Do you stay in your church because of culture

[JonNC]

I was talking to my Deacon friend a few days ago and we brought up a few things. One of which is that culture keeps us at certain churches. I’m not just saying Catholic but other churches and religions as well.

I can say that because I was Catholic for 98% of my life and 2% LDS that coming back to the Catholic church was not only because of the euchorist but because of the culture. I know that will upset some of you but it is true.

I really believe most of us miss the culture more than the actual religion. Now I’m not saying that religion isn’t important but that if you grow up with a religion and it is all you know and everyone around you is that religion or respects your religion it is a culture.

You can agree or disagree but many stay a certain religion even if they don’t believe in it 100% because of the culture.

I admit to being aculturated Lutheran -raised in a Lutheran pastor’s home, Lutheran college grad, Lutheran all my life. In the end, though, culture wouldn’t keep me from changing communions if I felt moved by the Spirit to do so. As a western Christian, though, it would be easier culturally for me to become Latin Catholic than Orthodox, even though in some ways there seems a closer doctrinal similarity to Orthodoxy.

Jon

 

[Publisher]

I was talking to my Deacon friend a few days ago and we brought up a few things. One of which is that culture keeps us at certain churches. I’m not just saying Catholic but other churches and religions as well.

I can say that because I was Catholic for 98% of my life and 2% LDS that coming back to the Catholic church was not only because of the euchorist but because of the culture. I know that will upset some of you but it is true.

I really believe most of us miss the culture more than the actual religion. Now I’m not saying that religion isn’t important but that if you grow up with a religion and it is all you know and everyone around you is that religion or respects your religion it is a culture.

You can agree or disagree but many stay a certain religion even if they don’t believe in it 100% because of the culture.

Patty,

I think when one has attended a faith tradition for a period of time, we settle into the “culture” of that faith tradition. I grew up in an evangelical style church, much different in the Un-programmed Friend’s Meeting I soon requested to join at age 19…I’m now 54. I attended a Quaker college and there is a “Quaker culture” so to speak…and I find myself using “Quaker phrases” when I speak to people at times. When I meet acquaintences whom I haven’t seen in a while and they ask me…“What did you do this week-end?” I mention I “Went to Meeting” on Sunday (First-day)…I “forget” at times whom I’m speaking with and easily “slip into” the “Quaker idiom”.

My political views while usually are not at odds with the Meeting…I find myself at times speaking “for conscience sake” instead of embracing the “sense of the Meeting” on matters I disagree with. But all in all I find myself very much a Quaker and I am able to move easily between Meetings when I have moved to different locations with very little “trauma”.

When I attend other faith traditions worship services…I enjoy them…but I also feel like I “missed something”. That “something” is what I find in Meeting.

I stay in my faith tradition because I believe it to be the best expression of Christian faith…I would be fine among Mennonites or Brethren if so inclined…we share similar “cultural oddities” others don’t…but I have also found myself “at home” in the Spiritual Journey group at the Episcopal church I have attended during the week…so while I do embrace the “culture” of Quakerism…I do not remain because of it.

 

[Aramis]

Publisher brings to mind an interesting issue: Most restorationist groups and ordinum groups are built around a cultural model… to be part of the faith is adherence to the culture that the faith engenders.

Quakers tend to share a common culture, and quakers in Alaska seem scarily like quakers from Pennsylvania.

Likewise, Menonites, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons have a culture-mindset.

Many more mainstream groups, especially Catholics, Orthodox, Lutheran, and Anglican/Episcopal, embrace multiple cultures. It is possible in these sects to change cultures and not change faiths.

 

[Publisher]

Publisher brings to mind an interesting issue: Most restorationist groups and ordinum groups are built around a cultural model… to be part of the faith is adherence to the culture that the faith engenders.

Quakers tend to share a common culture, and quakers in Alaska seem scarily like quakers from Pennsylvania.

Likewise, Menonites, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons have a culture-mindset.

Many more mainstream groups, especially Catholics, Orthodox, Lutheran, and Anglican/Episcopal, embrace multiple cultures. It is possible in these sects to change cultures and not change faiths.

An interesting point…the largest Quaker population is in Africa…with South America, especially among the Amayra indians, as a close second. The Evangelical Friends have made pretty substantial inroads in these locations. There are very small numbers of non-programmed Friends in these locals.

Many years ago I attended an Friend’s Church while I was in college…it was closer to home with the only un-programmed meeting quite a distance to drive for a struggling college student, the pastor was a former missionary to Alaska. There were fairly large grooups of the Eskimos who had become Evangelical Friends. He had spent a good 20 years there…very interesting stories of those Alaskan Friends…they held on to the culture and embraced Evangelical Quakerism.

Another comment…Mennonites have some difficulty at cross cultures IF they try to hold onto the Dutch/German cultural aspects that have been embrace by some Mennonites…but Anabaptism also has appeal cross culturally. In some of those African cultures torn by war and inequity, the Mennonite call for equality and peace touches hearts.

 

[AlegreFe]

AlegreFe:

Petra would be the actual word for rock that has a feminine ending, but would not do for the name of a male human.

That’s quite an assumption. And it appears that it is incorrect. Petra and petros were both greek words for different types of rocks. I must emphasise that I’m arguing from authority here, but here is a website that makes the point I’m trying to (although it’s coded badly, so their apostrophes don’t render) and, for the sake of ‘balance’ (which is often overrated, but seems worth it here) here’s a website that disagrees.

Why do you have my name on the quote? I did not post that comment. But I DO AGREE with Katy’s comment.

Your quote should read;

katy;5523309:

Petra would be the actual word for rock that has a feminine ending, but would not do for the name of a male human.

That’s quite an assumption. And it appears that it is incorrect. Petra and petros were both greek words for different types of rocks. I must emphasise that I’m arguing from authority here, but here is a website that makes the point I’m trying to (although it’s coded badly, so their apostrophes don’t render) and, for the sake of ‘balance’ (which is often overrated, but seems worth it here) here’s a website that disagrees.

Her statement is NOT an assumption and it is not incorrect. Why do you say you speak from “authority?” What authority do you have? Jesus gave HIS Authority to the Catholic Church! And James McCarthy is NOT “authority” anywhere. J. McCarthy is an ANTI-CATHOLIC person who knows nothing of what he speaks when it comes to the Catholic faith. And I’m being “nice” to say that. You don’t really want to know what I really think of him!

Here is someone who speaks the truth, Tim Staples. He is a former Baptist who was very Anti-Catholic along with his whole family. But then he saw the light! He became Catholic and his family followed him one by one. It took 5 years for his father to become Catholic but he’s here now. And his brother is now a Catholic priest.
You can read what Tim Staples says about what the Church says about Peter the Rock;

You Can’t Get Past this Rock

Next time don’t jump so quick thinking the wrong thing. Just because you see something written and it says “Catholic” on it does NOT mean it was written by a Catholic person. There are many websites out there that only seem to be written by Catholics because that’s how anti-Catholics operate. They put a title on a book or article to make “catholics” (albeit “luke warm” catholics who don’t know their own faith) THINK they are reading from a Catholic. Some might catch on after reading the book or article that this is not a Catholic and that they are wrong.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I remember reading Scott Hahn talk about why he shied away from becoming an Orthodox in favor of Catholicism. He said Orthodoxy was ‘too ethnic’ because it was related to one group or another–Russian Orthodox or Greek Orthodox or Armenian Orthodox, etc.

What I’ve found interesting about his statement is that Catholicism is very ethnic by locale. In my area, the Portuguese and Mexicans dominate the Catholic culture. The parishes here do everything around their festivals, their language, their culture, and interests. Our missal has a huge “Unidos en Cristo” at the top and a tiny font at the bottom that says: United in Christ, we now have Spanish masses, the priest does a whole extra re-hash of the homily in Spanish at the end of the Mass (which I’m pretty sure is against the rubrics!), and things are pretty much dominated by the Portuguese with Fatima celebrations, festas, you name it. As a Catholic of English background, the bulk of my family being British in ancestry, I feel no connection to this. Central California is a little Mexico and Portugal. So in the end, Scott Hahn may have avoided Russian-dominated or Armenian-dominated Orthodoxy but my experience with Catholicism is that it’s highly ethnic in my area. If anything, when I was Anglican I felt much more kinship to that liturgy and fellowship.

 

[Aramis]

I remember reading Scott Hahn talk about why he shied away from becoming an Orthodox in favor of Catholicism. He said Orthodoxy was ‘too ethnic’ because it was related to one group or another–Russian Orthodox or Greek Orthodox or Armenian Orthodox, etc.

What I’ve found interesting about his statement is that Catholicism is very ethnic by locale. In my area, the Portuguese and Mexicans dominate the Catholic culture. The parishes here do everything around their festivals, their language, their culture, and interests. Our missal has a huge “Unidos en Cristo” at the top and a tiny font at the bottom that says: United in Christ, we now have Spanish masses, the priest does a whole extra re-hash of the homily in Spanish at the end of the Mass (which I’m pretty sure is against the rubrics!), and things are pretty much dominated by the Portuguese with Fatima celebrations, festas, you name it. As a Catholic of English background, the bulk of my family being British in ancestry, I feel no connection to this. Central California is a little Mexico and Portugal. So in the end, Scott Hahn may have avoided Russian-dominated or Armenian-dominated Orthodoxy but my experience with Catholicism is that it’s highly ethnic in my area. If anything, when I was Anglican I felt much more kinship to that liturgy and fellowship.

As long as it’s after the dismissal, it’s fine. Or during the allocated place for announcements. He could, properly, give it twice during the assigned homily point.

 

[PhiJ]

AlegreFe I appologise, I have no idea how I made that mistake.

An argument from authority is not me speaking from authority, it’s a logical fallacy: I heard it from somebody I know and respect, but haven’t looked into it myself. I knew my methods were fallacious, but thought they were more sound than they were, due to my knowing what the person is like, and that somebody would have pointed out to me if I was wrong. LilyM did.

I read katy as assuming that there was no masculine word for rock in Greek, so they had to change the ending. If I read it correctly, it was an assumption, and it was wrong. That is irrelevent to whether I was wrong or not.

I googled it, and James McCarthy was just the guy who happened to write the first article I found that made the point. But anyway, he wasn’t talking about catholicism, he was talking about the correct interpretation of scripture. It doesn’t matter that he is anti catholic - again, this is irrelevant to whether he is right or not.

And thanks for the article!

[edit: upon reading your article, katy could have been right ]