Is there a Christian denom that believes this?

[Spy Car]

My mistake. I had read it as "between diocese". Apologies for the mix-up.

 

No problem :001_smile:

 

Yes, another thing dh has said, mostly jokingly, but the kind of jocularity built around a nugget of reality, is that Episcopalianism is "Catholic Light--all the Catholic without the guilt and no Pope on the side". (He went through all the whatchamacallit classes for converting at a Catholic church with a former girlfriend before deciding he wasn't willing to commit to the RC faith, so he felt he could make an intelligent comparison.

 

They are called RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults) classes.

 

I don't think I have enough understanding of either to formulate an intelligent opinion on the subject, but having attended services at both types of churches I can definitely see where a Catholic would find that style of Episcopal service rather familiar, whereas an Episcopalian from a parish with a more modernized, relaxed approach might not.)

 

Yes. I'm sure some Episcopalians who were used to more modern services might even be surprised at how Anglo-Catholic the services at our local parish feel. As I mention the the Priest half-joked that his masses might seem more "Catholic" than many more modern Catholic masses. I think there is some truth in that. This is not necessarily "typical" of all Episcopal parishes, but is true at ours.

 

In all seriousness, though, he has fond memories of growing up Episcopalian and still carries an appreciation for all the things he learned there and the ways in which he feels it prepared him for the next step along the path, and he certainly recognizes the broadness of the variations among Episcopal churches and understands that not all of them are all that close to Catholicism.

 

For sure not all of the Episcopal Church is so close to Catholicism. The Anglo-Catholics are a legitimate part of the diocese but (from what I gather) the Bishops kind of keep a special eye on these Priests. And some have jumped to the Roman Catholic Church, which accepts married Anglican Priests (but not converts from Roman Catholicism to Anglicanism who want to come back as Priests, at least as of yet).

 

 

Very true. Again, I didn't intend to say otherwise, I just misread what you'd written earlier and just wanted to mention that my (admittedly limited) experience with the Episcopal way of doing things was that it allows for a great deal of variation at a very local level, and not just between diocese. But I see now that this was exactly the point you were making and my comments were probably extraneous. Sorry. :)

 

We are exaclty the same point, but the misunderstanding made it more fun :D

 

Bill

[mommaduck]

I know you didn't ask me this, but I thought I might be able to give a perspective. It isn't a matter of choosing one or the other. The correct teaching in either case is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, through the Son - there is only one primary source of the procession. In Latin, "and the Son" does not imply procession from two origins as it tends to in some languages. At one time (6th century) is was used in a local situation and thought to be helpful in combating a particular local outbreak of the Arian heresy, though its later use was more of a political issue.

I believe that is the Western (Catholic/Reformed/Lutheran) view. From what I understand of the Eastern (Orthodox) view, is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, not through the Son. (LN, PJ, or Milovany will probably jump in and correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that this is why the Eastern Patriarchs viewed the Filioque as "turning the Trinity on it's head".

 

I agree that it was used as a big political thing though.

[MamaSheep]

No problem :001_smile:

 

 

 

They are called RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults) classes.

 

 

Yes, THAT's what I was trying to think of. I'm sure dh remembers and I could have avoided looking so ignorant if I'd taken the trouble to ask, but he was up to his ears programming some educational doohickey thing for a company which must remain nameless, and from the disgruntled muttering over on that side of the room at the time I deemed it best not to interrupt. I don't want to lose my "spare work computer during work hours" privileges. ;)

 

Yes. I'm sure some Episcopalians who were used to more modern services might even be surprised at how Anglo-Catholic the services at our local parish feel. As I mention the the Priest half-joked that his masses might seem more "Catholic" than many more modern Catholic masses. I think there is some truth in that. This is not necessarily "typical" of all Episcopal parishes, but is true at ours.

 

 

 

For sure not all of the Episcopal Church is so close to Catholicism. The Anglo-Catholics are a legitimate part of the diocese but (from what I gather) the Bishops kind of keep a special eye on these Priests. And some have jumped to the Roman Catholic Church, which accepts married Anglican Priests (but not converts from Roman Catholicism to Anglicanism who want to come back as Priests, at least as of yet).

 

 

 

 

We are exaclty the same point, but the misunderstanding made it more fun :D

 

Bill

 

Well, I'm glad you thought so. Fun is a lot better than ignorant and annoying. :D

[Spy Car]

This is a confusing point for those who are not familiar with Anglican politics, but no, ACNA is not really part of the Communion at this time.

 

In Anglicanism, different areas are governed by bishops, and bishops in different regions are grouped together in national churches, which govern themselves. All these national churches recognize the holy orders of the others and recognize them as Anglican, and they also all recognize the Archbishop of Canterbury as the senior bishop of the Communion, and are recognized by him.

 

An important point though is that normally, you can only have one bishop in a given area. Another bishop cannot come and set up shop where there is already a bishop, because that would be a schism. We are meant to be one Church. (That's how we know we are in schism with the Catholics and Orthodox - they have their own bishops.)

 

In the US, this is what the ACNA has done - they have set up their own bishops because they no longer want to be in communion with the Episcopals. That is to say, at this time, the Episcopal Church in the US is in a state of schism that really hasn't been resolved, but the main body and governing structure still exists and has not been deposed.

 

This is confused though because worldwide, some of the other Anglican bishops are in impaired communion with the Episcopals, and do recognize ACNA instead. But, this isn't universal, and as well, the ACNA is not recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

 

Well explained.

 

So, they are really being disingenuous in saying they are part of the Communion. They are in communion with some Anglican bodies, they are not part of the Anglican Communion.

 

Disingenuous, yes. One might even choose a strong term but disingenuous makes the point.

 

It is entirely possible that at some point the Episcopal Church will no longer be in communion with Canterbury or the rest of the Communion, and at that point it will become necessary for some other body to be the American representative of the Communion. I know many in ACNA hope that they will be able to fulfill that role.

 

Pigs will fly before this happens. No way, no how, is this even a remote possibility.

 

Bill

[zaichiki]

In Latin, "and the Son" does not imply procession from two origins as it tends to in some languages.

 

I don't understand what you mean. Can you expound on this a bit?

[Molly]

I understand! I really do. We have been part of a home church group similar to what you describe, too. I hope you find His complete fullness in it! I don't think my meaning was understood, but that's not the point of this thread, so that's fine. May God bless your journey!

 

Thank you, I'm not sure you do understand where we are though. We are taking in different people's thoughts on what the bible is saying to them(I am currently doing a bible study with a Seventh Day Adventist), but we are also checking within the bible (KJV) and going back to Hebrew and Greek, and also doing a lot of cross referencing within the bible. So we are not taking one person's version, but many and therefore connecting many dots, but ultimately where the buck stops is with the bible. I do believe God is leading us in our learning. I don't believe our conclusions are from us because more often than not they are completely different conclusions to what we have previously had.

[Avila]

Thank you, I'm not sure you do understand where we are though. We are taking in different people's thoughts on what the bible is saying to them(I am currently doing a bible study with a Seventh Day Adventist), but we are also checking within the bible (KJV) and going back to Hebrew and Greek, and also doing a lot of cross referencing within the bible. So we are not taking one person's version, but many and therefore connecting many dots, but ultimately where the buck stops is with the bible. I do believe God is leading us in our learning. I don't believe our conclusions are from us because more often than not they are completely different conclusions to what we have previously had.

 

I will just (proactively) apologize to you too for the tangent we took from your post. We ended up discussing a lot of stuff that had nothing to do with you and how your personal Bible study is being approached.

 

So anyhow, sorry in advance if you are just catching up from all the tangents. Please don't take them personally.

[mommaduck]

a seemingly good article on the history and view of Scriptures in the Orthodox Church.

 

Holy Scriptures in the Eastern Orthodox Church

[milovany]

I will just (proactively) apologize to you too for the tangent we took from your post. We ended up discussing a lot of stuff that had nothing to do with you and how your personal Bible study is being approached.

 

So anyhow, sorry in advance if you are just catching up from all the tangents. Please don't take them personally.

 

:iagree: and thanks for making the apology!

[LoveBaby]

It is apparently way past my bedtime since I read the OP question as "Is there a Christian DEMON that believes this?"

 

 

I have heard a lot of new things on this board, but that particular thing was going to be at the top of the list of hmmm.....:confused:

[JenniferB]

Hello,

 

Sorry to come in so late, but I suggest the Orthodox Church in America (Eastern Orthodox). I had a response back on page 9, but my 4yo. deleted it, and I don't have the ability to retype what I wrote previously, so I will just give you a couple of links to check out, if that's OK. Here is my favorite podcast series which is an introduction to Eastern Orthodoxy. Here is a link from the Orthodox Church in America which is an explanation of Orhthodox Christianity online (you don't have to buy a book in this case).

 

I come from an evangelical background, and consider myself a post-evangelical and an Orthodox Christian inquirer, hopefully a soon-to-be-convert. :D These things take time.

[asta]

wrote new post

Edited November 22, 2011 by asta

[asta]

Switzerland and I use these threads as springboards for conversation, and one particular thing stuck out on this thread: The posters who mentioned Catholicism (with the exception of, I think... two) all said something to the effect of "I think you're Catholic" or "I think you're looking for Catholicism" or "I think you should check out either the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church."

 

But the people who said "I think you should check out the Eastern Orthodox Church" did not also say "or the Roman Catholic Church." (unless I missed one on a skimming)

 

And then there were those three pages of "Who's on first, What's on second, I don't know's on third..." regarding Luther, Sola Scriptura et al. that got rather heated.

 

I find this to be interesting.

 

Perhaps much of the difficulty for people in finding their "faith path" is that the very people who have been tasked by their denominations to help people find their way are themselves so internally divided that they have missed the larger point: it isn't supposed to be about "winning" people to EO rather than RCC or convincing people that X denomination of Protestantism is purer than another -- it's supposed to be about the principles of Christianity -- remember those?

 

Instead, it has all turned into one big-@ss competition of how much "purer", "complete", and "correct" one group is over another.

 

If we want to argue "like WTMers", well, fine: put all of the Christian denominations on a timeline and decide how far back one wants to go. And since none of us were there, and each Church has a competing history, the EO/RCC split turns into a "agree to disagree." Heck, let's go even further - original documents! Even the "secret archives" of the Vatican are available for viewing by appointment. And dang near everything else is available at one's fingertips on their website. Surely the EO has something similar...

 

All of Luther's writings are conveniently available for reading right there in Wittemburg. Carol is absolutely right - he didn't initially want to leave the Catholic Church - he loved the Church - he was a Catholic priest. The part that isn't highlighted in US Lutheranism is that he slowly went mad. It's sad to read. There was a reason that others were able to step into the path he had cleared -- he wasn't in any shape to do anything about it.

 

Maybe Christianity needs a version of the Hajj: go to the birthplace of your religion and find out what it actually means.

Edited November 22, 2011 by asta

[8circles]

Switzerland and I use these threads as springboards for conversation, and one particular thing stuck out on this thread: The posters who mentioned Catholicism (with the exception of, I think... two) all said something to the effect of "I think you're Catholic" or "I think you're looking for Catholicism" or "I think you should check out either the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church."

 

But the people who said "I think you should check out the Eastern Orthodox Church" did not also say "or the Roman Catholic Church." (unless I missed one on a skimming)

 

And then there were those three pages of "Who's on first, What's on second, I don't know's on third..." regarding Luther, Sola Scriptura et al. that got rather heated.

 

I find this to be interesting.

 

Perhaps much of the difficulty for people in finding their "faith path" is that the very people who have been tasked by their denominations to help people find their way are themselves so internally divided that they have missed the larger point: it isn't supposed to be about "winning" people to EO rather than RCC or convincing people that X denomination of Protestantism is purer than another -- it's supposed to be about the principles of Christianity -- remember those?

 

Instead, it has all turned into one big-@ss competition of how much "purer", "complete", and "correct" one group is over another.

 

If we want to argue "like WTMers", well, fine: put all of the Christian denominations on a timeline and decide how far back one wants to go. And since none of us were there, and each Church has a competing history, the EO/RCC split turns into a "agree to disagree." Heck, let's go even further - original documents! Even the "secret archives" of the Vatican are available for viewing by appointment. And dang near everything else is available at one's fingertips on their website. Surely the EO has something similar...

 

All of Luther's writings are conveniently available for reading right there in Wittemburg. Carol is absolutely right - he didn't initially want to leave the Catholic Church - he loved the Church - he was a Catholic priest. The part that isn't highlighted in US Lutheranism is that he slowly went mad. It's sad to read. There was a reason that others were able to step into the path he had cleared -- he wasn't in any shape to do anything about it.

 

Maybe Christianity needs a version of the Hajj: go to the birthplace of your religion and find out what it actually means.

 

I'm not sure what your point is here, truly. Some people are trying to win more members for their particular church, others are simply trying to make a suggestion. I find it obvious who's who but maybe that's not true for others.

 

I don't see any point in this discussion that involves how far back to go in history. Nor about Luther's madness. Unless your point is that Lutherans don't know that he went mad & therefore are following a madman (haha, how stupid are they?).

 

I'd honestly like some clarification because to me that's how it reads. If it isn't correct I'm open to hearing what you really mean.

 

To clarify about Lutherans (I'm not one) & not the first time in these kinds of threads - they don't follow Luther. The state of his mind has not one iota to do with their faith.

[simka2]

Switzerland and I use these threads as springboards for conversation, and one particular thing stuck out on this thread: The posters who mentioned Catholicism (with the exception of, I think... two) all said something to the effect of "I think you're Catholic" or "I think you're looking for Catholicism" or "I think you should check out either the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church."

 

But the people who said "I think you should check out the Eastern Orthodox Church" did not also say "or the Roman Catholic Church." (unless I missed one on a skimming)

 

And then there were those three pages of "Who's on first, What's on second, I don't know's on third..." regarding Luther, Sola Scriptura et al. that got rather heated.

 

I find this to be interesting.

 

Perhaps much of the difficulty for people in finding their "faith path" is that the very people who have been tasked by their denominations to help people find their way are themselves so internally divided that they have missed the larger point: it isn't supposed to be about "winning" people to EO rather than RCC or convincing people that X denomination of Protestantism is purer than another -- it's supposed to be about the principles of Christianity -- remember those?

 

Instead, it has all turned into one big-@ss competition of how much "purer", "complete", and "correct" one group is over another.

 

If we want to argue "like WTMers", well, fine: put all of the Christian denominations on a timeline and decide how far back one wants to go. And since none of us were there, and each Church has a competing history, the EO/RCC split turns into a "agree to disagree." Heck, let's go even further - original documents! Even the "secret archives" of the Vatican are available for viewing by appointment. And dang near everything else is available at one's fingertips on their website. Surely the EO has something similar...

 

All of Luther's writings are conveniently available for reading right there in Wittemburg. Carol is absolutely right - he didn't initially want to leave the Catholic Church - he loved the Church - he was a Catholic priest. The part that isn't highlighted in US Lutheranism is that he slowly went mad. It's sad to read. There was a reason that others were able to step into the path he had cleared -- he wasn't in any shape to do anything about it.

 

Maybe Christianity needs a version of the Hajj: go to the birthplace of your religion and find out what it actually means.

 

If this is to help you and Switzerland understand why some EO did not recommend RC as well, I will give you my reason. First and foremost I do not know enough about RC, Anglican, or Confessional Lutheran to make that recommendation. I barely feel confident suggesting EO. ;)

 

Also, in the back of my mind was my personal exposure to RC, which to my knowledge had some specific beliefs on Hell. Since that was another issue the OP brought up I was uncomfortable with the RC recommendation.

 

Look, I am far enough down the path with EO to realize I have had a ton of misconceptions about both EO and RC. It was not a personal slam on RC, just my personal lack of knowledge about the RC and how that meshed with the OP's list.

[Margaret in GA]

I would say Catholic Church or Episcopal Church, but... it is so hard to become one of those IMHO. Catholics are a tough bunch to break into (at least around here where we mentioned to the priest several times about 18 years ago that we'd like to look into joining and he blew us off) and Episcopals are up and down so much with lots of things I don't get (tried that out a few years ago with our kids)... I say go Presbyterian (PCUSA) and you'll be very happy. There is a variety of political and theological opinions in any of the PCUSA churches we have been to. No matter what town you are in, they seem to be a rather interesting and always intelligent congregation. Check them out.

[ktgrok]

I would say Catholic Church or Episcopal Church, but... it is so hard to become one of those IMHO. Catholics are a tough bunch to break into (at least around here where we mentioned to the priest several times about 18 years ago that we'd like to look into joining and he blew us off) and Episcopals are up and down so much with lots of things I don't get (tried that out a few years ago with our kids)... I say go Presbyterian (PCUSA) and you'll be very happy. There is a variety of political and theological opinions in any of the PCUSA churches we have been to. No matter what town you are in, they seem to be a rather interesting and always intelligent congregation. Check them out.

 

I'm not sure what you mean about Episcopal being hard to become? My experience has always been you attend a church, if you like it you stay. If you wish to become confirmed you can attend classes for adults and be confirmed by the Bishop. If you don't want to be confirmed you can attend the rest of your life, and participate fully, without ever being confirmed. My husband is a full member of our local Episcopal church and has never been confirmed. No issue at all.

 

Also, several local parishes have a "welcome" type dinner every few months for newcomers, or a newcomer study, or other type event for people to learn more in a less formal way.

[imagine.more]

I'm not sure what you mean about Episcopal being hard to become? My experience has always been you attend a church, if you like it you stay. If you wish to become confirmed you can attend classes for adults and be confirmed by the Bishop. If you don't want to be confirmed you can attend the rest of your life, and participate fully, without ever being confirmed. My husband is a full member of our local Episcopal church and has never been confirmed. No issue at all.

 

Also, several local parishes have a "welcome" type dinner every few months for newcomers, or a newcomer study, or other type event for people to learn more in a less formal way.

 

ITA, Episcopal is super easy to join from what I've heard. Like the ELCA you just start attending, the only requirement would be baptism if you weren't baptized previously.

 

In the Catholic Church it's not that hard either, most people just join RCIA and explore a bit, then get first confession, first communion, and confirmation all on the same day at Easter Vigil Mass if I remember correctly. So it's more of a distinct "coming into the church" date, but no more difficult really than anything else.

[Parrothead]

I would say Catholic Church or Episcopal Church, but... it is so hard to become one of those IMHO. Catholics are a tough bunch to break into (at least around here where we mentioned to the priest several times about 18 years ago that we'd like to look into joining and he blew us off) and Episcopals are up and down so much with lots of things I don't get (tried that out a few years ago with our kids)... I say go Presbyterian (PCUSA) and you'll be very happy. There is a variety of political and theological opinions in any of the PCUSA churches we have been to. No matter what town you are in, they seem to be a rather interesting and always intelligent congregation. Check them out.

I'm sorry you experienced such a difficult time learning about the RC. That is not the norm.

[ZooRho]

Methodist maybe, except communion is once a month.

I'm methodist we attend a church that has a communion service every sunday. it is a smaller middle service

[Bluegoat]

 

Pigs will fly before this happens. No way, no how, is this even a remote possibility.

 

Bill

 

I'm not so sure. I'm increasingly wondering if the hierarchy of TEC may not actually choose to remove themselves from the Communion - some of their actions seem to me to be positioning themselves for that kind of eventuality.

 

And if they and the Anglican Church of Canada that I belong to carry on in the direction they are going, it could be entirely possible that the majority of the other members of the Communion no longer recognize them. If that happens, it will create a crisis in the Communion as a whole. I can only think that at that point Canterbury would have to take some action, hard as that is to imagine.

 

And then there is the question of whether TEC, the ACC, or indeed anyone chooses to sign onto the proposals that Canterbury has asked them to willingly accept. Failure at that could also cause a crisis.

[mommaduck]

Switzerland and I use these threads as springboards for conversation, and one particular thing stuck out on this thread: The posters who mentioned Catholicism (with the exception of, I think... two) all said something to the effect of "I think you're Catholic" or "I think you're looking for Catholicism" or "I think you should check out either the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church."

 

But the people who said "I think you should check out the Eastern Orthodox Church" did not also say "or the Roman Catholic Church." (unless I missed one on a skimming)

 

And then there were those three pages of "Who's on first, What's on second, I don't know's on third..." regarding Luther, Sola Scriptura et al. that got rather heated.

 

I find this to be interesting.

 

Perhaps much of the difficulty for people in finding their "faith path" is that the very people who have been tasked by their denominations to help people find their way are themselves so internally divided that they have missed the larger point: it isn't supposed to be about "winning" people to EO rather than RCC or convincing people that X denomination of Protestantism is purer than another -- it's supposed to be about the principles of Christianity -- remember those?

 

Instead, it has all turned into one big-@ss competition of how much "purer", "complete", and "correct" one group is over another.

 

If we want to argue "like WTMers", well, fine: put all of the Christian denominations on a timeline and decide how far back one wants to go. And since none of us were there, and each Church has a competing history, the EO/RCC split turns into a "agree to disagree." Heck, let's go even further - original documents! Even the "secret archives" of the Vatican are available for viewing by appointment. And dang near everything else is available at one's fingertips on their website. Surely the EO has something similar...

 

All of Luther's writings are conveniently available for reading right there in Wittemburg. Carol is absolutely right - he didn't initially want to leave the Catholic Church - he loved the Church - he was a Catholic priest. The part that isn't highlighted in US Lutheranism is that he slowly went mad. It's sad to read. There was a reason that others were able to step into the path he had cleared -- he wasn't in any shape to do anything about it.

 

Maybe Christianity needs a version of the Hajj: go to the birthplace of your religion and find out what it actually means.

Asta, I am one that said EO, but did not mention RC. It had nothing to do with one being purer than another. It is more along the same reason that I did not suggest Episcopalian; it is because I know more about the EO and can be sure of my statement. With the RC, I know there are some differences and, though I thought there might be a possibility here, I did not want to speak out of turn (I had also responded before reading the rest of the thread). It was out of respect and letting the RC people speak for themselves. My immediate response was, "this sounds like us!" ;) Honest, no rebuff was intended. Please accept my apologies if it was taken or came across in that manner :grouphug:

[Bluegoat]

I believe that is the Western (Catholic/Reformed/Lutheran) view. From what I understand of the Eastern (Orthodox) view, is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, not through the Son. (LN, PJ, or Milovany will probably jump in and correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that this is why the Eastern Patriarchs viewed the Filioque as "turning the Trinity on it's head".

 

I agree that it was used as a big political thing though.

 

No, the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son is a perfectly orthodox, and Orthodox, understanding of the economy of the Trinity. The Father is the eternal cause, however, not the Son.

 

I don't understand what you mean. Can you expound on this a bit?

 

Translation is always a matter of approximations. The nuances of a word in one language are not always identical to the closest word in another language.

 

The way we are meant to understand the teaching is as I have suggested above. The Father is the eternal cause of the Trinity, and the Son is begotten of Him, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from him. The Holy Spirit also proceeds through the Son. The Son though is not an eternal cause of the Holy Spirit.

 

In Greek, if you say "proceeds through the Father and the Son" the implication is that both the Father and the Son are the eternal cause of the Holy Spirit, which is heterodox. Proceeds means as from an originative cause.

 

But in Latin, it does not imply that - it implies that it comes from both but not that both are the eternal cause or the origin. The nature of procession in the Latin version of the Creed, even without the filioque, is much more ambiguous, because the word is more ambiguous in Latin.

[justamouse]

No, the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son is a perfectly orthodox, and Orthodox, understanding of the economy of the Trinity. The Father is the eternal cause, however, not the Son.

 

Translation is always a matter of approximations. The nuances of a word in one language are not always identical to the closest word in another language.

 

The way we are meant to understand the teaching is as I have suggested above. The Father is the eternal cause of the Trinity, and the Son is begotten of Him, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from him. The Holy Spirit also proceeds through the Son. The Son though is not an eternal cause of the Holy Spirit.

 

In Greek, if you say "proceeds through the Father and the Son" the implication is that both the Father and the Son are the eternal cause of the Holy Spirit, which is heterodox. Proceeds means as from an originative cause.

 

But in Latin, it does not imply that - it implies that it comes from both but not that both are the eternal cause or the origin. The nature of procession in the Latin version of the Creed, even without the filioque, is much more ambiguous, because the word is more ambiguous in Latin.

 

Thank you.

[Happy2BaMom]

To the OP: We were very much in the exact same place you seem to be now, asking the exact same questions.

 

We explored everything: Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox (there were several things I liked, but I got hung up on their official "no-birth-control" policy - ditto for the Catholic church...and I'm a little confused how people see that as being 'non-authoritarian'), all the major denominations (most of which seemed to be all over the map - some conservative, some liberal), and we finally ended up at the United Church of Christ, which we now love.

[deacongirl]

Have not read the whole thread, but I would agree with some I skimmed and say Methodist (except for the communion thing--that is the one thing I wish they would do differently) or Episcopal. But I had to say that every time this thread catches my eye I think it says "Is there a Christian demon that believes this"--not at all what you are asking!:lol:

[mommaduck]

To the OP: We were very much in the exact same place you seem to be now, asking the exact same questions.

 

We explored everything: Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox (there were several things I liked, but I got hung up on their official "no-birth-control" policy - ditto for the Catholic church...and I'm a little confused how people see that as being 'non-authoritarian'), all the major denominations (most of which seemed to be all over the map - some conservative, some liberal), and we finally ended up at the United Church of Christ, which we now love.

uhm, the birth control issue is relative and not a legalistic thing. The difference between the RC and EO on this one is that economia is used on a case by case basis. We are taught not to judge whether one is using or not nor what their reasons are.

[journeytolily]

United Methodist fits - this is the denomination I chose after being raised as a Pentecostal, then losing all faith in Christianity. I think most of the churches, though, have communion only once a month, unless it's for a special time of year/holiday. What I like about UMC especially is that they are very much community-minded, and a big part of their beliefs center on helping others - and not just to "convert" them.

 

I'd say also Episcopal/Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyeterian USA all fit what you are looking for.

[Carol in Cal.]

If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth; knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver and gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a Lamb unblemished and spotless; the blood of Christ. For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you who through Him are believers in God, Who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory; so that your faith and hope are in God.

 

Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart; for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable; that is, through the living and enduring Word of God.

 

For all flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers and the flower falls off; but the Word of the Lord endures forever.

And this is the Word that was preached to you.

[momofkhm]

except for the non-evangelical part, you want to come to my church. I have definite feelings on a lot of that stuff that may be contrary to yours, but they are my feelings. Not what the parish preaches.

 

But I do think it tends to be denomination wide - I haven't met a pastor yet who was dogmatic about any of those points. It's why dh and I can coexist in the same church. I'm young earth and he's old earth. But it's not an issue of salvation, so we can each hold to our own belief.

 

Anglican, by the way.

[Parrothead]

To the OP: We were very much in the exact same place you seem to be now, asking the exact same questions.

 

We explored everything: Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox (there were several things I liked, but I got hung up on their official "no-birth-control" policy - ditto for the Catholic church...and I'm a little confused how people see that as being 'non-authoritarian'), all the major denominations (most of which seemed to be all over the map - some conservative, some liberal), and we finally ended up at the United Church of Christ, which we now love.

Just to be clear, the Catholic Church is not opposed to birth control when it is accomplished by natural means, i.e. self control. She is opposed to artificial birth control.

[simka2]

No, the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son is a perfectly orthodox, and Orthodox, understanding of the economy of the Trinity. The Father is the eternal cause, however, not the Son.

 

 

 

Translation is always a matter of approximations. The nuances of a word in one language are not always identical to the closest word in another language.

 

The way we are meant to understand the teaching is as I have suggested above. The Father is the eternal cause of the Trinity, and the Son is begotten of Him, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from him. The Holy Spirit also proceeds through the Son. The Son though is not an eternal cause of the Holy Spirit.

 

In Greek, if you say "proceeds through the Father and the Son" the implication is that both the Father and the Son are the eternal cause of the Holy Spirit, which is heterodox. Proceeds means as from an originative cause.

 

But in Latin, it does not imply that - it implies that it comes from both but not that both are the eternal cause or the origin. The nature of procession in the Latin version of the Creed, even without the filioque, is much more ambiguous, because the word is more ambiguous in Latin.

Can it be a perfectly Orthodox teaching with the right linguist understanding? Possibly by some in EO, but not by consensus. Also, it is my understanding that the some of the issue revolves around the fact that the fillique was not decided upon at a Council and was added to the orginal creed which was against the rules so to speak ;)

 

I did think this was a rather balanced discussion on the issue http://orthodoxwiki.org/Filioque. But it bears pointing out that "There has never been a specific conciliar statement in the Orthodox Church which defined the filioque as heresy. That being said, however, it has been regarded as heretical by multiple Orthodox saints, including Ss. Photius the Great, Mark of Ephesus, and Gregory Palamas (the three Pillars of Orthodoxy). At the Third Ecumenical Council and the "Photian" council of 879-880 (both councils Rome signed onto), all changes to the Creed are anathematized." From the above article.

Edited November 22, 2011 by simka2

[knit247]

Can't wait to read the whole thread (yep, I'm gonna' do it) but I had many of the same questions as the OP and am now in RCIA in preparation for converting to Catholicism.

[Happy2BaMom]

I don't want to hijack this thread, and I wish to communicate in a respectful manner, but in my research about the Orthodox Church, here is what I found re: birth control:

 

From the Orthodox Church in America web site:

 

"The voluntary control of birth in marriage is only permissible, according to the essence of a spiritual life, when the birth of a child will bring danger and hardship..."

 

"There are, in the Orthodox opinion, no means of controlling birth in marriage which are better or more acceptable than others. All means are equally sad and distressing for those who truly love. For the Christian marriage is the one that abounds with as many new children as possible."

 

From the Orthodox America web site:

 

"......I've used the term "artificial" birth control because I want to point out that the Church does permit the use of certain natural methods for avoiding conception, but these methods may not be used without the knowledge and blessing of the priest, and only if the physical and moral well-being of the family demands it. These methods are acceptable (because)..... they have to do with self-denial, self-control. Those methods are three: " (and he goes on to describe abstinence, limitation of relations, and the rhythm method)

 

and further in the article "but we should be prepared and expect to have as many children as God will send and the moral and physical health of the mother and the family as a whole will allow, always staying in close touch with one's priest on these matters."

 

So, it sounds to me like the priest is supposed to be involved and that any birth control other than abstinence or NFP is not allowed.

 

Just my two cents.

[Bluegoat]

Can it be a perfectly Orthodox teaching with the right linguist understanding? Possibly by some in EO, but not by consensus. Also, it is my understanding that the some of the issue revolves around the fact that the fillique was not decided upon at a Council and was added to the orginal creed which was against the rules so to speak ;)

 

I did think this was a rather balanced discussion on the issue http://orthodoxwiki.org/Filioque. But it bears pointing out that "There has never been a specific conciliar statement in the Orthodox Church which defined the filioque as heresy. That being said, however, it has been regarded as heretical by multiple Orthodox saints, including Ss. Photius the Great, Mark of Ephesus, and Gregory Palamas (the three Pillars of Orthodoxy). At the Third Ecumenical Council and the "Photian" council of 879-880 (both councils Rome signed onto), all changes to the Creed are anathematized." From the above article.

 

 

The question as to the orthodoxy of the theology is in my mind not whether EO theologians thought that the West was teaching heresy, but whether they were in fact doing so. Were they teaching that the Son was an originative source of the Spirit, or were they not? If the East claims they were teaching it when they were not, then they are factually mistaken, or God forbid, playing with the truth of the matter. Any saint who assumes wrongly what the phrase means because he has little Latin is not really going to give a useful opinion, no matter how saintly he is.

 

In fact in reality there was very much confusion over the language issue throughout the time that this was a controversy. Many people were unsure what was being taught including people in the West.

 

If this had been resolved the way it should have, the theological issue would have been clarified whether the filioque continued to be used or not. THe inital local use of it is really irrelavent - it was local, and no one objected, and it died out. But in the later use, not only was the introduction abnormal, but someone did object. And just as in any other serious controversy, the correct response is to work it out, clarify the theology until everyone is satisfied, and make a decision on the practice, whether it takes a year or a century.

 

Because of the political issues in Rome and general lack of charity from all- this never happened - clarity was never achieved. Rome tried to force the issue and there was schism, and so there was never the opportunity for the Church to clarify what was really meant by the filioque, much less make a decision about whether it was a good idea to use it.

 

The real issue in my opinion was the failure of the mechanism to resolve problems like this (which happened all the time) caused by increasingly centralized power in Rome.

[Aelwydd]

I got this off the web site of the only Anglican church in town:

 

"We are a parish in the Diocese of ______ and a member of the Anglican Church in North America and a member of the worldwide Anglican Communion, which includes both Catholic and Protestant traditions."

 

I don't totally understand what the Anglican Communion is, but from reading this it sounds like it's possible to be part of both ACNA and the Anglican Communion. FWIW.

 

SpyCar is right. Many spin-off Anglican groups call themselves "members of the worldwide Anglican community" based on the fact that they are recognized by certain conservative Anglican groups in Africa and in South America. However, they are not in communion, nor recognized, by the Church of England, the Episcopal Church, nor other "official" Anglican churches.

 

(I know this because when I was still a conservative, I was member of a church in such a group.)

[Upward Journey]

I'm not so sure. I'm increasingly wondering if the hierarchy of TEC may not actually choose to remove themselves from the Communion - some of their actions seem to me to be positioning themselves for that kind of eventuality.

 

And if they and the Anglican Church of Canada that I belong to carry on in the direction they are going, it could be entirely possible that the majority of the other members of the Communion no longer recognize them. If that happens, it will create a crisis in the Communion as a whole. I can only think that at that point Canterbury would have to take some action, hard as that is to imagine.

 

And then there is the question of whether TEC, the ACC, or indeed anyone chooses to sign onto the proposals that Canterbury has asked them to willingly accept. Failure at that could also cause a crisis.

 

Agreeing. :iagree:

[Aelwydd]

This is a confusing point for those who are not familiar with Anglican politics, but no, ACNA is not really part of the Communion at this time.

 

In Anglicanism, different areas are governed by bishops, and bishops in different regions are grouped together in national churches, which govern themselves. All these national churches recognize the holy orders of the others and recognize them as Anglican, and they also all recognize the Archbishop of Canterbury as the senior bishop of the Communion, and are recognized by him.

 

An important point though is that normally, you can only have one bishop in a given area. Another bishop cannot come and set up shop where there is already a bishop, because that would be a schism. We are meant to be one Church. (That's how we know we are in schism with the Catholics and Orthodox - they have their own bishops.)

 

In the US, this is what the ACNA has done - they have set up their own bishops because they no longer want to be in communion with the Episcopals. That is to say, at this time, the Episcopal Church in the US is in a state of schism that really hasn't been resolved, but the main body and governing structure still exists and has not been deposed.

 

This is confused though because worldwide, some of the other Anglican bishops are in impaired communion with the Episcopals, and do recognize ACNA instead. But, this isn't universal, and as well, the ACNA is not recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

 

So, they are really being disingenuous in saying they are part of the Communion. They are in communion with some Anglican bodies, they are not part of the Anglican Communion. I say that having a lot of sympathy for their situation.

 

It is entirely possible that at some point the Episcopal Church will no longer be in communion with Canterbury or the rest of the Communion, and at that point it will become necessary for some other body to be the American representative of the Communion. I know many in ACNA hope that they will be able to fulfill that role.

 

Yes, this is a much better explanation than mine. Sorry to have missed it earlier.

 

OP, in regards to your specifications, I would recommend either the Episcopal Church, U.S.A. (ECUSA) or the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ECLA). Both denominations will run the gamut between high and lower church, because parishes will vary in their preferences and style of worship. So, you may have to visit more than one or two before you find something that really fits your spiritual profile.

 

Good luck. :)

[Happy2BaMom]

But yes, these quotations can be taken as "the Church forbidding birth control." So I stand corrected on that point. I need a lot of correction, mostly in my lenses. :0) I think the Church is the optician I need.

 

I think that you and I would find agreement that we need correction in our lenses, and that the Church (speaking as a whole) can offer a lot of "vision correction"...which is what I think the whole point of church is supposed to be. It's just that it too often gets warped into dogma, and tradition, and power and politics and even simple morality when (in my humble view) it's meant to encourage growth with and toward God.

 

I did like much of the rest of what I read/researched about the Orthodox church.

[julikins]

What about non-denominational--Community church. Not community of Christ because that's RLDS (Mormon). But Community or Christian church are usually non-denominational and would fit with them all except for the liturgical side of things. Just an idea.

[Xuzi]

What about non-denominational--Community church. Not community of Christ because that's RLDS (Mormon). But Community or Christian church are usually non-denominational and would fit with them all except for the liturgical side of things. Just an idea.

Community of Christ isn't LDS/Mormon. They are an offshoot, but have many differing doctrines (they're Trinitarian, for example).

[ktgrok]

In regards to Episcopal parishes differing from place to place, I wanted to clarify something. They will all use the same prayer book, so exactly the same service, word for word. But some will have hymns, some will have more modern music. Some will have "bells and smells" which means incense, candles, and bells rung at key moments in the service. Others will look more "low church" or "protestant" in nature, and won't have any of the above, other than a candle here and there. Most will be somewhere in between. I've been to very fancy ones, and ones that were very modern in feel, but they all use the same exact service.

[MamaSheep]

In regards to Episcopal parishes differing from place to place, I wanted to clarify something. They will all use the same prayer book, so exactly the same service, word for word. But some will have hymns, some will have more modern music. Some will have "bells and smells" which means incense, candles, and bells rung at key moments in the service. Others will look more "low church" or "protestant" in nature, and won't have any of the above, other than a candle here and there. Most will be somewhere in between. I've been to very fancy ones, and ones that were very modern in feel, but they all use the same exact service.

 

Yes, that's a good clarification, thanks. :)

[Miss Marple]

I think I must have some dyslexia or something. I read the title as "...Christian demon who believes..." I was baffled. Nothing to add to the conversation, but I gave myself a chuckle :)

[Bluegoat]

SpyCar is right. Many spin-off Anglican groups call themselves "members of the worldwide Anglican community" based on the fact that they are recognized by certain conservative Anglican groups in Africa and in South America. However, they are not in communion, nor recognized, by the Church of England, the Episcopal Church, nor other "official" Anglican churches.

 

(I know this because when I was still a conservative, I was member of a church in such a group.)

 

To use the word community is, I think, kosher. These groups are Anglican by heritage and theologically, and they are in relationship to other Anglican groups, and so they are part of the worldwide Anglican community which is in a difficult state at the moment.

 

It is even true that some are in communion with parts of the Communion.:tongue_smilie:

 

It is only incorrect if they claim to be part of the Communion.

[SJ.]

OP - I did not read the many, many replies you received here, hopefully I have something new to add. The denomination I grew up going to was the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ. It sounds like a good fit for all of your requirements you listed. To me this is key:

We have no “creeds†that are required; there is no set of beliefs about God that you must profess in order to count this as your church community or to become a member. All we ask you, should you wish to formally become a member, is “Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and do you take Him as your Savior?â€

 

We know that there are likely dozens of other issues of faith and life that you will have both questions and your own beliefs about. We celebrate that! Each individual has both the right and the responsibility to work out for him- or herself beliefs about these other matters of faith and life. But you will find here a company of friends who will be eager to help you do that – through our Christian Education opportunities and other informal ways that we learn more about our faith.

 

One of our movement’s early slogans still fits for our congregation today:

 

“In essentials, unity;

 

in non-essentials, freedom;

 

in ALL things, love.â€

 

Copied from: http://www.firstchristiancos.org/what-were-like

 

Statement of faith: http://www.disciples.org/AboutTheDisciples/OurConfession/tabid/759/Default.aspx

 

Communion: http://www.disciples.org/AboutTheDisciples/Communion/tabid/159/Default.aspx

 

Hope this is helpful!

SJ

[MeganW]

 

ETA: If memory serves (and it may not) you are right about Communion. I believe (but an not certain) that Episcopal Churches have no issue with Roman Catholic taking Communion in there churches, but the reverse is not true. I could be wrong about that.

 

Any baptized Christian is welcome to take communion in the Episcopal church.

[Spy Car]

Any baptized Christian is welcome to take communion in the Episcopal church.

 

That's what I thought (but wasn't 100% sure). I did not intend to imply communion was limited to Roman Catholics. Thanks for making this clear :001_smile:

 

Bill