Differences in protestant services -- how many use some ceremony?

The_Reginator

The_Reginator

Active member
I know that there is no such thing as "The Protestant Church", unlike "The Catholic Church", BUT I'm curious about the varieties of protestant services.

MY ACTUAL QUESTION:
How many protestant churches practice some degree of ritual or ceremony in their Sunday services?

I know that Anglicans use a lot of ceremony in their "Matins" and "Eucharistic" services. I'm GUESSING that Lutherans do as well. After having access to the Internet I found some talk about the Methodists possibly leaning more toward the Catholic side rather than the evangelical ways of worship. I really know nothing about them though.

The following is just some of my background ... not REALLY necessary in answering my inquiry, but POSSIBLY of use in understanding where I'm coming from:
I grew up as a "low church" Anglican. In university, although surrounded by many evangelical-type protestants, I was becoming more and more Catholic in my beliefs. When my Catholic wife-to-be had to tell her father what religion I was, I made up what I thought was a new "designation": I told her to say that I was an "Anglo-Catholic'. (After attending Sunday Mass with her for almost 15 years I finally came home to the Catholic Church when I was 38 years old.)

As a Cub Scout, around about the age of 8-10, we went to a United Church as a group one Sunday. It was all very confusing to me. There was no "order of service" as they called it in the Anglican church back then (at least). A decade or more later I found that the nearest church to my university was a Pentecostal church, so I went there for a bit. Now THAT was a shock.

- Reg
 
Anglicans are all over the place in their relative resemblance to Catholicism. Some Anglican liturgies are very close to the TLM if it were in English. Their 1928 BCP contains a Eucharistic liturgy that has a very stern warning about receiving the Body and Blood unworthily. If there had to be any changes made to the Catholic Mass, I would welcome something such as this.

I can't speak so much for Lutherans, but from what I understand, they are fairly conservative in their liturgies.

Methodists are probably more similar to "low church" Anglicans, indeed, that is kind of how they started out. There is a definite order of service. I was surprised to learn not too long ago, that they believe in a kind of "real presence" for their Eucharist, though obviously they do not possess it, as they lack both valid orders and a priesthood. IOW, it is more to them than merely a symbol.
 
It is nowhere near liturgy as I know it, but the various flavors of Pentecostal churches in my area always follow the same pattern.
  • First they have Sunday School.
  • Then they have some kind of song service
  • Then they take up some kind of collection. The children are encouraged here to do some kind of 'penny march' to try and collect spare change from people.
  • Then they have the message from the pastor or some guest preacher.
    • NOTE - this message can and often is interrupted by various acts of God, (healing, prayer in tongues, general excitement)
    • Also note that the more charismatic the preacher is, the more often the crowd sees these interruptions. Not certain if it is a causal relationship or a corollary.
  • And this is followed by some kind of social function (potluck dinner).

The entirety takes a few hours.

I am amazed at their preachers. The pressure must be enormous to have an hours long message upwards of three times a week.
 
vz71 said:
It is nowhere near liturgy as I know it, but the various flavors of Pentecostal churches in my area always follow the same pattern.
  • First they have Sunday School.
  • Then they have some kind of song service
  • Then they take up some kind of collection. The children are encouraged here to do some kind of 'penny march' to try and collect spare change from people.
  • Then they have the message from the pastor or some guest preacher.
    • NOTE - this message can and often is interrupted by various acts of God, (healing, prayer in tongues, general excitement)
    • Also note that the more charismatic the preacher is, the more often the crowd sees these interruptions. Not certain if it is a causal relationship or a corollary.
  • And this is followed by some kind of social function (potluck dinner).

The entirety takes a few hours.

I am amazed at their preachers. The pressure must be enormous to have an hours long message upwards of three times a week.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that is my experience from decades of Pentecostal and Baptist worship. There is a liturgical form, and you probably dasn't step in and try to mess with it.

Dxx
 
vz71 said:
It is nowhere near liturgy as I know it, but the various flavors of Pentecostal churches in my area always follow the same pattern.
  • First they have Sunday School.
  • Then they have some kind of song service
  • Then they take up some kind of collection. The children are encouraged here to do some kind of 'penny march' to try and collect spare change from people.
  • Then they have the message from the pastor or some guest preacher.
    • NOTE - this message can and often is interrupted by various acts of God, (healing, prayer in tongues, general excitement)
    • Also note that the more charismatic the preacher is, the more often the crowd sees these interruptions. Not certain if it is a causal relationship or a corollary.
  • And this is followed by some kind of social function (potluck dinner).

The entirety takes a few hours.

I am amazed at their preachers. The pressure must be enormous to have an hours long message upwards of three times a week.
Click to expand...
Yes, lacking the Eucharistic sacrifice and the Real Presence, music and preaching is about all they have. Their churches rise and fall upon how good both of these are perceived as being. OTOH, in the Catholic Church, the music could be awful and the sermon could be utterly uninspiring, but it wouldn't make any difference. The important things remain intact.

I once accompanied a friend of mine to a Pentecostal-style service with what they called "the Lord's Supper". (Don't worry, I didn't partake.) The deacon, or whatever he was, said words to the effect of "we really don't understand why we do this", and I just sat there thinking "oh, I could help you out with that part!". Outside of the unbloody sacrifice by the priest, and the Real Presence of Our Lord, it makes little sense. In this respect, it is the Catholics who are the biblical literalists.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
Yes, lacking the Eucharistic sacrifice and the Real Presence, music and preaching is about all they have.
Click to expand...
And that is why they say we worship saints, Mary, etc.
Without a true form of worship, they mistakenly believe simple petition and prayer is worship.
HomeschoolDad said:
The deacon, or whatever he was, said words to the effect of "we really don't understand why we do this", and I just sat there thinking "oh, I could help you out with that part!".
Click to expand...
Agreed, we know why we do this.
We have the liturgy, a real priest, tradition, scripture, and sacrament.
I have no idea why they are doing anything...without liturgy, real priesthood, real Eucharist...they are just pretending.
I imagine an adult would feel kind of foolish, having grown past childish pretend games.

I did have occasion to watch a "Lord's Supper" celebration at my wife's church.
Wanting me to participate, several people (a particularly alarming number of former Catholics) tried to convince me that they had transubstantiation.
They all tried to convince themselves that God was present in the saltines and grape juice they were serving up.

Then I watched as their celebration ended, and the leftover saltines were tossed into the dog's dish and the leftover juice was poured down the drain.
 
vz71 said:
Agreed, we know why we do this.
We have the liturgy, a real priest, tradition, scripture, and sacrament.
I have no idea why they are doing anything...without liturgy, real priesthood, real Eucharist...they are just pretending.
I imagine an adult would feel kind of foolish, having grown past childish pretend games.

I did have occasion to watch a "Lord's Supper" celebration at my wife's church.
Wanting me to participate, several people (a particularly alarming number of former Catholics) tried to convince me that they had transubstantiation.
They all tried to convince themselves that God was present in the saltines and grape juice they were serving up.

Then I watched as their celebration ended, and the leftover saltines were tossed into the dog's dish and the leftover juice was poured down the drain.
Click to expand...

In their defense, they perform the "Lord's Supper" because Christ said to, "do this in memory of Me". St Paul also warns against receiving the Body of Christ unworthily, which implies that this ordinance is to be done time and again among Christians. Denominations vary widely as to how often they do it.

Belief in a kind of "real presence" breaks out like this:

  • Anglicans - Christ is truly present, the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, but they do not sharply define how this happens. Traditional Anglicans (i.e., those using the 1928 BCP) have a piscina in the sacristy just as we do. I cannot speak for more contemporary-oriented Anglicans. Traditional Anglicans also have what they call "reserved sacrament" in a tabernacle, basically identical to Catholic practice.
  • Lutherans - Christ is truly present, in a kind of "sacramental union". I have heard of Lutherans having reserved sacrament, but I do not know how widespread this is. I don't know how they dispose of elements such as water used to rinse the chalice and so on.
  • Methodists - Christ is truly present, though they define it no further than that. Likewise, I don't know how they handle "leftovers", crumbs, and so on.
  • All other denominations treat it as more or less a symbolic supper.
What denomination was your wife's church?
 
vz71 said:
Pentecostal.
Her particular variety was founded either 30 years ago or 100 years ago depending on who you talk to.
Click to expand...

It's hard to imagine how Pentecostals would even know about transubstantiation, let alone try to get a Catholic to think their "Lord's Supper" possesses it. So far as I am aware, they treat it solely as a memorial, and are simply obeying Scripture as they perceive it.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
It's hard to imagine how Pentecostals would even know about transubstantiation, let alone try to get a Catholic to think their "Lord's Supper" possesses it.
Click to expand...
A lot of fallen away Catholics in the crowd.

It is a sad situation. Many are very angry with the church, and are running away as fast as they can.
 
They are friendly enough, right up until some theological difference towards the Catholic faith is discerned.
At which point, they become angry, belligerent, and anything but what one would describe as Christian.

It is really odd as they openly talk with others about religious differences with other faiths without all of the emotion.
But if the discussion at all turns toward Catholicism, watch out.
Infant baptism is an easy discussion, it isn't unique to Catholicism. Mary, Authority, the Priesthood, the Pope...all cause a degree of anger.

Some of the most angry I have seen came about when we were discussing confession, and I brought up a few bible verses that they claimed to have never heard before. I was not at all surprised that they had never heard it before as most had a tendency to highlight their bible whenever a verse was gone over during a sermon or Sunday school. And the verse I covered was never touched...in fact many key verses that may call their faith into question were untouched.
But when I pointed out that everyone that was Catholic had to have heard this every year, it is part of the standard during or around Easter...

I didn't realize it at the time, but I not only was using their own bible in a way they didn't like, I was calling into question the way they read it, their understanding of the Catholic Mass, and (indirectly) the honesty of the many that called themselves "Former Catholic".

It was not a fun discussion.
 
vz71 said:
Some of the most angry I have seen came about when we were discussing confession, and I brought up a few bible verses that they claimed to have never heard before. I was not at all surprised that they had never heard it before as most had a tendency to highlight their bible whenever a verse was gone over during a sermon or Sunday school. And the verse I covered was never touched...in fact many key verses that may call their faith into question were untouched.
But when I pointed out that everyone that was Catholic had to have heard this every year, it is part of the standard during or around Easter...

I didn't realize it at the time, but I not only was using their own bible in a way they didn't like, I was calling into question the way they read it, their understanding of the Catholic Mass, and (indirectly) the honesty of the many that called themselves "Former Catholic".
Click to expand...

If they were never properly catechized, or had been told these things but forgot, it is entirely possible that they didn't know.

That wouldn't explain the anger, though. A lot of people leave the Church because of some trauma or mistreatment they incurred within the Church, or because the Church teaches against something that they want to do. And cognitive dissonance is a thing.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
That wouldn't explain the anger, though.
Click to expand...
Perhaps.
I just know that with the phrase "Surely you had to have heard this, it was one of the readings every year."
Ended with screams and yells from people swearing that the Mass never included bible reading, that we never use a bible, and that I cannot know what I am talking about.
Somewhere in the midst of this I also got the stereotypical former Catholic that was born and raised in the faith, by the most faithful of parents, who attended Mass every Sunday, served, went to Catholic school for 12 years and in all of that time never (absolutely NEVER) heard the bible read.

Having convinced others at the church and themselves that the bible was never read, it became very awkward that someone actively Catholic would reference bible reading at Mass so casually.

This opened my wife's eyes to some things. She knew that there was much more bible reading going on in the Catholic church then in her own from practical experience attending Mass with me. Personally witnessing the stereotypes at work was an eye opening experience for her.

Alas she remains unconvinced of the truth contained within the Catholic church.
 
vz71 said:
Perhaps.
I just know that with the phrase "Surely you had to have heard this, it was one of the readings every year."
Ended with screams and yells from people swearing that the Mass never included bible reading, that we never use a bible, and that I cannot know what I am talking about.
Somewhere in the midst of this I also got the stereotypical former Catholic that was born and raised in the faith, by the most faithful of parents, who attended Mass every Sunday, served, went to Catholic school for 12 years and in all of that time never (absolutely NEVER) heard the bible read.

Having convinced others at the church and themselves that the bible was never read, it became very awkward that someone actively Catholic would reference bible reading at Mass so casually.

This opened my wife's eyes to some things. She knew that there was much more bible reading going on in the Catholic church then in her own from practical experience attending Mass with me. Personally witnessing the stereotypes at work was an eye opening experience for her.

Alas she remains unconvinced of the truth contained within the Catholic church.
Click to expand...

It almost sounds like these people have some kind of mental problem, or are possibly even under demonic influence.

Actually, when you think about it, there is probably far more Scripture used in a Catholic Mass than in a typical Protestant service. In the latter, they tend to rivet upon individual passages, and even words within those passages, and the preacher can talk about a single Bible verse for a half-hour. The Traditional Latin Mass, which is what I normally attend, begins with Psalm 43 (42 using the more traditional numbering scheme), and Scripture is used throughout, in the Introit, Gradual, Offertory, and Communion.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
Actually, when you think about it, there is probably far more Scripture used in a Catholic Mass than in a typical Protestant service.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
It is easier to list the parts that do not contain scripture then it is listing all of the parts that do.
HomeschoolDad said:
they tend to rivet upon individual passages, and even words within those passages, and the preacher can talk about a single Bible verse for a half-hour.
Click to expand...
As mentioned above, the church I have been involved with, many of the older attendees highlight bible passages as their preacher goes over them.

I am not certain what the exact mechanism is, but the times I have pointed out passages that are never touched upon, they seem completely unaware of them. I know they have seen them, the highlighter starts and stops somewhere. But they seem completely blind to the idea that there is a scripture there.

Now this isn't with every scripture that isn't touched upon, but there are a few.
This effect I have seen most pronounced with some of the oldest members. Whose bible has been used for many years and some places have been highlighted over enough times to start wearing through the paper.
With the many years of going through and highlighting, much of it is colored yellow. But there are quite a few passages that are completely untouched. And these people seem completely unaware there is a passage there. They just do not see it.

For instance...real world example.
My dear mother in law and I were discussing confession. And I pointed out John 20:23.
We went to her bible. This book is well worn and she has been highlighting verses for well over a decade.
She has had this book enough time that nearly everything has been touched upon at one time or another.
But sure enough, this verse was not highlighted. Verses in front of it were. Verses after it were. But this one was not.

And...oddly enough, her exact phrase was a very surprised "I have never seen that before!"
Did she really not see it? I think so. She had been trained for years that the verses in between the highlights were unimportant, so she simply skipped over and paid no attention to them.

Perhaps I should write a sermon for my wife's church. I can call it "The Church between the highlights: What do we get when we read the entirety of scripture instead of the highlights?"
Perhaps I would get permanently kicked out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top