Curious Evangelical Visitor

[dsully]

Hello,

I was baptized in the Presbyterian church and grew up attending church in a rather liberal denomination, the United Church of Christ. After my confirmation I left church for over ten years, though I continued to be interested in religion (I studied Buddhism for a while) and “spirituality.” Five years ago I recommitted myself to Christ and was baptized (again) at a nondenominational Bible church. I am currently a member there, but I am almost at the point of cutting ties and joining a new church.

At different points in my life I have been exposed to Catholicism–through family friends, acquaintances at college, my psychiatrist, and Relevant Radio / E.W.T.N… At one point, I was considering asking about initiation classes, but I never got up the nerve. During my stay at the evangelical church I almost forgot about Catholicism, but not entirely. I am currently interested in it again, but am more than a little bit cautious about moving forward in my investigation. It would be a big change (nobody in my family is Catholic, few of my friends are, I had five years at the bible church, etc.).

The reason I am writing in the eastern Catholicism forum is that my psychiatrist, a Byzantine Catholic, has suggested on two different occasions that I meet up with a priest to become a spiritual director. I am open to having this meeting, but, again, I am very cautious about moving forward in a transition to Roman Catholicism. It seems safer to explore things on my own by reading books and using this forum, but I do admit that at some point I’m going to have to develop some relationships with Catholics.

At this point, a question I have is regarding the status of eastern Catholicism. What is its relationship to the Roman Catholic Church as a whole? Besides the connection I have with my psychiatrist, what reason(s) would there be for me to pursue eastern rite Catholicism as opposed to western? Honestly, the western rite seems a little more familiar and “less intimidating” to me (if that makes sense).

Thanks for your time and for hosting this forum.

In Christ,

Dan

 

[grasscutter]

I’m not educated enough to outline all the differences, but I hated to see your thread just hanging there without response. Have you ever gone to Mass (latin) or Divine Liturgy (eastern)? If you haven’t, you are quite welcome to attend (you just can’t receive Holy Communion). Maybe that would be a good place to start. And certainly, if you can, attend both rites.

I hope you have a blessed Easter!

 

[PatrickSanDiego]

Hi, you will get some good answers on this forum, this is the place. I’m a cradle and devout Roman Catholic, and not really familiar with Eastern Catholicism. I have always just refered to myself as “Catholic”. I just wanted to say something though; you’re probably going to receive a few recommendations on books, I just want to recommend one. Michael Coren’s “Why Catholics Are Right” is very good. I know, it has a puffy title, but he addresses his choice of the title in the book.

Michael Coren wrote it with a sprinkling of humor, wit, and it kept me reading intensily.

Like yourself, Michael Coren had a religious journey, became an Evangelical Christian, then furthered on his journey, antagonized the Catholic Church at one point, but later finally embraced Catholicism.

Being that he is coming from a perspective like yours, you may identlfy with his book very well. The book came out in 2011, is available everywhere (Amazon for $7.00?), is a quick, flowing read, and addresses all the main topics of the Faith, it’s past, and what it’s core is. It’s not exactly as detailed as the Magisterium by no means, but at the “curious” level, it’s going to have plenty of really good facts.

Michael Coren on Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Coren

Good luck on your journey, whatever you decide, love the Lord and pray for the conversion of those that just won’t believe.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

At this point, a question I have is regarding the status of eastern Catholicism. What is its relationship to the Roman Catholic Church as a whole? Besides the connection I have with my psychiatrist, what reason(s) would there be for me to pursue eastern rite Catholicism as opposed to western? Honestly, the western rite seems a little more familiar and “less intimidating” to me (if that makes sense).

Welcome to the forums. I don’t know much, but:

The Eastern Catholic Churches are fully Catholic, in communion with Rome, and believe the same doctrines, etc. Both the Eastern and the Western consider the other people to be completely correct (at least on essential things, there may be differences on non-essentials, but I do not know).

The Eastern Divine Liturgy will look a lot different from the Mass, but is essentially the same thing.

Eastern spirituality may be expressed differently (this is what I’ve heard, I have no personal experience), but has the same basic theological content.

There may be some differences in discipline (rules that are meant to support the faith but aren’t required to exist in the form in which they exist by the faith), but honestly I have no idea what these would be.

The Western stuff may seem more familiar to you, since protestantism came out of the Western Church.

As for reasons to pick one over the other - other than preference, I have no idea.

 

[jmcrae]

Hello,

I was baptized in the Presbyterian church and grew up attending church in a rather liberal denomination, the United Church of Christ. After my confirmation I left church for over ten years, though I continued to be interested in religion (I studied Buddhism for a while) and “spirituality.” Five years ago I recommitted myself to Christ and was baptized (again) at a nondenominational Bible church. I am currently a member there, but I am almost at the point of cutting ties and joining a new church.

For what reason?

At different points in my life I have been exposed to Catholicism–through family friends, acquaintances at college, my psychiatrist, and Relevant Radio / E.W.T.N… At one point, I was considering asking about initiation classes, but I never got up the nerve. During my stay at the evangelical church I almost forgot about Catholicism, but not entirely. I am currently interested in it again, but am more than a little bit cautious about moving forward in my investigation. It would be a big change (nobody in my family is Catholic, few of my friends are, I had five years at the bible church, etc.).

Don’t worry. Jesus promises you many fathers in exchange for your father, many mothers in exchange for your mother, and many brothers and sisters - more than you can count - in exchange for your brothers and sisters. I didn’t believe it, either, but I was happily proven wrong.

The reason I am writing in the eastern Catholicism forum is that my psychiatrist, a Byzantine Catholic, has suggested on two different occasions that I meet up with a priest to become a spiritual director.

Did you mean to say, “to receive spiritual direction”? I find it odd that anyone would suggest to a non-Catholic to become a spiritual director - especially if he is under psychiatric care.

I am open to having this meeting, but, again, I am very cautious about moving forward in a transition to Roman Catholicism. It seems safer to explore things on my own by reading books and using this forum, but I do admit that at some point I’m going to have to develop some relationships with Catholics.

If you join an Inquiry group, it would be a safe place to ask questions, and there would be no pressure to move on to membership classes (although that is an option that will present itself once you have made a certain amount of progress in the Inquiry group).

At this point, a question I have is regarding the status of eastern Catholicism. What is its relationship to the Roman Catholic Church as a whole? Besides the connection I have with my psychiatrist, what reason(s) would there be for me to pursue eastern rite Catholicism as opposed to western?

There are several Eastern Rites in the Catholic Church. People typically choose the one their parents were part of. Under canon law, a child is automatically a member of whichever Rite his father belonged to. If you have a family history that includes any of the Eastern Rites, that would be a reason to choose one of them.

Honestly, the western rite seems a little more familiar and “less intimidating” to me (if that makes sense).

Then feel free to join the Western Rite, if you in fact choose to become a Catholic, ultimately.

My personal experience is that, because the Western Rite is the largest and most common, it’s the easiest to be able to find a parish to attend that is following the Western Rite, and the easiest in terms of “everyone’s doing it” with regard to the laws and precepts of the Church - you don’t have to think, “oh, I’m Eastern Catholic, so I don’t get to do that,” or “Oh, I’m Eastern Catholic, so I can do that, even though nobody else is doing that.”

I know myself well enough that I have a need to fit in with the crowd, which means that the crowd I run with needs to be doing all the things that God requires of me - such as fasting on Good Friday, going to Confession during Lent, preparing for Easter this weekend instead of whenever the Eastern Church will be doing it, etc.

 

[John_of_Patmos]

Look at the early church and its doctrines. What do you see? Catholics.
I would ask the founders of protestantism: “Who are you to question the church fathers?”
Very clearly the church fathers accepted the Real Presence, etc.

Anyway, I would suggest that you to go to an Eastern Catholic priest, who should be very welcoming and kind, and tell him your situation.

 

[crazzeto]

We are in full communion with our Eastern brothers, so this means even if we have a differnet expression (theology), we are the same with regards to doctrine. We confess the same truths. Each Eastern church will have it’s Patriarch, as the Roman Patriach is the Bishop of Rome (Pope).

Our doctrine is similarly settled via a dogmatic proclimation of the Chruch, by council or ex cathedra proclimation (usually by council). There are of course difference, different prayers are stressed. It seems, for instance, the Rosary is not much of an Eastern thing (I would recommend it to all though). I believe and they do have similar devotions, though actual members of those church would have to describe it for you. The liturgies will be different, you can expect Greek at an Eastern service (by and large at least), traditionally in the West we would use Latin but now more often than not the venacular.

A spiritual director is a good idea, if there is an Eastern Parish near by, then I could recommend you explore that. Any good spiritual director will concentrate on helping you come to a deeper understanding of God, and should not apply undo presser to make you convert all at once. I don’t know if Eastern Churches have this mechisim in place, but it might be worth asking if there is something like an RCIA class if you are not ready to take that step. In Roman churches we use this as a means to instruct the curious, and offer them a “safe” as it were environment to explore the faith and not feel like they are being pushed by someone with an agenda. I would also consider asking about this at a near by Eastern Parish (I assume this is the route you are most interested in).

May God bless you!

 

[dsully]

For what reason?

This is a long, complicated, and slightly embarrassing story. I ran into some conflict with one of the pastors of the church (the Worship Pastor, a young man, who is now the Senior Pastor). I have taken responsibility for a lot of the conflict (though I do not think the situation was entirely my fault). That said, I am not interested in continuing to attend the church. I know that Jesus wants us to reconcile with our brother, but I am not wholly comfortable attending. It is hard for me to tell whether this is Christ helping me to take a stand or whether Satan is prompting disunity. In any case, I haven’t attended the church in a couple of months and have been going somewhere else instead. (If you would like me to go into greater detail privately, I would be happy to.)

Did you mean to say, “to receive spiritual direction”? I find it odd that anyone would suggest to a non-Catholic to become a spiritual director - especially if he is under psychiatric care.

Yes, that is what I meant. I apologize for the lack of clarity in my writing.

If you join an Inquiry group, it would be a safe place to ask questions, and there would be no pressure to move on to membership classes (although that is an option that will present itself once you have made a certain amount of progress in the Inquiry group).

There are several Eastern Rites in the Catholic Church. People typically choose the one their parents were part of. Under canon law, a child is automatically a member of whichever Rite his father belonged to. If you have a family history that includes any of the Eastern Rites, that would be a reason to choose one of them.

Then feel free to join the Western Rite, if you in fact choose to become a Catholic, ultimately.

My personal experience is that, because the Western Rite is the largest and most common, it’s the easiest to be able to find a parish to attend that is following the Western Rite, and the easiest in terms of “everyone’s doing it” with regard to the laws and precepts of the Church - you don’t have to think, “oh, I’m Eastern Catholic, so I don’t get to do that,” or “Oh, I’m Eastern Catholic, so I can do that, even though nobody else is doing that.”

I know myself well enough that I have a need to fit in with the crowd, which means that the crowd I run with needs to be doing all the things that God requires of me - such as fasting on Good Friday, going to Confession during Lent, preparing for Easter this weekend instead of whenever the Eastern Church will be doing it, etc.

Thank you for your response.

 

[Roy5]

John of Patmos

Can't resist commenting upon the Church Fathers. I read most of them some years ago. I found that they included considerable wisdom for their era. However, they also wrote so much that struck me as superstition, false information based on primitive cosmological ignorance, and acceptance of Biblical lore that I can't accept (e. g., that God deliberately drowned everybody in the world except Noah and his family) - so much that I found alienating that I would have abandoned Christianity altogether had I not had my faith in Jesus to counterbalance them.

 Most of the Church Fathers - in my view - are not good evangelists for a Christianity that makes sense today. Sorry.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

John of Patmos

Can't resist commenting upon the Church Fathers. I read most of them some years ago. I found that they included considerable wisdom for their era. However, they also wrote so much that struck me as superstition, false information based on primitive cosmological ignorance, and acceptance of Biblical lore that I can't accept (e. g., that God deliberately drowned everybody in the world except Noah and his family) - so much that I found alienating that I would have abandoned Christianity altogether had I not had my faith in Jesus to counterbalance them.

 Most of the Church Fathers - in my view - are not good evangelists for a Christianity that makes sense today. Sorry.

You read most of them? That must have taken years!

 

[Roy5]

Credo ergo sum

Okay, perhaps I didn’t read most of them if you want to include all the ones that nobody reads and very few have heard of. But I read major parts of many/most of the major ones, from Ignatius, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, and John Chrysostom (an anti-Semite if I recall correctly) to Boethus, Cyril of Alexandria, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, etc. I even read those judged to a bit heretical, among them Tertullian and Origen. This was years ago - I am elderly - when I was taking courses in seminary - then reading further on my own. I assume the assignments covered the most significant Fathers and excerpts from their works…I wrote a major thesis on 'Elements of Democracy in the Political Thought of St. Thomas Aquinas." While he was not a Church Father as such, perhaps no work has had more influence upon the church than his Summa - and that influence continues today. An amazing man and writer, However, I was shocked when I came across his response to heretics. The Church should not kill them, he wrote, but should report them to the state which then should execute them. What do you think of that? Sound advice?

 So, I must repeat. These men were quite brilliant for their age, but they lived in an era of gross superstition, serious mistaken beliefs about the universe, and a wide variety of other problems. The result is that their writings reflected some, often many, of the falsehoods and fantasies that were accepted as truths at the time. I don't blame them for that, but it makes them much less than authoritative in my book. I'm not as ready, as many are, to use them to prove very much.

 Happy Easter!

 

[PatrickSanDiego]

Did you mean to say, “to receive spiritual direction”? I find it odd that anyone would suggest to a non-Catholic to become a spiritual director - especially if he is under psychiatric care.

Yes, that is what I meant. I apologize for the lack of clarity in my writing.

You weren’t unclear. I understood it perfectly. I don’t know where jmcrae got that impression. I can understand if you find your answer without the help of this forum. I myself came to this forum because I love my Faith, but lately have reconsidered being a part of this site. My Faith is good, honest, and kind. If someone comes to me asking for help, I help them. I still hope you read that book. But in any case, keep your Faith strong.

 

[crazzeto]

John of Patmos

Can't resist commenting upon the Church Fathers. I read most of them some years ago. I found that they included considerable wisdom for their era. However, they also wrote so much that struck me as superstition, false information based on primitive cosmological ignorance, and acceptance of Biblical lore that I can't accept (e. g., that God deliberately drowned everybody in the world except Noah and his family) - so much that I found alienating that I would have abandoned Christianity altogether had I not had my faith in Jesus to counterbalance them.

 Most of the Church Fathers - in my view - are not good evangelists for a Christianity that makes sense today. Sorry.

Did you read Genisis? God did deliberatly drown everyone in the world except Noah and his family.

 

[Roy5]

Yes, I’ve read Genesis - several times, in fact. I simply cannot believe that God would have drowned everyone but Noah and his family. This would have included young children, even children in the womb. Would that be just? Would they be wicked sinners, too.

 How can pro-life people today honestly believe that God - the God of mercy, forgiveness, and love - deliberately drowned all of humanity except one family? It contradicts the central message of Christ, who focused on the love of God and His quickness to forgive. This Noah story is a fable, probably borrowed from an earlier myth regarding a Gilgamesh, etc. It is likely based upon a mammoth flood  which did cover much of the Middle East. But as for Noah, the animals two by two, etc. - folklore, a story with a moral like one of Aesop's fables, and should be regarded as such.

  I don't know about others, but I can only accept a faith that is reasonable. I simply cannot in good conscience believe the unbelievable. God does not contradict Himself.

 

[crazzeto]

When Israel entered Cannan he also ordered the destruction of all peoples in the land. All peoples in the land, man woman and child. That’s Joshua, in the Pentituch by devine punishment a whole family in Israel is destroyed by being sucked into the ground for rebelian, again in Joshua when after the attack on Jericho (I believe) one of the nation breaks the covenent by taking some worship objects of the land.

We are God’s, and when we knowningly break the law there are consequences. This is true still today, though because now we have eternal damnation as a punishment we tend not to see a this world kind of response.

 

[Trebor135]

Hello,

I was baptized in the Presbyterian church and grew up attending church in a rather liberal denomination, the United Church of Christ. After my confirmation I left church for over ten years, though I continued to be interested in religion (I studied Buddhism for a while) and “spirituality.” Five years ago I recommitted myself to Christ and was baptized (again) at a nondenominational Bible church. I am currently a member there, but I am almost at the point of cutting ties and joining a new church.

At different points in my life I have been exposed to Catholicism–through family friends, acquaintances at college, my psychiatrist, and Relevant Radio / E.W.T.N… At one point, I was considering asking about initiation classes, but I never got up the nerve. During my stay at the evangelical church I almost forgot about Catholicism, but not entirely. I am currently interested in it again, but am more than a little bit cautious about moving forward in my investigation. It would be a big change (nobody in my family is Catholic, few of my friends are, I had five years at the bible church, etc.).

The reason I am writing in the eastern Catholicism forum is that my psychiatrist, a Byzantine Catholic, has suggested on two different occasions that I meet up with a priest to become a spiritual director. I am open to having this meeting, but, again, I am very cautious about moving forward in a transition to Roman Catholicism. It seems safer to explore things on my own by reading books and using this forum, but I do admit that at some point I’m going to have to develop some relationships with Catholics.

At this point, a question I have is regarding the status of eastern Catholicism. What is its relationship to the Roman Catholic Church as a whole? Besides the connection I have with my psychiatrist, what reason(s) would there be for me to pursue eastern rite Catholicism as opposed to western? Honestly, the western rite seems a little more familiar and “less intimidating” to me (if that makes sense).

Thanks for your time and for hosting this forum.

In Christ,

Dan

The Eastern Catholic rites have beautiful liturgies and, because of the much smaller numbers of their members vis-à-vis the Latin Catholic rite, one may find a stronger sense of community, a deeper fidelity to their faith (i.e., less Cafeteria Catholicism), and easier access to the clergy for theological/spiritual direction.

 

[jmcrae]

You weren’t unclear. I understood it perfectly. I don’t know where jmcrae got that impression.

I got it from when he said he had been advised to become a spiritual director. I wanted to clarify what he meant before jumping to conclusions. I’m not actually a mind-reader. I could have assumed that he meant to say something else, but I don’t think that’s fair, either, to simply assume that someone must mean something other than what they obviously said.

 

[lucklove]

http://www.discounthotelbook.com

 

[septimine]

Credo ergo sum

Okay, perhaps I didn’t read most of them if you want to include all the ones that nobody reads and very few have heard of. But I read major parts of many/most of the major ones, from Ignatius, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, and John Chrysostom (an anti-Semite if I recall correctly) to Boethus, Cyril of Alexandria, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, etc. I even read those judged to a bit heretical, among them Tertullian and Origen. This was years ago - I am elderly - when I was taking courses in seminary - then reading further on my own. I assume the assignments covered the most significant Fathers and excerpts from their works…I wrote a major thesis on 'Elements of Democracy in the Political Thought of St. Thomas Aquinas." While he was not a Church Father as such, perhaps no work has had more influence upon the church than his Summa - and that influence continues today. An amazing man and writer, However, I was shocked when I came across his response to heretics. The Church should not kill them, he wrote, but should report them to the state which then should execute them. What do you think of that? Sound advice?

 So, I must repeat. These men were quite brilliant for their age, but they lived in an era of gross superstition, serious mistaken beliefs about the universe, and a wide variety of other problems. The result is that their writings reflected some, often many, of the falsehoods and fantasies that were accepted as truths at the time. I don't blame them for that, but it makes them much less than authoritative in my book. I'm not as ready, as many are, to use them to prove very much.

 Happy Easter!

I don’t quite follow you – I’ve read some on the fathers, and while they wouldn’t be “politically correct” today, I think you have to take some of that as being a part of their political and social situations. Thomas aquinas wrote in the middle ages, and there was no concept of “freedom of religion” every city had a state religion, thus your religion was very much a part of being a good citizen. So when you say turn them over to secular authorities, it was because they had broken State Law, not Church Law. The Church had no authority to execute anyone, and being a heretic was not “criminal”, but at the same time, it would be wrong to hide someone who had broken civil laws.

As far as saying that the Flood didn’t drown everyone, well, it’s in the Bible, thus your aruement is with the Bible, not with the Fathers. The Bible says everyone drowned, so the question is about what Moses meant by that, and how big the world was to Moses. If the evidence points to him meaning “the Globe”, then it must be dealt with on that level.

 

[Roy5]

I don’t quite follow you – I’ve read some on the fathers, and while they wouldn’t be “politically correct” today, I think you have to take some of that as being a part of their political and social situations. Thomas aquinas wrote in the middle ages, and there was no concept of “freedom of religion” every city had a state religion, thus your religion was very much a part of being a good citizen. So when you say turn them over to secular authorities, it was because they had broken State Law, not Church Law. The Church had no authority to execute anyone, and being a heretic was not “criminal”, but at the same time, it would be wrong to hide someone who had broken civil laws.

As far as saying that the Flood didn’t drown everyone, well, it’s in the Bible, thus your aruement is with the Bible, not with the Fathers. The Bible says everyone drowned, so the question is about what Moses meant by that, and how big the world was to Moses. If the evidence points to him meaning “the Globe”, then it must be dealt with on that level.

Two brief responses, A strange way to defend Aquinas and his view on killing heretics. Are you suggesting that it was a good policy, or one that we should accept simply because it was the norm of the times? I presume we could justify slavery etc on the same grounds. Truth and justice don’t change just because societies change. Some could try to justify Hitler because his views were widely shared in Germany in the 30s! Are you saying that the state had the right to murder heretics? Sounds that way.

Now as for the flood, I doubt if Moses had anything to do with that story. The notion that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible were demolished for me when I discovered decades ago the various contradictions, not to mention that those books include the death and burial of Moses. Besides, he is called the ‘meekest’ man in the world there somewhere - hardly what a meek man would write about himself. My suggestion is that you go to a good seminary (Yale, Harvard, Princeton and Duke would qualify) and study the Torah, the JEPD sources, and much more. I promise you that it will open your mind to much exciting knowledge. In any case, my God (‘God is love’) would never drown everyone on earth. To begin with he would hardly repent of creating humanity, then kill everyone - among them children and babies and millions of innocent animals of all kinds. There are just so many problems with this ancient and honorable folklore (likely borrowed from Babylonia) that they aren’t worth wasting time on. We should see it for what it is. Biblical fundamentalists, Catholic and Protestant alike, live in a fantasy world. What do you do with something like II Kings 2:23-25 when God sends two bears to maul 42 children because they teased Elisha about his bald head? I try to be a faithful follower of Christ, but I just can’t bring myself to believe the unbelievable.
God bless everybody with good health, happiness, faith and peace. Let's make religion a bridge and not a barrier.