Do the Orthodox agree with this?

[ByzantineDixie]

It was for the best, as he turned out to be an absolute pig, who, shall we say, didn't let his avowed evangelicalism follow him to the bedroom.

Pig is right!

 

[eoe]

Not Lutheran.. sorry if OT... but my Baptist mother gives me grief about converting. It would be a lie to say that there is no cost associated to conversion.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Hey LCMS Lutheran,

I was snooping around in your posts (I do that when and inquirer intirgues me) and ran across an old thread of yours on Catholic/Lutheran dialogue. There was something that i was confused aobut htere and I tried to respond there just now but it said told me that I must be between 12 and 21 to respond to the thread, so... here's what I tried to post over there.
-----------------------------------

Basically, Jesus uses a metaphor here. Since Jesus says “this is my body . . .this is my blood” (Mt. 26:26-28), I believe he couldn't be speaking literally since He posessed his literal body and blood at that very time. Other examples of these are Gen 49:9 and Lk. 13:31-32.

Also, the fact that Jesus said to take the sacrament "in remembrance" of Him, means that he would not be present physically in the celebration of communion.

I believe I speak on behalf of all Lutherans when I say these things, as these were the ideas of Luther himself.

Sorry, I stumbled on this thread and came across this post. I am a former LCMSer... baptized, catechised (at a Lutheran grade school), confirmed and communed. I was never taught this when I was a Lutheran. i was taugh consubstantiation, but I was taught that that meant that the body and blood of Christ are literally present in with and under the bread and wine. But that the fact that it is Christ's body and blood, literally, was never to be questioned. I was always told, as Luther stated emphatically, "Is is always is." (would that be "Ist ist immer ist!" ? lol).

What is above seems to sound a bit more like a powerful symbol.. perhaps spiriual in nature... but not REALLY is body and blood as Christ seemed to state.

Is there any official LCMS stance on this that I can read. I would like to know if I was taught wrong. If so, I'm thankful that I was, but I would like to knwo so that I do not further misinform people about the beliefs of Lutherans.

John

PS: Perhaps this is why we never bowed to the Eucharist as Lutherans. If the Church doesn't believe it's REALLY Jesus up there... why would ya? But if we did believe that (as I was taught albeit perhaps wrongly so) then, why wouldn't we? Maybe you guys do. All I really knwo is what I learned at my LCMS Church school all my life until my early 20s through what apparently was their interpretation of the Small Catechism.

Thanks in advance for the responses.

 

[orthodoxy]

I was reading an article about the Orthodox and their teachings and I came across this section dealing with the Nicene Creed. My question: Is this statement true? Is that truly why the Orthodox reject the filioque?

The Orthodox reject the filioque because the filioque anchors the Holy Spirit to Jesus. Acceptance of the filioque would be a tacit admission that Jesus Christ is THE definitive revelation of Who the Triune God is.

The "filioque" was added to the Nicene Creed of 381 ad by a spanish priest in the attempt to fight the Arian heresy that denied the divinty of Jesus Christ. This "filioque" heresy confuses the relationship between the persons within the Holy Trinity and changes the nature of God by producing "another jesus". Let us examine the statement made by Jesus Christ concerning this issue.


Jesus said,

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which PROCEEDTH from the Father, he shall testify of me. John 15:26

We can see from this scripture that the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, who testifies of Jesus Christ proceeds from the Father.


Why did Jesus say it this way and not "proceeds from My Father and I"? Or "Me and My Father"? Well because grammerically Jesus was stating the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, alone.


Note that Jesus Christ who is speaking sends the Holy Spirit FROM the Father, here again indicating the origin of the Holy Spirit is completely from the Father.


Look at it this way:


If I compose a letter, a written word, first it proceeds from my thoughts then is written, placed in an organic form. When I write a letter the words proceed from my mind, get placed on paper and is sent "through" the post office to the receiptant. The mind is not the word and the word is not the post office. What I am getting at is that procession defines the identity and divinity of the Holy Spirit as does "only begotteness" that defines the divine nature of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.


However and beyond this we know:

All good gifts come from the Father of Lights James 1:17

We know Jesus Christ is the "only begotten" Son of God who proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Father. (John 1:14, John 1:18)


We know the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son. (John 15:26)


Thus we see the Father is the originator and source of all good gifts. I am certain we agree Jesus Christ is a gift from God. We also can agree the Holy Spirit is a gift thus all good gifts proceed or come from the Father. Here again is a plain indication that the source of unity within the Holy Trinity is the Father.



The Father is unbegotten and unoriginate.


The Son is begotten of the Father.


The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son.


The Father is the source of unity. The Son is not the source of unity. Nor is any connection to the Son as a "source" needed. The Father is the one that draws a man to the Son "through the work" of the Holy Spirit. To change this dynamic relationship within the Godhead is heresy.


This circular heresy is an off shoot of Sabellianism. Oneness pentacostalism that says the Son is the Father based on their "oneness" as will the "filioque" defend the dual procession theology based on the oneness of the Trinity. We cannot be confusing the persons of the Godhead in such a manner.


Can we now say the Holy Spirit is begotten because the Holy Spirit and the Son are one? No, we cannot.


Can we say the Father proceeds from the Son or the Holy Spirit because of their oneness? No, we cannot.


Thus taking the Father's attibute of being the origin of the Holy Spirit and imposing that attibute on the Son is a complete distortion, an imitation of the Son of God, a fabrication, a counterfiet jesus, another jesus.


The Orthodox Church believes that there are numerous ramifications that stem from this "filioque" controversy, both in denying the unique role of the Father as origin, making the Son equal to the Father in this unique role, and thus sublimating the Holy Spirit to the other two Persons of the Trinity.


The Scripture teaches us that the Holy Spirit has a mind, " For he who searches the hearts knows what the MIND of the Spirit is, for HE intercedes for the saints according to the will of God" says St. Paul (Rom.8:27). Note also the word HE. Jesus referred to the “Holy Spirit, the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth” as He and Him. Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit as “another” denoting a separate person other than Himself. Personal pronouns are only used in reference to persons.


The Scripture teaches us that the Holy Spirit has a will. Speaking of spiritual gifts St. Paul says, "But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as HE WILLS." (1Cor.12:11). Holy Scripture attributes all sorts of functions to the Holy Spirit: he teaches, he prays, he comforts, he convicts, he guides, etc. These functions are attributed directly to him, the person of the Holy Spirit.


The Scripture also teaches us that the Holy Spirit has emotions. "Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, that it may give grace to those who hear" (4:29). "And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption" (v.30). Why are we to avoid abusive speech? St. Paul says that a main reason to avoid abusive speech is because we were chrismated in the Holy Spirit so that he lives inside us, and he will be grieved if we use improper language. Have you ever heard of an impersonal force being grieved? Only persons are grieved, and the Holy Spirit is a person. Mind, will, and emotions: The Holy Spirit has them all.

The God within is not some nebulous undefined power that is possessed by all people who claim “belief” as the modern day reformist teaches. This is the doctrine of the books that fill contemporary reformist bookstores, but it is not the Christian doctrine of the Church taught for 2000 years. Rather the "God Within" is specifically the Holy Spirit, and only the baptized christian in the Church possess Him (St. Jn.3:3,5).

While the Holy Spirit is fully God, He is not the Father and He is not the Son. The Father is neither begotten nor does He proceed. The Son is eternally begotten before all ages. The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds before all ages. Each of the persons is co-eternal, but the Father is the fountain and sole-origin of divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit. The Father is the supreme patriarch in the family (1Cor.11:3). The procession of the Holy Spirit is recorded for us in numerous places of Scripture such as St. Jn.15:26, St. Matt.10:20, etc.

Continue in the next post because I guess I got wordy.......

kyril

 

[orthodoxy]

To continue:


Let us take a look at definitions:


Strong's Procession:

pro·ceedth Strongs 1607 ekporeuomal, to depart, be discharged, proceed, project; come forth, come out of, depart, go forth, go out, issue, proceed out of ; Strongs 1537 ek, a primary preposition denoting origin, the point in which motion or action proceeds, proceeding forth from out of a place, time or cause.



Webster’s :


pro·ceed 1 : to come forth from a source : ISSUE a : to continue after a pause or interruption b : to go on in an orderly regulated way 3 a : to begin and carry on an action, process , or movement b : to be in the process of being accomplished

Strong's Send:

Strong's 3992 pempo: a prim. Verb meaning to dispatch

Webster’s :

send 1 : to cause to go: as a : to propel or throw in a particular direction b : DELIVER

2 : to cause to happen <whatever fate may send> 3 : to dispatch by a means of communication

4 a : to direct, order, or request to go b : to permit or enable to attend a term or session <send a daughter to college> c : to direct by advice or reference d : to cause or order to depart : DISMISS
5 a : to force to go : drive away b : to cause to assume a specified state <sent them into a rage>



Sending comes after procession. Sending requires and is based on procession. John 16:7 It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you; but if I depart I will send Him to you." Sending comes after procession because the act of the Son sending the Holy Spirit could not happen until Jesus Christ departed the Earth.



Now, historically the Church confesses the 381 ad Nicene/Constantinople Creed which the entire Church agreed upon and confesses to this day. In this confession the entire Church believes the "Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father". Even the Roman Church for 200 years agreed and confessed this creed until a spanish priest changed it to read "Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father (and the Son). Then over a period of 500 years it infiltrated the western Church until offically in 1054 ad the Roman Church changed the 381 ad Creed itself without consent of the entire Church and violating the below pledge and confession of the entire Church.



The Council Of Ephesus - 431 A.D.

It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy fathers who were gathered together in the holy Spirit at Nicaea. Any who dare to compose or bring forth or produce another creed for the benefit of those who wish to turn from Hellenism or Judaism or some other heresy to the knowledge of the truth, if they are bishops or clerics they should be deprived of their respective charges and if they are laymen they are to be anathematised.

The Council of Chalcedon - 451 AD

The sacred and great and universal synod by God's grace and by decree of your most religious and Christ-loving emperors Valentinian Augustus and Marcian Augustus assembled in Chalcedon, metropolis of the province of Bithynia, in the shrine of the saintly and triumphant martyr Euphemia, issues the following decrees…… Since we have formulated these things with all possible accuracy and attention, the sacred and universal synod decreed that no one is permitted to produce, or even to write down or compose, any other creed or to think or teach otherwise. As for those who dare either to compose another creed or even to promulgate or teach or hand down another creed for those who wish to convert to a recognition of the truth from Hellenism or from Judaism, or from any kind of heresy at all: if they be bishops or clerics, the bishops are to be deposed from the episcopacy and the clerics from the clergy; if they be monks or layfolk, they are to be anathematised.

Now what should have been done was the priest should have been defrocked but that did not happen and the pope eventually did what this priest did and changed the Creed by himself. The Roman bishops throughout time agreed to NOT being able to change the Creed yet he came along in 1054 ad and did just that, change what was not to be changed. Let me ask:



Would America allow one man to change the US Constitution with a disclaimer like this? No, the man would be removed not lauded as a leader of the entire nation. Why should the Church allow this? We as Americans do not that is why the Orthodox stand firm against the heresy of the filioque. The Church cannot stop people from walking away in rebellion even entire sectors of the Church for it is better to cut off a hand...etc.


THE JURISDICTIONALLY:


Here is a major issue. The Creed was composed by an Ecumenical Council of the Church in 381 ad. This Ecumenical Council of hierarchs, according to Scripture and Tradition (Acts 2 and 15), is the ultimate authority for the Church. No one individual has the authority to formulate doctrine which is imposed on the entire Church except an Ecumenical Council of the entire Church. These types of decisions are decisions of the whole Church, not one part of it. No one has the right to amend the confession of an Ecumenical Council except another Ecumenical Council, and no one ever has the prerogative to change the Nicene Creed for the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in AD 431 decreed that the Creed can never be changed. Thus do you see the issue here? It is an issue of power in the Church, and how it is to be exercised. Here the Patriarch of Rome radically set himself apart from the ecclesiology of the historic Church, and from the other four historic patriarchates. The Pope asserted universal jurisdiction over the entire Church by "single-handedly" changing the authoritative statement of faith for the Church. This change was rejected by the four great patriarchates of the Church, and schism ensued. This Roman doctine of papal supremacy as it arose with a vengeance from AD 800 on, and as it was formally codified in 1870 in the First Vatican Council in the establishment of the doctrine of the "Infallibility of the Pope". Papal infallibility stems from this heresy and is a major issue today that keeps Rome and Orthodoxy apart.


This is a major issue in the "Filioque" controversy. What rightfully belongs to the entire Episcopate in General Council has been transferred in the West to one man, the Bishop of Rome. This is why the Orthodox often describe the Pope as the first Protestant. Both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism have taken away the locus of doctrinal authority from the entire Episcopate and the Ecumenical Council, and have placed this doctrinal authority in an individual. The Roman Catholic Church has placed all authority in individual Popes. The Protestant Church has placed all authority in a book with each individual in the laity defining doctrines and confessions. The Orthodox Christian's faith does not believe it lies in his own individual personalized confession at all, but in the confession of the entire Church body, corporate and with one mind.



Now what about the protestants? Well in 1517 ad, a good 400+ years after the Roman Church walked away from the Christian faith found in Orthodoxy, a Roman Catholic priest named Martin Luther came along and protested the rebellious pope leading the Roman Catholic Church.

Did Luther ever deny the filioque heresy? No.

In fact the Lutherans, to this day, along with nearly every protestant sect, confesses the Roman Catholic version and model of the Holy Trinity as God which I have shown to be an imposter, a counterfiet contrived so well that even the protestants with their zealousness against heresy and cults are duped by rome and worship this imposter Godhead. Protestants will defend the Roman Catholic bishop and the filioque confession as truth all the while condemning the Jehovahs Witnesses for their Arianism! Hypocrasy? Oh yea.



So who are we to believe? The Eastern Orthodox Church that to this day has held fast to the traditions and doctrines given by the Saints to the Church, always believed and understood, died for and marytred, up held and protected, by all who claim Jesus Christ as King and God

or

a bishop in rome that created a "new and improved" jesus christ who is not King of Kings and Lord of Lords but is a counterfiet jesus posing as the authentic and original?



One must take great care to hold as true that which has been believed everywhere, always, ands by all.



One must choose who one will worship as God for both cannot co exist in the eternal paradigm called "God".



unworthy servant


kyril

 

[LCMS Lutheran]

Hey LCMS Lutheran,

I was snooping around in your posts (I do that when and inquirer intirgues me) and ran across an old thread of yours on Catholic/Lutheran dialogue. There was something that i was confused aobut htere and I tried to respond there just now but it said told me that I must be between 12 and 21 to respond to the thread, so... here's what I tried to post over there.
-----------------------------------


Sorry, I stumbled on this thread and came across this post. I am a former LCMSer... baptized, catechised (at a Lutheran grade school), confirmed and communed. I was never taught this when I was a Lutheran. i was taugh consubstantiation, but I was taught that that meant that the body and blood of Christ are literally present in with and under the bread and wine. But that the fact that it is Christ's body and blood, literally, was never to be questioned. I was always told, as Luther stated emphatically, "Is is always is." (would that be "Ist ist immer ist!" ? lol).

What is above seems to sound a bit more like a powerful symbol.. perhaps spiriual in nature... but not REALLY is body and blood as Christ seemed to state.

Is there any official LCMS stance on this that I can read. I would like to know if I was taught wrong. If so, I'm thankful that I was, but I would like to knwo so that I do not further misinform people about the beliefs of Lutherans.

John

PS: Perhaps this is why we never bowed to the Eucharist as Lutherans. If the Church doesn't believe it's REALLY Jesus up there... why would ya? But if we did believe that (as I was taught albeit perhaps wrongly so) then, why wouldn't we? Maybe you guys do. All I really knwo is what I learned at my LCMS Church school all my life until my early 20s through what apparently was their interpretation of the Small Catechism.

Thanks in advance for the responses.

You were taught correctly. I attended a WELS school that didn't stick too much to the traditional Lutheran teachings and was taught something different. I obviously don't agree with what I wrote in that post a long time ago anymore. I am embarassed about posting that... make it go away!

 

[orthodoxy]

Quite honestly...what first made me look for something else was a host of problems associated with the Eucharist in the Lutheran (LCMS) church. Open communion, administration of the Sacrament by lay people, plastic individual cups which contain residual Blood of Christ tossed in the trash, denial of infant communion...all of these abuses not only happened in congregations in which I was a member but even the congregations that did not do these things were at a minimum in communion with the ones that did.

What made me interested in Orthodoxy? The visible Church. The Ark of Salvation. I couldn't buy the invisible thing any longer. Too scary not to be absolutely certain whether or not one is in the boat. (And I guess I harbored a romantic notion that if Luther knew then what things would be like today...he would jumped into the Bosphorus and never looked back.)

Amen in red! This was also my issue with protestant "individualism". I never knew for certain which God we all were praying to and worshipping. Was the person next to me worshipping the Arian "god"? the Roman "god"? the Mormon "god"? the Evangelical christian "god"? the ""promise keepers" god? or maybe the "god" I made up in my own mind, declaring a individualized, personalized relationship, calling this creation the image and likeness of God by reading a book only set forth for the corperate Church?

"Who" we worship defines "in the boat".

The liberal cancer of ecumenicalism rampant in the protestant faith will soon be to the Orthodox benifit. We see it happening now in America. The Roman Catholic Church almost bankrupt. Protestantism is on the decline. Orthodoxy is florishing. A flood is soon comming so the Holy Orthodox Church better be prepared.

Posts like your are very edifing to me. Thanks.

kyril

 

[Petronius]

To continue:




............


Now, historically the Church confesses the 381 ad Nicene/Constantinople Creed which the entire Church agreed upon and confesses to this day. In this confession the entire Church believes the "Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father". Even the Roman Church for 200 years agreed and confessed this creed until a spanish priest changed it to read "Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father (and the Son). Then over a period of 500 years it infiltrated the western Church until offically in 1054 ad the Roman Church changed the 381 ad Creed itself without consent of the entire Church and violating the below pledge and confession of the entire Church.



The Council Of Ephesus - 431 A.D.




The Council of Chalcedon - 451 AD

[/font]



Now what should have been done was the priest should have been defrocked but that did not happen and the pope eventually did what this priest did and changed the Creed by himself. The Roman bishops throughout time agreed to NOT being able to change the Creed yet he came along in 1054 ad and did just that, change what was not to be changed. Let me ask:



Would America allow one man to change the US Constitution with a disclaimer like this? No, the man would be removed not lauded as a leader of the entire nation. Why should the Church allow this? We as Americans do not that is why the Orthodox stand firm against the heresy of the filioque. The Church cannot stop people from walking away in rebellion even entire sectors of the Church for it is better to cut off a hand...etc.


THE JURISDICTIONALLY:


Here is a major issue. The Creed was composed by an Ecumenical Council of the Church in 381 ad. This Ecumenical Council of hierarchs, according to Scripture and Tradition (Acts 2 and 15), is the ultimate authority for the Church. No one individual has the authority to formulate doctrine which is imposed on the entire Church except an Ecumenical Council of the entire Church. These types of decisions are decisions of the whole Church, not one part of it. No one has the right to amend the confession of an Ecumenical Council except another Ecumenical Council, and no one ever has the prerogative to change the Nicene Creed for the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in AD 431 decreed that the Creed can never be changed. Thus do you see the issue here? It is an issue of power in the Church, and how it is to be exercised. Here the Patriarch of Rome radically set himself apart from the ecclesiology of the historic Church, and from the other four historic patriarchates. The Pope asserted universal jurisdiction over the entire Church by "single-handedly" changing the authoritative statement of faith for the Church. This change was rejected by the four great patriarchates of the Church, and schism ensued. This Roman doctine of papal supremacy as it arose with a vengeance from AD 800 on, and as it was formally codified in 1870 in the First Vatican Council in the establishment of the doctrine of the "Infallibility of the Pope". Papal infallibility stems from this heresy and is a major issue today that keeps Rome and Orthodoxy apart.


This is a major issue in the "Filioque" controversy. What rightfully belongs to the entire Episcopate in General Council has been transferred in the West to one man, the Bishop of Rome. This is why the Orthodox often describe the Pope as the first Protestant. Both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism have taken away the locus of doctrinal authority from the entire Episcopate and the Ecumenical Council, and have placed this doctrinal authority in an individual. The Roman Catholic Church has placed all authority in individual Popes. The Protestant Church has placed all authority in a book with each individual in the laity defining doctrines and confessions. The Orthodox Christian's faith does not believe it lies in his own individual personalized confession at all, but in the confession of the entire Church body, corporate and with one mind.



Now what about the protestants? Well in 1517 ad, a good 400+ years after the Roman Church walked away from the Christian faith found in Orthodoxy, a Roman Catholic priest named Martin Luther came along and protested the rebellious pope leading the Roman Catholic Church.

Did Luther ever deny the filioque heresy? No.

In fact the Lutherans, to this day, along with nearly every protestant sect, confesses the Roman Catholic version and model of the Holy Trinity as God which I have shown to be an imposter, a counterfiet contrived so well that even the protestants with their zealousness against heresy and cults are duped by rome and worship this imposter Godhead. Protestants will defend the Roman Catholic bishop and the filioque confession as truth all the while condemning the Jehovahs Witnesses for their Arianism! Hypocrasy? Oh yea.



So who are we to believe? The Eastern Orthodox Church that to this day has held fast to the traditions and doctrines given by the Saints to the Church, always believed and understood, died for and marytred, up held and protected, by all who claim Jesus Christ as King and God

or

a bishop in rome that created a "new and improved" jesus christ who is not King of Kings and Lord of Lords but is a counterfiet jesus posing as the authentic and original?



One must take great care to hold as true that which has been believed everywhere, always, ands by all.



One must choose who one will worship as God for both cannot co exist in the eternal paradigm called "God".



unworthy servant


kyril

A very good job Kyril "!!! Amazing !!! Congratulations !!!

 

[Xpycoctomos]

You were taught correctly. I attended a WELS school that didn't stick too much to the traditional Lutheran teachings and was taught something different. I obviously don't agree with what I wrote in that post a long time ago anymore. I am embarassed about posting that... make it go away!

I apologize for digging up the apst. I tryly didn't do it to embarass you. I am glad to hear that what I was taught is also how you understand the LCMS position to be. I honestly just wanted to be sure... it wasn't to stump ya or anything like that.

Thanks for answering my question.

John

 

[LCMS Lutheran]

I apologize for digging up the apst. I tryly didn't do it to embarass you. I am glad to hear that what I was taught is also how you understand the LCMS position to be. I honestly just wanted to be sure... it wasn't to stump ya or anything like that.

Thanks for answering my question.

John

Not a problem!

 

[Ragamuffins]

Free food after liturgy.

Not really . . . we had that at the Lutheran Church.

For me it was Church history and a trip to Russia.

We had that at the Baptist church as well. The food after the liturgy on sunday was all for sale...

 

[Mary of Bethany]

We had that at the Baptist church as well. The food after the liturgy on sunday was all for sale...

Sorry to hear that, Bud.

At our parish, we generally have a full meal after Liturgy, with everyone bringing in "pot luck". It's such a great time for fellowship, and no one's in a hurry to leave.

Mary

 

[Kolya]

The food after the liturgy on sunday was all for sale...

IS OUTRAGE!!! Food after DL should be good home made pot-luck!!!

That parish must be very hard up for funds!

 

[Prawnik]

Orthodoxy: don't hold back. Tell us you you really feel.

For what it's worth, I was raised Lutheran, not the LCMS but the watered-down, Episcopalianism Lite variety. Thanks to the ELCA, I spent many years not knowing what my beliefs were, but knowing very well what I wasn't.

Don't get too hung up on the food. Here we don't eat together after DL.

 

[MariaRegina]

We had that at the Baptist church as well. The food after the liturgy on sunday was all for sale...

A lot of churches in my area also have weekly luncheons with a donation, whatever you can afford, be it one dollar or twenty.

Each family is asked to donate food on a planned schedule (maybe twice a year), which is then offered to the community.

Sometimes the Ladies' Societies take care of this need, sharing the financial burden among themselves. And the food for one Sunday Divine Liturgy can range from $100 to $1000 depending on the food and the vendors chosen.

There is a health law which is being enforced in some areas, which forbids pot luck dinners as some people have become sick and died especially when potato salad, chicken salad, and egg salads are not properly prepared and refrigerated.

That is why potluck dinners are frowned upon in my area.

Of course, it helps when many parishioners have Greek or Arabic restaurants.

 

[orthodoxy]

Orthodoxy: don't hold back. Tell us you you really feel.

For what it's worth, I was raised Lutheran, not the LCMS but the watered-down, Episcopalianism Lite variety. Thanks to the ELCA, I spent many years not knowing what my beliefs were, but knowing very well what I wasn't.

Don't get too hung up on the food. Here we don't eat together after DL.

I could candy coat things but that would be dishonest.

I spent many years not knowing what my beliefs were, but knowing very well what I wasn't.

I think were are all delusional to a certain extent even in the Orthodox faith.

My only motive is to see everyone "become orthodox".

unworthy servant,

kyril

 

[orthodoxy]

Aria,

Each family is asked to donate food on a planned schedule (maybe twice a year), which is then offered to the community.

This is how we do it with a collection plate which funds are given to the sisters association that provides the plates and cups and such. Once a month (the last sunday) we have "pot luck" where everyone is to bring something and the collection plate funds given to some missionaries at project mexico we support.

It is all voluntary and one can stay or leave as one wishes.

In Christ,

kyril

 

[ufonium2]

Hey thanks for the welcomeeveryone!!
Were any of you former LCMSers a part of the '40 Days of Purpose Campaign' in your churches before you left?

I remember a couple of years ago when my parents' (Presbyterian) church decided to do the '40 days of purpose' during the 40 days before Easter. My dad was like, "Hey, know what else we could do then instead? Lent." He's really unpopular there. Then again, this is the same church where the yearly (no, really) communion didn't happen because the guy who was supposed to bring it forgot.