How much does liturgical and theological consistency weigh into your choice of church?

[gurneyhalleck1]

Looking at how much the Catholic Church has changed in liturgy with changing language, the priest oriented toward the people, incense disappearing by and large, female altar servers, eucharistic ministers, hand-holding during the Our Father, and all the liturgical abuses that take place across the world along with liturgical “dancers,” the Catholic Church has changed a lot. Theologically there has been great innovation as well with indulgences, purgatory, scholasticism, infallibility being proclaimed in the 1800’s, Marian dogmas developed etc.

The Anglican Church worldwide has gone into theological chaos with vast and varying beliefs on just about everything from human sexuality to female clergy to theological spiritual disagreements that make Anglicanism almost appear to have multiple religions within itself.

The same goes with Lutheranism and other Protestant groups…

The only group that has not gone into theological errors and in-fighting, speculation, liberalism, and liturgical abuse is the Orthodox Church.

I personally find the Orthodox way compelling because of the unspoiled nature of it despite the challenges of Communism and Islam that have surrounded it.

With Orthodoxy female altar servers aren’t even on the table and won’t be. There is no need to re-word anything like in Catholicism or re-work things. There is no need to reform the liturgy as it’s perfect and has always been so. There is no speculation that there might be female clergy or debates about the nature of sexuality and Christ Himself.

My question is, how much does “the proof is in the pudding” matter to each of you when choosing a church, which one is THE Church? Orthodoxy is so consistent. What say you all? Why not choose Orthodoxy when its liturgy and theology have such rock solid consistency and things are so firm and unchanging there? Why choose anything else? Is the proof in the pudding?

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Looking at how much the Catholic Church has changed in liturgy with changing language, the priest oriented toward the people, incense disappearing by and large, female altar servers, eucharistic ministers, hand-holding during the Our Father, and all the liturgical abuses that take place across the world along with liturgical “dancers,” the Catholic Church has changed a lot. Theologically there has been great innovation as well with indulgences, purgatory, scholasticism, infallibility being proclaimed in the 1800’s, Marian dogmas developed etc.

The Anglican Church worldwide has gone into theological chaos with vast and varying beliefs on just about everything from human sexuality to female clergy to theological spiritual disagreements that make Anglicanism almost appear to have multiple religions within itself.

The same goes with Lutheranism and other Protestant groups…

The only group that has not gone into theological errors and in-fighting, speculation, liberalism, and liturgical abuse is the Orthodox Church.

I personally find the Orthodox way compelling because of the unspoiled nature of it despite the challenges of Communism and Islam that have surrounded it.

With Orthodoxy female altar servers aren’t even on the table and won’t be. There is no need to re-word anything like in Catholicism or re-work things. There is no need to reform the liturgy as it’s perfect and has always been so. There is no speculation that there might be female clergy or debates about the nature of sexuality and Christ Himself.

My question is, how much does “the proof is in the pudding” matter to each of you when choosing a church, which one is THE Church? Orthodoxy is so consistent. What say you all? Why not choose Orthodoxy when its liturgy and theology have such rock solid consistency and things are so firm and unchanging there? Why choose anything else? Is the proof in the pudding?

Have you been to the Easthern Catholic forums?

 

[Rawb]

I think you *might *have a little bit of an inclination as to what I’m going to say, Scott

Another poster on another thread told me to come back to Rome, because her teachings said nothing I disagreed with. I responded that I was no longer willing to judge Catholicism on her teachings, but would only look at her beliefs.

Naturally, to a some Catholics these are the same thing, and he asked me to explain. Prefacing it with “if this was the case in one or two oddball parishes it would be one thing, but when it’s every parish in the Western Hemisphere I have an issue” I said this.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

i have many, many times! Thanks…

Have you been to the Easthern Catholic forums?

 

[josephback]

My question is, how much does “the proof is in the pudding” matter to each of you when choosing a church, which one is THE Church? Orthodoxy is so consistent. What say you all? Why not choose Orthodoxy when its liturgy and theology have such rock solid consistency and things are so firm and unchanging there? Why choose anything else? Is the proof in the pudding?

I heard from a Quaker once that the Orthodox “froze” their liturgy in the 13th century to avoid schisms. He was very knowledgable in general so I believed him. Orthodoxy hasn’t changed in a while but that doesn’t mean it’s rock solid.

The real faith is living, it will have problems crop up from time to time. That is not the same as doctinal change. Many of the “innovations” you mentioned in Catholicism are not innovations at all, but were believed in the early Church. They were DEFINED later, but not created. For instance, the Council of Trent did not innovate or create the Catholic view on justification. It merely officially defined it as opposed to Protestant claims.

The “proof” is very important to me. In a fight between Orthodoxy, Luther, and Rome, the Catholic Church is the only one that still has Ecumenical Councils, who still has the sucessor of Peter(Matthew 16:18), and so on. IT IS LIVING and that’s good enough for me.

That said I like the Byzantine rite

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

But in the early Church the pope was unilateral, wasn’t infallible, didn’t have supreme jurisdiction over all the Church universal, and we didn’t see stuff like indulgences, mortal vs. venial sins, scholastic thinking, and so many other things. There has been a lot of innovating within Catholicism. Except for using the filioque and unleavened bread, Latin, etc. the Church pre-1054 was pretty much the same. East and West were more alike than they were different. Nowdays if you really study Orthodoxy, it seems quite foreign to Catholicism IMO

I heard from a Quaker once that the Orthodox “froze” their liturgy in the 13th century to avoid schisms. He was very knowledgable in general so I believed him. Orthodoxy hasn’t changed in a while but that doesn’t mean it’s rock solid.

The real faith is living, it will have problems crop up from time to time. That is not the same as doctinal change. Many of the “innovations” you mentioned in Catholicism are not innovations at all, but were believed in the early Church. They were DEFINED later, but not created. For instance, the Council of Trent did not innovate or create the Catholic view on justification. It merely officially defined it as opposed to Protestant claims.

The “proof” is very important to me. In a fight between Orthodoxy, Luther, and Rome, the Catholic Church is the only one that still has Ecumenical Councils, who still has the sucessor of Peter(Matthew 16:18), and so on. IT IS LIVING and that’s good enough for me.

That said I like the Byzantine rite

 

[Harpazo]

The old maxim lex orandi, lex credendi struck me as the important thing in considering where the Church was. I’ve heard Jews say similarly: “show me how you act and I’ll tell you what you believe.” When I visited the local mission here in Roanoke, even though they were holding services in a small trailer, I was blown away at well the theology reflected in the liturgy and vice versa. I visited a local Russian monastey and was completely blown away by how they lived the theology.

St. John Chrysostom once said “You greatly err if you think one thing is expected of the monk and a different thing from the layman.” That doesn’t mean we live exactly like monks, but the same ascetic struggle and complete devotion to God and abba comment of our will is necessary. The Fasting periods are the same for both, for example.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Lancer]

I heard from a Quaker once that the Orthodox “froze” their liturgy in the 13th century to avoid schisms. He was very knowledgable in general so I believed him. Orthodoxy hasn’t changed in a while but that doesn’t mean it’s rock solid.

The real faith is living, it will have problems crop up from time to time. That is not the same as doctinal change. Many of the “innovations” you mentioned in Catholicism are not innovations at all, but were believed in the early Church. They were DEFINED later, but not created. For instance, the Council of Trent did not innovate or create the Catholic view on justification. It merely officially defined it as opposed to Protestant claims.

The “proof” is very important to me. In a fight between Orthodoxy, Luther, and Rome, the Catholic Church is the only one that still has Ecumenical Councils, who still has the sucessor of Peter(Matthew 16:18), and so on. IT IS LIVING and that’s good enough for me.

That said I like the Byzantine rite

Well said…Thank you! I would only add…

The Unity and Communion…as Our Lord Jesus prayed for and commanded…as recorded in John’s Gospel:
quote] John 17:21-23 (NIV-UK)

20 My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message,

21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one:
23 I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

​

…is akin to the Bread from Heaven (Jn 6:22-59) & the Words of Eternal Life (Jn 6:60-71) episode/discourse…when most all of Jesus’ followers said:* “this is a hard teaching…who can accept it…”(*Jn 6:60)…and they left him.

…So also…His prayer and command for Unity in the Body of Christ…under His Vicar on earth…the Pope and the Magisteruim is a… "hard saying"…today we Catholics echo what Simon Peter said 2000+ years ago:

John 6: 66-69 (NIV-UK):
​

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

67 You do not want to leave too, do you? Jesus asked the Twelve.
68** Simon Peter** answered him,** Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.**
69** We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God**.

​

Bottom Line: remaining a member of the Catholic Church…Latin Rite and/or Eastern Rite(s)…is a the test of fidelity…a test of obedience…to the will of Our Lord Jesus…it is not about liturgy, rituals or theology…it is clearly about submission of self to the authority and authoritative teaching of the Vicar of Christ, the Pope, and all of the Bishops in communion with him…throught the Magisterium of the Church.

Pax Christi

 

[Montalo]

Well said…Thank you! I would only add…

The Unity and Communion…as Our Lord Jesus prayed for and commanded…as recorded in John’s Gospel:quote] John 17:21-23 (NIV-UK)

20 My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message,

21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one:
23 I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
​

…is akin to the Bread from Heaven (Jn 6:22-59) & the Words of Eternal Life (Jn 6:60-71) episode/discourse…when most all of Jesus’ followers said:* “this is a hard teaching…who can accept it…”(*Jn 6:60)…and they left him.

…So also…His prayer and command for Unity in the Body of Christ…under His Vicar on earth…the Pope and the Magisteruim is a… "hard saying"…today we Catholics echo what Simon Peter said 2000+ years ago:

Bottom Line: remaining a member of the Catholic Church…Latin Rite and/or Eastern Rite(s)…is a the test of fidelity…a test of obedience…to the will of Our Lord Jesus…it is not about liturgy, rituals or theology…it is clearly about submission of self to the authority and authoritative teaching of the Vicar of Christ, the Pope, and all of the Bishops in communion with him…throught the Magisterium of the Church.

Pax Christi
it is a matter of staying faithful to the Church that Christ established on Petecost, which is the Orthodox Church, of which the Church of Rome seperated herself from it by schism. I submit myself to the authority of that Church. All the biblical passages are true, and the unity of Christ’s Church still exists today, and to that One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, otherwise known as the Orthodox Church

 

[hn160]

When we moved from the Pennsylvania to California, I visited various Lutheran churches both ELCA and LC-MS and I just about swim the Tiber. The ELCA is all messed up and is just about an apostasy Church. Some LC-MS churches want to be wannabe Pentecostals with praise bands, contemporary services and not have Lutheran on their church sign ( which might just as well ). It took awhile to find a LC-MS church that is confessional and traditional. When we walked into this church that we are members, both my wife and I knew that we were home.

 

[Bluegoat]

As I get older, the kind of thing Rawb talks about in his linked post become a lot more important to me. The proof is in the pudding type of thing.

It probably tends to feed on itself too. In any given group, as more and more individual parish churches become “non-pudding” parishes, people leave them and go wherever they can find a good place. THey might first go to another parish of the same denomination, but if there isn’t one, they will either switch or form a new group in some way.

So the other parishes look more and more luke-warm all the time.

It’s a real problem in my Anglican parish. We get a lot of converts to the university, and there are probably five or six parishes in our province they might feel comfortable in. But in many places, there is simply no practical way to get to a traditional Anglican parish. People are left to get on alone, and so they either stop going to church, or as a practical matter switch.

So I think when people do make the decision to switch, it is often reflective of their local situation as much as of some lofty theological principles.

 

[josephback]

But in the early Church the pope was unilateral, wasn’t infallible, didn’t have supreme jurisdiction over all the Church universal

Papal iffalibility was/is implied by the Pope’s office as Universal pastor. The Pope’s original claim to fame was his teaching authority. I agree that there have been some developments since then. But the office stands.

and we didn’t see stuff like indulgences, mortal vs. venial sins, scholastic thinking, and so many other things. There has been a lot of innovating within Catholicism.

You speak of innovating within Catholicism. As I said before, are they really all innovations? Unless Scholasticism leads to blatant heresy I wouldn’t view it as particularly bad. It can be an important tool to help explain the timeless teachings of the Church.

Except for using the filioque and unleavened bread, Latin, etc. the Church pre-1054 was pretty much the same. East and West were more alike than they were different. Nowdays if you really study Orthodoxy, it seems quite foreign to Catholicism IMO

I guess I haven’t studied Orthodoxy vs. Catholicism hard enough.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi joseph,

I would say that the Orthodox approach of “Eucharistic Ecclesiology” tends to be more representative of the Early Church than the “Universal Ecclesiology” of Catholicism. In the Early Church did the pope really have a “teaching office?” We don’t see that. We see a primacy of honor, that phrase actually being used. We see a high regard, high respect for Rome as it was the place where Peter and Paul were martyred and it was the imperial capital. It had great men in its heyday and deserved respect. It was often the final arbitar of heresies and debates when other bishops sought Rome out.

I wouldn’t consider papal infallibility a reality in the early church at all. It’s really innovative.

I’m not necessarily saying scholasticism is evil or always bad. Personally terms like “transubstantiation” are fine with me. But it’s the excessive categorization and need to explain mysteries and make everything fit in the right slot that I don’t like. I don’t think it was necessarily a needed thing. The fact that Christians functioned for a millenium without it shows it isn’t a big woop really.

Papal iffalibility was/is implied by the Pope’s office as Universal pastor. The Pope’s original claim to fame was his teaching authority. I agree that there have been some developments since then. But the office stands.

You speak of innovating within Catholicism. As I said before, are they really all innovations? Unless Scholasticism leads to blatant heresy I wouldn’t view it as particularly bad. It can be an important tool to help explain the timeless teachings of the Church.

I guess I haven’t studied Orthodoxy vs. Catholicism hard enough.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

I’m not necessarily saying scholasticism is evil or always bad. Personally terms like “transubstantiation” are fine with me. But it’s the excessive categorization and need to explain mysteries and make everything fit in the right slot that I don’t like. I don’t think it was necessarily a needed thing. The fact that Christians functioned for a millenium without it shows it isn’t a big woop really.

Yes exactly. Should transubstantiation be dogma? It may be a plausible explanation for something that really should remain a mystery. Co-substantiation may also be a plausible explanation (and seems closer to what the Fathers taught, IMHO). But why define it dogmatically, such that unless you accept this precise definition, you put your salvation in danger.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think the same is true of the Marian dogmas. I happen to affirm them personally but don’t see why they should be attached to your spiritual peril? I think it’s important to believe the Blessed Theotokos was and is a perpetual virgin, but apart from that, good theology and piety takes care of itself. The Orthodox have a very very high opinion of Mary and great piety and respect is attached to her to this day without the need for laying down edicts and dogma around her.

Yes exactly. Should transubstantiation be dogma? It may be a plausible explanation for something that really should remain a mystery. Co-substantiation may also be a plausible explanation (and seems closer to what the Fathers taught, IMHO). But why define it dogmatically, such that unless you accept this precise definition, you put your salvation in danger.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Its important I think. For me, I like what I see theologically in the East, but as I come to understand it more and more, I see there is a mindset that is really different than in the West. My trouble is that western thinking and approach is cemented into who I am and my approach. I cannot sit back and just accept that “this is a mystery” and leave it at that. I would have to do alot of unlearning to become eastern.

 

[Harpazo]

Its important I think. For me, I like what I see theologically in the East, but as I come to understand it more and more, I see there is a mindset that is really different than in the West. My trouble is that western thinking and approach is cemented into who I am and my approach. I cannot sit back and just accept that “this is a mystery” and leave it at that. I would have to do alot of unlearning to become eastern.

Those in the West shared the same mindset with us for a long time. Just think of it as if you became Orthodox, you’d be becoming what those of your spiritual ancestors once had.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Nicea325]

Pax Christi

it is a matter of staying faithful to the Church that Christ established on Petecost, which is the Orthodox Church, of which the Church of Rome seperated herself from it by schism. I submit myself to the authority of that Church. All the biblical passages are true, and the unity of Christ’s Church still exists today, and to that One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, otherwise known as the Orthodox Church

I do not think so. You need to stop parroting everything you have been told and heard from bigoted people against the RCC. The Church of Rome did not separate herself by schism. Blame goes both ways and I suggest you read history. The Orthodox is NOT the only One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church because they too have major issues.

 

[elgar]

Looking at how much the Catholic Church has changed in liturgy with changing language, the priest oriented toward the people, incense disappearing by and large, female altar servers, eucharistic ministers, hand-holding during the Our Father, and all the liturgical abuses that take place across the world along with liturgical “dancers,” the Catholic Church has changed a lot. Theologically there has been great innovation as well with indulgences, purgatory, scholasticism, infallibility being proclaimed in the 1800’s, Marian dogmas developed etc.

The Anglican Church worldwide has gone into theological chaos with vast and varying beliefs on just about everything from human sexuality to female clergy to theological spiritual disagreements that make Anglicanism almost appear to have multiple religions within itself.

The same goes with Lutheranism and other Protestant groups…

The only group that has not gone into theological errors and in-fighting, speculation, liberalism, and liturgical abuse is the Orthodox Church.

I personally find the Orthodox way compelling because of the unspoiled nature of it despite the challenges of Communism and Islam that have surrounded it.

With Orthodoxy female altar servers aren’t even on the table and won’t be. There is no need to re-word anything like in Catholicism or re-work things. There is no need to reform the liturgy as it’s perfect and has always been so. There is no speculation that there might be female clergy or debates about the nature of sexuality and Christ Himself.

My question is, how much does “the proof is in the pudding” matter to each of you when choosing a church, which one is THE Church? Orthodoxy is so consistent. What say you all? Why not choose Orthodoxy when its liturgy and theology have such rock solid consistency and things are so firm and unchanging there? Why choose anything else? Is the proof in the pudding?

LOTS!

Left TEC in 2008 and will never look back. I’m a trained church musician (organist) so I take Liturgy and Theology very seriously. Started out RC and left mainly because of the horrible music and licenses taken by bishops, priests and laity to make it up as you go. Married in ELCA church but hopes were dashed quickly as liberal theology in Protestant churches is no different than liberal theology in Catholic churches in spite of dignified worship.

I’ve thought about Orthodox but believe their dietary laws are beyond the pale–I’d have a hard time giving up meat, oil, dairy for days on end. Happy in ACNA (Anglican) for now because we are taking “Evangelism” seriously—something the Orthodox churches are weak at.

 

[Harpazo]

it is a matter of staying faithful to the Church that Christ established on Petecost, which is the Orthodox Church, of which the Church of Rome seperated herself from it by schism. I submit myself to the authority of that Church. All the biblical passages are true, and the unity of Christ’s Church still exists today, and to that One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, otherwise known as the Orthodox Church

I do not think so. You need to stop parroting everything you have been told and heard from bigoted people against the RCC. The Church of Rome did not separate herself by schism. Blame goes both ways and I suggest you read history. The Orthodox is NOT the only One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church because they too have major issues.

Not according to Catholic Answers. Besides, you are contradicting yourself if you say there is more than One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

In Christ,
Andrew

BTW we commemorated the Council of Nicaea this past Sunday in Orthodoxy.