of reverence, so it would not be respectful.

[8circles]

You know, I've been very restrained in this thread. I didn't post at all until over 200 posts had gone by. I haven't been personal or mean in my speech here, I don't believe. Certainly I have tried extremely hard to avoid that, and I hope that I have succeeded. I have deliberately avoided catalogueing discrepancies or practices that I consider to be wrong of some Christian denominations. I have consistently said what I think is true, completely so, except in one case, see the last paragraph.

 

But first, I want to say that I believe that we, all of us, hurt the progress of our Faith when we fight in public. I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to defend my statements or summon up a bunch of evidence that some other denomination is terrible or whatever. That serves no useful purpose in a forum such as this. Furthermore, I will not continue a discussion that is rapidly devolving into ad hominem attacks. I'm not going there myself.

 

Christ wants us to be unified in Him. Read the High Priestly Prayer in John, that He prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane. It's undeniable.

 

There are beliefs and relationships worth fighting for and dying for, and some of them separate some of us. We have to be honest about those and about that, but we also have to remember that, at the most fundamental level, if we are Christians we are brothers and sisters and we should be one family. The fact that we are not visibly so does not stop us from being so spiritually. I pray that one day we all will be visibly one. And you other Christians here and elsewhere, you are my brothers and sisters in Christ.

I really appreciated this post. Thank you Carol.

 

It is worth to say that during his lifetime there have been already over 100 Protestant denominations started - protesting away. It never ends, either.

This sounds really... disrespectful to me. I'm hoping you didn't mean it that way.

 

You're welcome. And I enjoyed reading your reply here. Would you care to elaborate here or in a pm as to why you are not inclined to join EO even though your beliefs line up? I am just asking, because even though I'm asking some bigger questions for myself, I'm not really looking to change churches. Just figuring out how I can dig deeper into faith in God, while worshipping Him with some really great people in our current church. We've been there a long time, and there are particular people we really like being around.

 

Short answer is because God doesn't want me there. There are other minor reasons which I could get into but I don't want to offend. But the bottom line is if God wanted me there I would go, difficult though it would be to overcome the differences. Why would God want me in a church that wasn't a TRUE Church? Well, he wouldn't, so even though I believe the EO is the true church, I also believe it isn't the only true church. In the end our differences don't matter.

[JenniferB]

So, why?

 

Colleen,

 

Now that I've read all 46 PAGES of responses, two days later, I want to tackle that big question of "why," which I sort of dodged or simplified the first go around. I hate responding to an original post without reading all the replies first. I don't what to repeat over and over what other people have said. So, I'd like to respond only if I have an original idea or something more to offer, and I think I do...Let's hope.

 

Why would I even consider switching churches, let alone denominations, let alone branches of my faith when I L.O.V.E. my congregation, the service style, the children's activities, the women's ministries, and all that at my current church? Let me assure you, it's not because I'm looking for something new. It's not because I want "more traditional," or "more liturgical." Actually, when I posted my original (post-evangelical) question, I didn't want to switch churches, let alone denominations, let alone branches of Christianity. I just wanted SOMETHING to add some life to my walk with Christ, and I could not find it in the Christian book store. I couldn't even find it in my Bible, because I had read it so many times already, and the interpretations were already set in stone for me, though I didn't agree with them. I was in a very frustrating position. I didn't want to switch, yet, I couldn't find any satisfaction where I was at. [Enter the lovely ladies on this forum, Milovany and Patty Joanna, and Ancient Faith Radio.] When I heard church history for the first time I was blown away. When I heard the origins of Sola Scriptura and the other Solas I was blown away again. When I heard the doctrines of the Orthodox Christian faith I was blown away again. All those passages in Scripture that I didn't "agree" with made perfect sense when salvation means "dancing with God," "synergy with God," or "the restoration of what Adam and Eve had before they fell." When I learned that OC does not subscribe to original sin or total deprivation I was blown away again. When I learned that the OC believes that man has free will, I was like, "ahhhhh, that's more like it!" So many of my [grrrrrr] frustrations, especially with the teachings of Jesus, turned into "ah ha."

 

Now, when I found out HOW liturgical and HOW traditional and HOW bizarre (to my Protestant mind) the OC services and practices were, this is where I had to "let go and let God." I didn't understand that part AT ALL. But, I didn't go the Orthodox way because of the liturgy, I went because of the authentic history and the doctrines. The rest I am learning and adapting and beginning to L.O.V.E.

Edited March 23, 2011 by JenniferB

[Rosie_0801]

I quoted myself so that you could see that I did not say "just artwork." I like artwork, and have some throughout my house. I love art, sculpture, craft...beautiful things, to me, can reflect something about God. I was being a little silly with Rosie, in my other part of that blurb, but I was serious about decorating with icons. I do not think they are "just" artwork. Maybe "decorate" was not what you would say, though. "Placing around the home" the icons that are sacred?

 

Well they are sacred, that's why I can't have any. They are an important part of an religion that aren't mine, so for me, I guess I could say they are sacred "once removed" or something. :lol: They aren't sacred to me in the right way, anyhow. The only way I would even think of using them as decoration is if my SCA persona was Orthodox, and I would commission one from an artist friend who has tried her hand at this style; I certainly wouldn't buy one written to be an icon. But I doubt our Orthodox friends here would like that either and it doesn't seem appropriate to me; it's a little too much like following letters of laws rather than spirits of laws. A moot point though, coz my SCA persona is Roman Catholic ;)

 

Since Rosie is not an Orthodox Christian, or even a Christian the meaning would be simply that it is beautiful, she would not be placing them with a meaning of reverence, so it would not be respectful.

 

You mean "the right meaning of reverence."

 

Rosie

Edited March 23, 2011 by Rosie_0801

[Colleen in NS]

Short answer is because God doesn't want me there. ...even though I believe the EO is the true church, I also believe it isn't the only true church. In the end our differences don't matter.

 

Thank you.

 

I'd like to respond only if I have an original idea or something more to offer, and I think I do...Let's hope.

 

Thanks for your story, too. I'm going to try to remember to pm you about a few points you made. You did have some different things to share.

 

Well they are sacred, that's why I can't have any. They are an important part of an religion that aren't mine, so for me, I guess I could say they are sacred "once removed" or something. :lol: They aren't sacred to me in the right way, anyhow.

 

You are very respectful, even in your own personal life, Rosie.

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

A moot point though, coz my SCA persona is Roman Catholic ;)

 

 

Roman Catholics also have icons. It's part of our oecumenical thinking. We have icons in our church, and I teach about them in catechism class (at a very superficial level, unfortunately.. I'm supposed to put about 10 min of teaching time on them. I chose to spend an hour. )

[FrogMom5]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought both the Syrian and Assyrian Churches had returned to full communion with the Vatican? I thought I heard that a few years ago.

 

Denise

[Rosie_0801]

Roman Catholics also have icons. It's part of our oecumenical thinking. We have icons in our church, and I teach about them in catechism class (at a very superficial level, unfortunately.. I'm supposed to put about 10 min of teaching time on them. I chose to spend an hour. )

 

Sounds worth an hour. I had seen examples that look liked RC icons, but I hadn't heard them called that so I wasn't sure if that's what they were. Fortunately for me, my SCA persona isn't a very good Catholic ;)

 

Rosie

[milovany]

Well they are sacred, that's why I can't have any. They are an important part of an religion that aren't mine, so for me, I guess I could say they are sacred "once removed" or something. :lol: They aren't sacred to me in the right way, anyhow. The only way I would even think of using them as decoration is if my SCA persona was Orthodox, and I would commission one from an artist friend who has tried her hand at this style; I certainly wouldn't buy one written to be an icon. But I doubt our Orthodox friends here would like that either and it doesn't seem appropriate to me; it's a little too much like following letters of laws rather than spirits of laws. A moot point though, coz my SCA persona is Roman Catholic ;)

 

 

Wow, Rosie, your thoughts and consideration in this matter are very commendable (commendable is not the exact word I want as it sounds like you owe "us" this or something, anyway just let it be know that I appreciate what you wrote).

Edited March 24, 2011 by milovaný

[Rosie_0801]

My mother will be pleased to hear that some of the manners she taught me sunk in. :D

 

Actually, one of the reasons I'm not Christian is because manners are more important to my mother than religion. She's a funny one :)

 

Rosie

[iwka]

My mother will be pleased to hear that some of the manners she taught me sunk in. :D

Actually, one of the reasons I'm not Christian is because manners are more important to my mother than religion. She's a funny one :)

Rosie

 

She doesn't like Jesus then at all. His manners were sometimes terrible.