Church Shopping

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Dandy,
Thanks for your post. I agree with parts of it. And yes, logistically it is much more challenging to do ANYTHING with Catholics since they are a much larger body than Anglicans or Lutherans etc. But I will say that the Assembly of God Church in our town is actually LARGER than the Catholics and they have an outstanding fellowship system after their many many services. They actually are HUGE in scope and the people are more enthusiastic and organized to do it. If Catholics want to do it, they will. If they don’t want to, excuses about size will be made. It’s pretty simple. And I do think we need to get to know one another and if there are visitors, they should feel welcome not only at Mass, but for some fellowship afterward. That all being said, no, I’m not desiring to join the Assembly of God, TRUST ME. And I’m never ever going to tell you that it’s NOT about the Worship. Worship is always paramount and the heart of Church, that’s a no-brainer. We agree.

As far as your specificity about which group of Anglicans you’re trying to insult and label, LOL, I think it didn’t do much to make it look more charitable. I don’t think ANY Anglican group wants to be labelled a bunch of wannabe imitation morons any more than you want to be called a mary-worshipping idolator and a papist pope-worshiper who prays to saints more than Jesus. I loathe the anti-Catholic labels. I just hate to see my Anglican brothers mocked, too. Convert them with arguments, good point, history, and theology, not mockery. Doesn’t matter which group we’re talking about. That’s like saying, “I wasn’t meaning to use the “n” word on the light black folks, just the dark ones”

You say that I don’t know what “fellowshipping” is – I spent many unfortunate years as a Southern Baptist, where fellowshipping is de rigeur. A sermon, a song, and puhlenty of “fellowshipping” is the Protestant definition of “worship” – at least in non-liturgical ecclesial communities.

I said Catholics “fellowship” in the service organizations. They do not “fellowship” in Church. Many Catholic parishes are huge – 2,000 families or more – and there is a choice of the Masses one can attend. There is no way to tell a visitor from a member of the parish.

I’m not opposed to social events after Mass – except it leads to a parking problem for those coming to the following Mass. If I’m there at 7:30 and another Mass starts at 9, the parking lot needs to empty after the earlier Mass – otherwise, there is no place to park so that WORSHIP may occur. On Sunday mornings, Mass is non-stop at large parishes. 7:30, 9, 10:30, 12, 1:30, 5:30 in my parish. No way to accommodate socials after Mass. And no way to tell visitors from parishioners.

In most Catholic Churches, fellowshipping is done in small-group settings – and if it’s fellowshipping you want, you’ll find plenty of it.

And if you want to be responsible for a parish get-together some time that would not interfere with the schedule of Masses, the priest would have no objections. He’d put the announcement in the bulletin. But don’t expect him to be in charge – he’s a busy guy. My parish has breakfast once a month during the winter months (summer is too hot), cooked and served by the Dad’s Club. The breakfast raises funds for the school.

The Latin Mass community has potluck once a month – organized by the congregtion themselves – but they are a small group with one Mass on Sundays, so they all know each other, which is impossible in many large parishes.

My comment about Anglicans does not apply to “low church” (evangelical) or “broad church” (liberal) Anglicans, but to those who style themselves “Anglo-Catholics.” Sorry I didn’t clarify that.

Socializing is nice, but IT’S THE MASS THAT MATTERS.

Jim Dandy

 

[ImReallyNice]

Good homilies. I find that a priest who can really grab me and keep me into it is a good thing.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PRmerger: I wasn’t saying that everyone is correct, although I hold it as a possibility. I was more interested in the idea of creating God in ones own image. I think everyone does that to some extent, because everyone probably has a somewhat different image that pops up in their heads when they think of God, even if they share the exact same theologies.

That’s an interesting point, Sufjon. Yes, I am certain that everyone has a somewhat different image of God–a finite mind must try to grasp the Infinite in some manner, no matter how crudely.

Since anything we can conjure up in our heads is a product of His handiwork in some way, it would be hard for me to say that any of them are wrong.

Hmmm…how is this? Anything we can conjure up in our heads is a product of His handiwork? Could you please expound?

 

[Sufjon]

That’s an interesting point, Sufjon. Yes, I am certain that everyone has a somewhat different image of God–a finite mind must try to grasp the Infinite in some manner, no matter how crudely.

Hmmm…how is this? Anything we can conjure up in our heads is a product of His handiwork? Could you please expound?

Hi PRmerger: Yes, I can explain, but I have to point out that this is only my point of view. It isn’t qualified in any way. I have reasoned that since God owns all of the matter in the universe, and assembles it into this thing or that according to His own design, the manner in which they operate must too be products of His handiwork. In this case, our minds, and the way they operate down to the electrical and chemical synapses involved in the thought process are His too, in that He owns the matter and the design that are the enablers for them to produce what we call a thought. Because of this, my sense is that nothing we can do is entirely independent or self referential. They are so tightly infused with and dependent on the Creator, that it’s hard for me to tell what part or portion of it is actually ours. If any of it is ours, then His handiwork also made it possible to be ours, and from there I find it hard to see anything that is not an expression of His handiwork in some regard. That’s my attempt at an explanation, but it’s only what I think, so it’s not a challenge to what anyone else might think. You’d also have to consider that since I’m agnostic, it’s all hypothetical to me at this point, but it’s sincerely my intent to find the answers I need to change that at some point.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PRmerger: Yes, I can explain, but I have to point out that this is only my point of view. It isn’t qualified in any way. I have reasoned that since God owns all of the matter in the universe,

Fair enough.

and assembles it into this thing or that according to His own design, the manner in which they operate must too be products of His handiwork. In this case, our minds, and the way they operate down to the electrical and chemical synapses involved in the thought process are His too, in that He owns the matter and the design that are the enablers for them to produce what we call a thought.

Yes, I’m with you…

Because of this, my sense is that nothing we can do is entirely independent or self referential. They are so tightly infused with and dependent on the Creator, that it’s hard for me to tell what part or portion of it is actually ours. If any of it is ours, then His handiwork also made it possible to be ours, and from there I find it hard to see anything that is not an expression of His handiwork in some regard.

Yes. This is quite Catholic of you to say! Beginning with the Scriptures, through St. Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm and right up through to Pope B16…you’re in with good company, eh?

That’s my attempt at an explanation, but it’s only what I think, so it’s not a challenge to what anyone else might think. You’d also have to consider that since I’m agnostic, it’s all hypothetical to me at this point, but it’s sincerely my intent to find the answers I need to change that at some point.

Indeed.

So if everything one can conjure up is, in one sense, a product of His handiwork, in that all our existence is held in His very breath, all of creation exists in His Word, is there another sense in which one can conjure up a thought that’s independent and contrary to God’s essence?

That is, let’s take the universal example of evil: the Holocaust–was that also a product of His handiwork?

 

[Martin_Davis]

As a former “church shopper” par excellence - I feel that I’m qualified to say that if you are looking for a church that entertains, that has “relevant” teaching - where everyone is casual and the pastor wears Hawaiian shirts and jeans, with cup holders on the pews…the Catholic Church is not the place for you!

The Catholic Church is liturgical in nature, which means that worship is the “work of the people” - and it is focused on God and not the entertainment of the congregation.

I became a Christian in a seeker-friendly “megachurch” and I thank God for that - but after a while I began to study the history of the church, and realized that the “socially friendly” church that I was attending was not serving God, but delivering Christian “entertainment.”

The Catholic Church was my choice, not my preference.

If you desire milk and not solid food then keep shopping - there’s over 30,000 denominations that serve all different flavors of milk - but only one church that serves solid food - the very body and blood of Christ. That would be the Church that Jesus formed at the beginning.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It’s 30,000 today? The other day I read on here 26,000 and then 44,000 and even 12,000. Those splintering schismatic heretics are like the stock market if you follow this forum!

As a former “church shopper” par excellence - I feel that I’m qualified to say that if you are looking for a church that entertains, that has “relevant” teaching - where everyone is casual and the pastor wears Hawaiian shirts and jeans, with cup holders on the pews…the Catholic Church is not the place for you!

The Catholic Church is liturgical in nature, which means that worship is the “work of the people” - and it is focused on God and not the entertainment of the congregation.

I became a Christian in a seeker-friendly “megachurch” and I thank God for that - but after a while I began to study the history of the church, and realized that the “socially friendly” church that I was attending was not serving God, but delivering Christian “entertainment.”

The Catholic Church was my choice, not my preference.

If you desire milk and not solid food then keep shopping - there’s over 30,000 denominations that serve all different flavors of milk - but only one church that serves solid food - the very body and blood of Christ. That would be the Church that Jesus formed at the beginning.

 

[Soldier_X]

It’s 30,000 today? The other day I read on here 26,000 and then 44,000 and even 12,000. Those splintering schismatic heretics are like the stock market if you follow this forum!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The Dow Jones Protestant Denominational Average fell today by 10,000 after investors became nervous about Arminian theology. Calvinist TULIP stocks rose by 12 points but analysts are counting more on hedge funds for Serbian Orthodox firms…

 

[Bluegoat]

As a former “church shopper” par excellence - I feel that I’m qualified to say that if you are looking for a church that entertains, that has “relevant” teaching - where everyone is casual and the pastor wears Hawaiian shirts and jeans, with cup holders on the pews…the Catholic Church is not the place for you!

The Catholic Church is liturgical in nature, which means that worship is the “work of the people” - and it is focused on God and not the entertainment of the congregation.

I became a Christian in a seeker-friendly “megachurch” and I thank God for that - but after a while I began to study the history of the church, and realized that the “socially friendly” church that I was attending was not serving God, but delivering Christian “entertainment.”

The Catholic Church was my choice, not my preference.

If you desire milk and not solid food then keep shopping - there’s over 30,000 denominations that serve all different flavors of milk - but only one church that serves solid food - the very body and blood of Christ. That would be the Church that Jesus formed at the beginning.

Now, this leads to an interesting problem. Presumably, as a Catholic, you’d like all those mega-church people to join the CC. But then there would be no group which could attract those new to Christianity and unable to make the leap to Catholicism!

It seems pretty clear to me that missionary work, including in the West, is very important, and that means finding a way to speak to people directly.

A question that might be helpful is how was this accomplished in the early years of Christianity? The current situation is not quite the same - I suspect liturgy was much more intelligible to those people - but OTOH Christianity was quite new.

I think an important point is that those communities were small, and personal. I can’t help but think the huge parishes of thousands are not a great thing.

 

[PRmerger]

If you desire milk and not solid food then keep shopping - there’s over 30,000 denominations that serve all different flavors of milk - but only one church that serves solid food - the very body and blood of Christ. That would be the Church that Jesus formed at the beginning.

My opinion is the number is actually much higher than 30,000 denominations.

Many will challenge this “30,000 denominations” figure but will be unable to provide their own figure (with statistics to back it up) as to what they believe is the actual number of Christian denominations.

So, while 30,000 or 40,000 may not be accurate, no one else can provide any better source than this one: bringyou.to/apologetics/a106.htm,
methodological flaws notwithstanding.

 

[JonNC]

=Jim Dandy;7023227]You say that I don’t know what “fellowshipping” is – I spent many unfortunate years as a Southern Baptist, where fellowshipping is de rigeur. A sermon, a song, and puhlenty of “fellowshipping” is the Protestant definition of “worship” --** at least in non-liturgical ecclesial communities**.

I appreciate you pointing out the difference in the bolded. It is pointed out here at CAF ad nauseum that there are many protestant communions, so one can’t make blanket statements. So, I prefer not to make claims regarding the reverence of others’ style of worship.

My comment about Anglicans does not apply to “low church” (evangelical) or “broad church” (liberal) Anglicans, but to those who style themselves “Anglo-Catholics.” Sorry I didn’t clarify that.

I think Gurney’s complaint revolves around the adjective “imitation”. I don’t believe Anglo-Catholics consider themselves imitation Catholics, anymore than evangelical Catholics such as me do. We consider ourselves catholic, not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, but members of the Church Catholic.

Jon

 

[Sufjon]

So if everything one can conjure up is, in one sense, a product of His handiwork, in that all our existence is held in His very breath, all of creation exists in His Word, is there another sense in which one can conjure up a thought that’s independent and contrary to God’s essence?

That is, let’s take the universal example of evil: the Holocaust–was that also a product of His handiwork?

Hi PRmerger: I really don’t know. I’ve thought about it often. You mentioned the Holocaust , and that’s a good place to start. Firstly, do I think that most people, including myself are better than Heinrich Himmler? Yes. Are we better than the guards at those extermination camps? We’d like to think so, but studies like the Stanford prison experiment and the Milgram obedience studies suggest that we are probably kidding ourselves in that regard. We seem to have an innate ability or even proclivity toward such behavior, given the right circumstances. It seems to be in our design, and who is our designer? Our designer is not evil, but I wonder if good can exist without bad? No long without short, no pretty without ugly. It seems to be the nature of the cosmos that nothing is self-referential or independent of their opposites, and all of this in turn is in a constant state of flux. Without evil, how could there be an opposite? Are good and bad only human values ascribed to what is otherwise a natural event? Let me explain. The collision of planets, explosions of stars, mass extinctions – they are all terrible events in our estimation, although somewhat dependent on their proximity to the observer. Such events close by would be terrible beyond imagination. But these very events, while destructive in their nature, are prerequisites to the subsequent creation of the next thing, and the next, and so on. That is how we are here. Without the destruction of one thing and the creation of the next, or the decay and death of one thing, everything stops. There is no more of anything.
My guess is that what we see as evil is in the design. If the designer were to be perfect, and this is what we presume, nothing could occur without the express intent of the designer for it to occur. Otherwise the designer is imperfect, and we presume t hat the designer is not. If the designer knows all things, then it follows that the designer not only knows of the potential for the Holocaust to happen, but also knew when and how it would happen countless billions of years before the development of the planet on which it happened. He would also know specifically who would be the perpetrators and who would be the victims. How much free will is there if we are playing out what was known or encoded in the sequence of events before there was a sequence of events? If they were not known, then the Creator didn’t know. It’s almost a tangled hierarchy. So then yes, I see His handiwork in everything if He is as we suppose Him to be. This is how my mind reasons it. Perhaps it only means that there are flaws in our understanding of things. Either way, it isn’t settling.

References:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

home.swbell.net/revscat/perilsOfObedience.html

Thanks!
Sufjon

 

[Jim_Dandy]

I think Gurney’s complaint revolves around the adjective “imitation”. I don’t believe Anglo-Catholics consider themselves imitation Catholics, anymore than evangelical Catholics such as me do. We consider ourselves catholic, not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, but members of the Church Catholic.

Jon

Sorry, Jon. There is only one Catholic Church (or Church Catholic), whose head is the Bishop of Rome. “Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans. A.D. 107.

When the president of the Evangelical Theological Society, Francis J. Beckwith, resigned and and came home, he wrote a book, Return to Rome: Confessions of an Evangelical Catholic (Brazos Press, 2009).

Love your name. My only son’s name is Jon.

Jim Dandy

 

[JonNC]

=Jim Dandy;7027916]Sorry, Jon. There is only one Catholic Church (or Church Catholic), whose head is the Bishop of Rome. “Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans. A.D. 107.

Of course, Jim, I would expect this to be your view. I’m neither offended by it, nor do I believe in that narrow definition of Christ’s Church. Certainly, the Bishop of Rome is a (in many ways “the”) central figure in His Church, though not being in communion with him does not exclude me from the Church, nor does it make me less catholic.

When the president of the Evangelical Theological Society, Francis J. Beckwith, resigned and and came home, he wrote a book, Return to Rome: Confessions of an Evangelical Catholic (Brazos Press, 2009).

Bechwith was not Lutheran, was he? I admittedly don’t know much about him. I suspect his usage of the term evangelical Catholic is different than mine.

Love your name. My only son’s name is Jon.

Thanks, Jim. Mom hates that I use the name, as she says, “I named you Jonathan”! lol

Jon

 

[Jim_Dandy]

My opinion is the number is actually much higher than 30,000 denominations.

Many will challenge this “30,000 denominations” figure but will be unable to provide their own figure (with statistics to back it up) as to what they believe is the actual number of Christian denominations.

So, while 30,000 or 40,000 may not be accurate, no one else can provide any better source than this one: bringyou.to/apologetics/a106.htm,
methodological flaws notwithstanding.

Thanks for the link! I own the World Christian Encyclopedia – paid about $200 for it in 2001. But this website has everything I need in a much more user-friendly form. For free.

I agree that there are many more denominations than are represented here. See Newsweek, April 16, 2001, “The Changing Face of the Church,” by Kenneth L. Woodward.

Much obliged, PRmerger!

This is Sola Scriptura at work. What hath Luther wrought? These thousands of denominations are the consequence of separating the Catholic Church from her Book.

Jim Dandy

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PRmerger: I really don’t know. I’ve thought about it often. You mentioned the Holocaust , and that’s a good place to start. Firstly, do I think that most people, including myself **are better than **Heinrich Himmler? Yes. Are we better than the guards at those extermination camps? We’d like to think so, but studies like the Stanford prison experiment and the Milgram obedience studies suggest that we are probably kidding ourselves in that regard. We seem to have an innate ability or even proclivity toward such behavior, given the right circumstances.

Christianity teaches that we are no better, and no worse, than the “worst” sinner in creation.

It seems to be in our design, and who is our designer?

We also disagree here. It was NOT in the design that we are how we are, with that “proclivity towards such behavior” (the Catholic term for this is concupiscence). The Designer designed us to be made in His Image, but our choice messed it all up.

My guess is that what we see as evil is in the design. If the designer were to be perfect, and this is what we presume, nothing could occur without the express intent of the designer for it to occur.

Now, here is where you become Catholic again in your thinking.

God took what we see as the greatest evil—the killing of Jesus, the Word became Flesh-and made it the greatest good.

If the designer knows all things, then it follows that the designer not only knows of the potential for the Holocaust to happen, but also knew when and how it would happen countless billions of years **before the development **of the planet on which it happened.

The simple answer to this is: God is eternal. So there is no “potential” and “to happen” and “before the development”. There is only the Eternal Now.

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks for the link! I own the World Christian Encyclopedia – paid about $200 for it in 2001. But this website has everything I need in a much more user-friendly form. For free.

I agree that there are many more denominations than are represented here. See Newsweek, April 16, 2001, “The Changing Face of the Church,” by Kenneth L. Woodward.

Much obliged, PRmerger!

This is Sola Scriptura at work. What hath Luther wrought? These thousands of denominations are the consequence of separating the Catholic Church from her Book.

Jim Dandy

Just so you know, whenever you refer to that website in future threads, be prepared for a multitude of non-Catholics to point out that the reference lists 242 Catholic denominations, which, in their estimation, dismisses the entire validity of the statistic. (Apparently, Barrett inexplicably counted the Catholic Church as a separate denomination in 242 different countries).

I don’t understand why people just don’t say, “Ok, I’ll just subtract 241 from the total (which today is, sadly, 41, 903, according to the counter at the bottom of the page) to get a more accurate accounting”…but what do I know?

You can always challenge their challenge with, “If 40,000 is incorrect, what is the *correct *number of Christian denominations, and how do you know? Please cite your source”.

So far, no one has provided me with a valid alternative, with source, to the 40,000 number.

And, really, even if it’s actually “only” 12,000 and not 40,000, it’s still a great argument against the non-Scriptural “The Holy Spirit will lead me to the correct interpretation of Scripture” paradigm.

 

[Bluegoat]

Just so you know, whenever you refer to that website in future threads, be prepared for a multitude of non-Catholics to point out that the reference lists 242 Catholic denominations, which, in their estimation, dismisses the entire validity of the statistic. (Apparently, Barrett inexplicably counted the Catholic Church as a separate denomination in 242 different countries).

I don’t understand why people just don’t say, “Ok, I’ll just subtract 241 from the total (which today is, sadly, 41, 903, according to the counter at the bottom of the page) to get a more accurate accounting”…but what do I know?

You can always challenge their challenge with, “If 40,000 is incorrect, what is the *correct *number of Christian denominations, and how do you know? Please cite your source”.

So far, no one has provided me with a valid alternative, with source, to the 40,000 number.

And, really, even if it’s actually “only” 12,000 and not 40,000, it’s still a great argument against the non-Scriptural “The Holy Spirit will lead me to the correct interpretation of Scripture” paradigm.

If they made such a mistake about Catholicism, why accept their report on Protestants? The reason people point this out is because it poses questions about the methodology of how they are counting. If they have separated the Catholic Church into soi many groups, have they done the same with others? Do they divide the Orthodox into many groups, which is not how they understand themselves? Anglicans? Other Protestants?

This also points to a more difficult point - because of the way Protestant ecclesiology works, one could have two groups with identical doctrine and practice, in two areas of the world, and they might have different names and governors. From their POV, that is ok - the Church is realized in local bodies, and governance is understood to be at the local level. From this perspective, counting them as separate denominations is like counting each congregation as a denomination!

This just isn’t really a very sophisticated or useful way to criticize non-Catholic groups.

 

[Sufjon]

We also disagree here. It was NOT in the design that we are how we are, with that “proclivity towards such behavior” (the Catholic term for this is concupiscence). The Designer designed us to be made in His Image, but our choice messed it all up.

/QUOTE]

Thanks as usual for the response. PRmerger. I wonder about this part. Goes back to the free will thing. I wonder how much of that there really is. Seems to me that there is less of that than we commonly think, but that’s just me again.

Thanks again!