Went to 2 churches today

friend of said:

I want to encourage every Catholic on here to please try going to a protestant church at least once. Just to see how different it is. I think you're going to find it much more liberating.

Click to expand...

I think you are going to find that most of the older folks have already done this and even the younger ones will have some ideas by flipping the channels of the TV, watching movies etc. that show how the other half lives.


I will say "not everything that glitters is gold". I once thought similar to you as a cradle Lutheran who went more into nonliturgical worship in my 20s. This parody while funny kind of hints at some of the problems.



This article actually highlight one of the big problems with these churches.
Willow Creek model, its leaders say, fails at discipleship

Re: feelings or the supposed lack thereof.

There ought to be a distinction maintained between having feelings (which we all do) and trusting feelings as an arbiter of truth. As in statements like "I didn't feel the spirit there", or "It was such a spirit-filled service! Everyone there was so happy!"

You (the general 'you') feeling or not feeling anything likely has very little to do with anything, as emotions are so incredibly malleable and subject to manipulation (without there necessarily being anything insincere going on, either). You know the verse, "The heart is deceitful above all things..."; no need to quote it, though I just did.

Point being, I would hate for anyone here or anywhere to think that more traditional Christians begrudge them their emotions. We have plenty of our own; the point is always keeping them in proper balance, neither giving over to emotionalism nor denying them their proper outlet.

Whenever this subject comes up, it always reminds me of this nice taraneem (popular paraliturgical song), so I hope you all won't mind if I share it here. It is called "O my fathers of the wilderness" (referring to the monks who have come before us):


Chorus:

"O my fathers of the wilderness, I wish I could live the way you lived
It was a life of prayers, vigils, and tears for the Lord Jesus"

Clearly, if we did not allow/condone/have emotional experiences, we would not paint them as we do here. The key here is context, of course, in that there is truly a world of difference between holy tears shed in prayer and vigil by those who are dead to the world and tears which come as a kind of 'emotional shock' to reinvigorate a person whose spirituality predisposes them to crave such things in order to feel 'alive' (which the way of the monastics certainly does not; again, these people have chosen to be dead to the world). I spent about two weeks in a Coptic Orthodox monastery five years ago, and during that time I never saw anyone crying, but I did see people praying with all of the strength and power given to them by the Holy Spirit.

jisaiah6113 said:

Interesting discussion though about the merits of "feelings" which is really just the senses encountering God. I find it fitting that the churches that don't have a lot of emotional excitement are the same folks that say that feelings are not important in our encounter with God, whereas Protestants might think otherwise. I can definitely see how feelings can lead us astray in worship and how "feeling" something doesn't mean it's God.

Click to expand...

I converted from Southern Baptist for that very reason. I always felt that I was being judged based off of how much I waved my hands or closed my eyes in public prayer when I was evangelical. In Orthodoxy there is still intensity, but it is of a different nature. When we sing the creed, or watch the great entrance, it can bring you to an overwhelmingly repentant state of mind.

This and the Capella Romana post above are both excellent examples. No time is wasted. All the service is dedicated to teaching about the life of the Kingdom of Heaven.

My wife and I have been in a town in Western Australia over the last week or so. In that time, I've been to three churches - one called "The Potters House", a Catholic Church (I'm Catholic) and Baptist (my wife is Baptist).

The reason we went to the Potter's House was simply that it suited our schedule, due to sporting commitments on my part, and other commitments. Plus a bloke at work attends a "Potter's House" church in our home state of Queensland, and I was just curious as to what it was like.

The following weekend, we went to our own churches, although I doubled up by attending my wife's Baptist Church.

I used to be Protestant. I'll be staying Catholic, and as far as I'm concerned, there's always something missing in the Protestant communion. They may have better music from time to time, and if there is one thing I do miss, it was the quality of my old Presbyterian pastor's sermons, way back. I haven't yet met his equal in Catholic (or Protestant) churches. But there's something missing.

I think there's a place for varied styles of worship, but the danger is that of just seeking entertainment. It's all well and good to feel uplifted because the music is uplifting, but the time might come when we are in prison for our faith, with precious little to feel uplifted about.

So I'll stick to the Catholic approach. True, there's room for improvement, but our faith isn't determined by the quality of our church liturgy.

In fact, at one point in the Catholic mass, the priest intones, "... look not on our sins, but on the faith of your church."

friend of said:

Its ritual repetitiveness is not my idea of a breathing Church at all.

Click to expand...

What was repeated in the mass that you attended?

friend of said:

It was like being in the assembly of the dead, that was the feeling.

Click to expand...

When did you attend an assembly of the dead?

friend of said:

I want to encourage every Catholic on here to please try going to a protestant church at least once.

Click to expand...

I go to protestant churches often, Catholic church rarely, Orthodox even more rarely but my experience is that the Catholic and Orthodox divine service is joyous, spiritual, uplifting and very helpful. My experience with Protestant churches varies, some are excellent and some are very depressing.

Protestant services are so often what pushes people away from Protestantism as it's nothing close to the early church.

In terms of feelings (and I would, of course, echo what others have said about feelings not being the arbiter of truth, and I myself put little stock in feelings as anything other than "indicators" on a control panel, but not the controllers themselves), I find that what I "get out of" a Liturgy is a matter of what I put into it throughout the preceding week. If I have spent time in prayer each day, have pondered on Christ, have read the Scriptures, have had a confession, etc, then I find the Liturgy that Sunday to be a powerfully moving experience. When I don't do that, and the week passes by and I've only thought of myself and have given Christ little thought, then the Liturgy feels like just a bunch of words and notes.

As to the OP, I've been to all kinds of services. I am not budging from Orthodoxy, and I have no interest in participating in other services. I do get the intent and I am not trying to belittle your sentiment. If we are ignorant of something, it doesn't hurt to learn about the thing we are ignorant of, and that, in and of itself, is usually good. But I've been there and done that. Even if I am stuck at an Orthodox parish with an unwelcoming congregation and a horrible priest, I would still suffer through that rather than go to some other kind of church.

John P. Alexander said:

Protestant services are so often what pushes people away from Protestantism as it's nothing close to the early church.

Click to expand...

Someone who is not a convert from evangelical Protestantism told you that, right?

Knee V said:

Even if I am stuck at an Orthodox parish with an unwelcoming congregation and a horrible priest, I would still suffer through that rather than go to some other kind of church.

Click to expand...

Bingo.

Maybe other people live in a world of choices, that they can go from this kind to that kind to this other kind until they find one that 'fits', but that is not so for those of us who take our theology, Christology, and ecclesiology seriously. Why would go to another kind of church now when I've already been to most others (never been to a Church of the East/Nestorian church, but have been to Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox) and firmly made a decision for one? And who could be so rude, or so ethnocentric, or whatever the problem is that it would somehow make the faith something other than what it is? I can understand that being an unpleasant experience (frankly not all of my experiences in the Coptic Orthodox Church have been pleasant, often precisely because there is a wide gulf between my own culture and the Egyptians', and they didn't magically make me into an Egyptian with baptism), but something that makes a person decide "Well this can't be the Church"?

I don't know when or why personal evaluation of individual instances with particular people or even whole parishes came to stand in for evaluating the actual ecclesiologies, theologies, etc. of churches, but it seems very warped to me. Why wouldn't we all be Mormons, in that case? In my experience, the Mormons definitely 'out-nice' many Christians (including me), but that amounts to nothing when you consider what being a Mormon means in terms of the beliefs and practices you would have to embrace in lieu of Christianity in order to be one. It's simply not from God, but I'm sure everyone who is in it really feels that it is. Why? Because it gives them a happy feeling, and they confuse that with the confirmation of the truth of that religion by the Holy Spirit (as per Mormon epistemology). It's very unwise -- at worst, deluded/deceived.

Albion said:

Someone who is not a convert from evangelical Protestantism told you that, right?

Click to expand...

I mean I would say that and I am a convert from Southern Baptist which fits that definition probably to the T.

I know many many others as well. I could direct you to an entire monastery full of monks who about 80% came from an evangelical background (the other 20% was catholic converts. No cradles). That's out of about 30 absolutely dedicated men. We had many many pilgrims who said similar things as well.

☦Marius☦ said:

I mean I would say that and I am a convert from Southern Baptist which fits that definition probably to the T.

Click to expand...

You're telling me that you converted because you were looking for a church whose worship services are like the first century churches...and you became convinced that the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox churches best fits that description?



Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom - Wikipedia

Albion said:

You're telling me that you converted because you were looking for a church whose worship services are like the first century churches...and you became convinced that the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox churches best fits that description?



Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean. I converted for various reasons. However if you are trying to imply that the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom isn't old enough--it was based on the Liturgy of St. Basil, which was based on the Liturgy of St. James. The only thing that changed was they removed a few litanies for times sake.

dzheremi said:

Bingo.

Maybe other people live in a world of choices, that they can go from this kind to that kind to this other kind until they find one that 'fits', but that is not so for those of us who take our theology, Christology, and ecclesiology seriously. Why would go to another kind of church now when I've already been to most others (never been to a Church of the East/Nestorian church, but have been to Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox) and firmly made a decision for one? And who could be so rude, or so ethnocentric, or whatever the problem is that it would somehow make the faith something other than what it is? I can understand that being an unpleasant experience (frankly not all of my experiences in the Coptic Orthodox Church have been pleasant, often precisely because there is a wide gulf between my own culture and the Egyptians', and they didn't magically make me into an Egyptian with baptism), but something that makes a person decide "Well this can't be the Church"?

I don't know when or why personal evaluation of individual instances with particular people or even whole parishes came to stand in for evaluating the actual ecclesiologies, theologies, etc. of churches, but it seems very warped to me. Why wouldn't we all be Mormons, in that case? In my experience, the Mormons definitely 'out-nice' many Christians (including me), but that amounts to nothing when you consider what being a Mormon means in terms of the beliefs and practices you would have to embrace in lieu of Christianity in order to be one. It's simply not from God, but I'm sure everyone who is in it really feels that it is. Why? Because it gives them a happy feeling, and they confuse that with the confirmation of the truth of that religion by the Holy Spirit (as per Mormon epistemology). It's very unwise -- at worst, deluded/deceived.

Click to expand...

In my Evangelical days I had a sense of that I could just go to (almost) any church and it'd be fine. After all, differences shouldn't matter if we're all Christians.

Since then, however, that's simply not a view I think I can subscribe to. It's not that I deny other Christians of being Christian, nor do I deny their faith and devotion; but it's simply that there are certain things that really matter. It has to do with immensely important theological matters, which can't simply be brushed aside as though they don't matter--because they do.

Before my dad passed away he had been trying to get me to go to my uncle's church. My uncle--my dad's brother--is a pastor (seminary trained) of a small non-denominational church. So while I was taking care of my dad he wanted me to go with him to my uncle's church, and I politely would decline. This seemed to really bother him, like I was being rude, or as though I thought something negative about my uncle and his church. Which, of course, isn't true. After several times, my dad asked me why I had to go my Lutheran church and not my uncle's church. I tried to explain that, it really did boil down to theology. And, very importantly, that I could not in good conscience receive Communion at my uncle's church. This seemed to shock him, and he had a difficult time understanding why, even when I tried explaining that they don't believe in the Real Presence and so I would be conscience-bound to refuse to partake of Communion there. Not out of rudeness, but out of conscience.

Because going to church isn't a Bible study, or a fellowship meeting. It's partaking and receiving of God's sacred gifts of Word and Sacrament as we come together in faith, unity, and offer up our sacrifice of praise and gratitude to the God the giver of all good gifts. And so what it means to meet together, to come together, to worship, and what happens there matters a great deal.

The Liturgy isn't about preference. I don't defend the Liturgy because I'm an old fart who likes the aesthetic of old things; I'm not some stick in the mud who hates all that "new fangled" rock'n'roll (that really couldn't be much further from the truth, I like my music loud and hard). I defend--and you and others likewise defend--the Liturgy because it's more than mere aesthetics, it's more than personal preference, it's more than just what "I can get out of it". It's about a deep matters of theology, and what we are saying together about our faith, about Christ, about God's gifts. It's about the powerful and profound working of the Spirit in the life of God's people. Because the Liturgy isn't a "style", it's life.

-CryptoLutheran

☦Marius☦ said:

I'm not sure what you mean. I converted for various reasons. However if you are trying to imply that the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom isn't old enough--it was based on the Liturgy of St. Basil, which was based on the Liturgy of St. James. The only thing that changed was they removed a few litanies for times sake.

Click to expand...

I'll spell it out for you then. It is not for the reason mentioned that Evangelicals are drawn towards Orthodoxy.

It is not because they imagine that it is the closest thing to the first century church that can be had today...because it obviously is not. It is because of the history of the church, the doctrines, the beauty and/or majesty of the Divine Liturgy, BUT NOT because it has what is thought to be very close to the original style of Christian worship.

Albion said:

I'll spell it out for you then. It is not for the reason mentioned that Evangelicals are drawn towards Orthodoxy.

It is not because they imagine that it is the closest thing to the first century church that can be had today...because it obviously is not. It is because of the history of the church, the doctrines, the beauty and/or majesty of the Divine Liturgy, BUT NOT because it has what is thought to be very close to the original style of Christian worship.

Click to expand...

Thats simply not true. Firstly the first services were in the synagogues, places of much splendor. Then the catacomb churches. You can read the diadache and see exactly what they were doing. Was it as beautiful? Probably not. But the structure was the same.

☦Marius☦ said:

Thats simply not true. Firstly the first services were in the synagogues, places of much splendor. Then the catacomb churches. You can read the diadache and see exactly what they were doing. Was it as beautiful? Probably not. But the structure was the same.

Click to expand...

Only the structure was the same? Well, no. Not even that. What you are referring to are not even the early Christian ecclesia but the established Jewish synagogues. For a little while, the followers of Christ continued to attend those JEWISH worship services, but then created their own assemblies -- which is what we were talking about on this thread.

Albion said:

Only the structure was the same? Well, no. Not even that. What you are referring to are not even the early Christian ecclesia but the established Jewish synagogues. For a little while, the followers of Christ continued to attend those JEWISH worship services, but then created their own assemblies -- which is what we were talking about on this thread.

Click to expand...

I clearly laid out a before and after did I not? That is still the early church is it not? They were kicked out of the synagogues while the apostles were still alive.