My impressions of the Evangelical Lutheran church I visited

[Randy_Carson]

The trouble with the Catholic Church is that, it is weak on fellowship and the Mass is not designed for one Christian to uplift another.

Is that true of every single Catholic Church in the whole world? Or just the one(s) you are familiar with?

My parish has over 6,000 members and there are plenty of activities for anyone who wants to get involved.

But on Sunday, we are not there to socialize; we are there to worship. This IS a big difference between Catholics and Protestants, and I think Catholics have it right.

But if being a Mega-Church Protestant is your thing, grab a latte and head on in for the worship…the band is really cookin’ this morning.

The whole experience is impersonal, a requirement, an obligation.

This says more about the state of your heart than it does about the mass itself.

I think that’s why the hierarchy mandates it, it lets the leadership off the hook for the obvious lack of community in so many Catholic Churches.

And blaming “the hierarchy” lets YOU off the hook, doesn’t it? That way, it’s someone else’s fault that you have no fellowship.

Then people here come and say, you are going to hell for purposefully missing Mass. Well, thanks for reinforcing one of the biggest turn offs to Catholicism for me, black and white legalism and threats of Hell fire for breaking a rule. And threats of Hell for daring to explore another Christian Church!

Facts are facts. What you choose to do with them is between you and God. If you stop to think about it, though, every Catholic who posted a warning did so out of concern for you because of the danger. If you choose to ignore the signs that say, “Stop! Bridge Out” and you plunge into the river, whose fault is that?

I hope Pope Francis does something about this. It’s obvious from his statements that he has a different approach, one of actions motivated by love.

As were those of B16 and JPII and…

Another theme here that I should go to Mass at a church (the only Catholic Church within 25 miles btw) even though there is a priest there with a documented past association with a highly scandalous situation. As I said, I don’t want to go into details here because it’s probably against forum rules. But, I’m familiar with the priest from a previous Catholic Church I attended in another town, and also dislike him on a personal level.

First, if you have concerns for your personal safety, you can attend mass with a friend. Second, you may speak to the bishop if there is a problem that needs to be addressed. But choosing churches because you don’t like the preacher is a VERY Protestant thing to do.

So often I’ve seen the Catholic Church give us substandard pastors, then hold us hostage with a mandatory Mass requirement. Easily remedied by folks in more populous areas with lots of Catholic Churches of course.

This may be true to some degree. Do you often pray for vocations? Or is that the responsibility of the hierarchy? That let’s YOU off the hook again, doesn’t it?

Anyways, all of you arguing that I’ll go to Hell for missing Mass, save your breath. I don’t believe that and most people in the world don’t believe that. It’s a weak argument.

Sadly, beliefs and truths are often at odds with one another. And sometimes we let our emotions drive the train.

http://paulandkaelin.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/fact-faith-feelings.gif

 

[Efnouti_Nai_Nan]

Country Gal,

Did they explain why there was no liturgy there that day? That part seems odd. But I don’t know this church.

 

[Aslan10]

But on Sunday, we are not there to socialize; we are there to worship. This IS a big difference between Catholics and Protestants, and I think Catholics have it right.

But if being a Mega-Church Protestant is your thing, grab a latte and head on in for the worship…the band is really cookin’ this morning.

First, if you have concerns for your personal safety, you can attend mass with a friend. Second, you may speak to the bishop if there is a problem that needs to be addressed. But choosing churches because you don’t like the preacher is a VERY Protestant thing to do.

Sadly, beliefs and truths are often at odds with one another. And sometimes we let our emotions drive the train.

%between%

Your attacks on “Protestant” things to do, says a lot about the paradigm in which you view us. I just hope it’s not a “Catholic” thing to do. It’s funny, because praying to God, reading scripture, loving other people, and going to Church is also a VERY Protestant thing to do. Guess those actions should be discouraged as well.

While “latte grabbing” and “cookin’ bands” aren’t what I want at church, at least they care. Also, maybe holding your priests, bishops, and archbishops accountable, who are suppose to be teaching about Christ’s message, wouldn’t be such a bad thing.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Your attacks on “Protestant” things to do, says a lot about the paradigm in which you view us. I just hope it’s not a “Catholic” thing to do. It’s funny, because praying to God, reading scripture, loving other people, and going to Church is also a VERY Protestant thing to do. Guess those actions should be discouraged as well.

While “latte grabbing” and “cookin’ bands” aren’t what I want at church, at least they care. Also, maybe holding your priests, bishops, and archbishops accountable, who are suppose to be teaching about Christ’s message, wouldn’t be such a bad thing.

There are a wide range of Protestant experiences, and I’ve shared a lot of them.

I’ve even done “carpet time” at the Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship with John Arnott if any of you know what that’s about.

But tell me, Aslan, exactly what did I say that is not true of one Church or another under your “big tent”?

 

[Tommy999]

I think this statement is correct but not complete.

Mass does not lend itself to fellowship or conversation. And, unfortunately, the extent to which there is fellowship before or after Mass is often criticized by others who say people shouldn’t talk in church and similar statements.

The part that isn’t complete is that a parish can be so much more than simply going to Mass. We come together to support each other, teach each other, pray with each other, help others, etc. And it’s in those activities that we form a community with other parishioners.

Ultimately, though, the parish will only be what people make of it. If people are eager to fulfill their obligation and move on – get out the door as soon as the final blessing has been given – then it will be a pretty empty and unfulfilling place.

I think you should rephrase your question to say I don’t go to church to hear music or a sermon…

Because, frankly, a lot of people are looking for friendship and community and that is why they go to church. Or they’re looking for uplifting music or a stirring homily. They want to take something with them when they leave the building.

Catholics seem to fall for this fallacy that “we have the Eucharist and nothing else matters.” Lousy sermon? Doesn’t matter because we have the Eucharist. Insipid music? Doesn’t matter because we have the Eucharist. Lack of fellowship? Doesn’t matter because we have the Eucharist. And frankly, these other things do matter to a lot of people. And if they’re not coming to church, they don’t have a good sermon, they don’t have good music, they don’t have good fellowship, and they don’t have the Eucharist!

I found your comments very insightful, SuscipeMeDomine.

I am not a Catholic, but to me the Catholic Church is wonderful in many ways but could learn some positive things from other Christian faith traditions without compromising any of the sacred beliefs and sacraments of the Catholic Church.

I think Protestant churches, in general, do a good job of caring for the “whole person”, if you know what I mean. For example, welcoming visitors, offering inclusive fellowship opportunities geared toward age-appropriate groups or classes centered around common interests outside of the worship service, like sewing, sports, Bible studies, etc.

For example, my mother-in-law belonged to a group of retirees at her church where they occasionally took little side trips together in buses and stuff. Many of them also teamed up and served together in church teaching Sunday School classes to children or teenagers.

From my experience, some protestant churches double as a community center for those who attend those churches, so it is possible to get to know others outside of church. You get to see them in other settings besides just saying “hi” in the parking lot or during the sharing of the peace during the service.

There are opportunities to meet, share, be with, and grow with others in the congregation. It is not uncommon for marriages to result from people who meet at church.

I am in no way suggesting that Catholics should depart from their core beliefs and doctrines which were carried down since the times of the early church. I think those are precious and holy. However, I think Catholics could learn some positive things from their separated brethren just like I know I’ve learned a lot of enlightening spiritual and doctrinal wisdom from Catholics on this forum. Just my two cents for whatever it’s worth.

 

[Aslan10]

There are a wide range of Protestant experiences, and I’ve shared a lot of them.

I’ve even done “carpet time” at the Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship with John Arnott if any of you know what that’s about.

But tell me, Aslan, exactly what did I say that is not true of one Church or another under your “big tent”?

I have no idea what “carpet time” is or who “John Arnott” is. And I really could care less how many experiences you’ve had with the “big tent,” as you call it. You used ad hominem rhetoric with the phrase “VERY Protestant thing to do,” thereby, belittling people who enjoy such experiences and bring them closer to the will of God. To me, it sounds similar to “that is a VERY black, white or jewish thing to do.” While we believe different things, your divisiveness and “us vs them” attitude doesn’t help. I realize you want to help your fellow Catholic, and I applaud you. I hope she grows in her faith because of all this. But maybe, going about your argument with more care and charity would avoid such confrontation.

 

[pianistclare]

I found your comments very insightful, SuscipeMeDomine.

I am not a Catholic, but to me the Catholic Church is wonderful in many ways but could learn some positive things from other Christian faith traditions without compromising any of the sacred beliefs and sacraments of the Catholic Church.

I think Protestant churches, in general, do a good job of caring for the “whole person”, if you know what I mean. For example, welcoming visitors, offering inclusive fellowship opportunities geared toward age-appropriate groups or classes centered around common interests outside of the worship service, like sewing, sports, Bible studies, etc.

For example, my mother-in-law belonged to a group of retirees at her church where they occasionally took little side trips together in buses and stuff. Many of them also teamed up and served together in church teaching Sunday School classes to children or teenagers.

From my experience, some protestant churches double as a community center for those who attend those churches, so it is possible to get to know others outside of church. You get to see them in other settings besides just saying “hi” in the parking lot or during the sharing of the peace during the service.

There are opportunities to meet, share, be with, and grow with others in the congregation. It is not uncommon for marriages to result from people who meet at church.

I am in no way suggesting that Catholics should depart from their core beliefs and doctrines which were carried down since the times of the early church. I think those are precious and holy. However, I think Catholics could learn some positive things from their separated brethren just like I know I’ve learned a lot of enlightening spiritual and doctrinal wisdom from Catholics on this forum. Just my two cents for whatever it’s worth.

Hey Tommy!
In my neck of the woods (deep south) the Catholic Churches do ALL of what you mentioned and more. I’m always amazed to hear that people go to parishes who have no outside ministries. To me, that’s incredible. (And frankly, I don’t really believe it). :ehh:
If someone wants all of those trimmings, believe me there are Catholic churches that offer all that. The Parish down the road which is 4000 families strong has at minimum 80 ministries that a person could get involved with.
In our tiny parish, we know everyone. In fact, one family’s house burned down Saturday, and the mama one week away from delivering their 3rd child. You better believe the entire parish has galvanized to support them.
Sometimes I believe that people who are not involved don’t think anything happens after Mass. It’s a lot. And if it’s not a lot, they should step up. Be the hands and feet of Christ, as we say. Be a greeter. Get involved. I think the frustration from Catholics on this thread is more about an understanding of what Sacred Liturgy is, and the confusion with that vs. a life in Christ. They are not separate, but they work in concert,. There’s a time for worship and Eucharist, and a time for fellowship and work. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. We can have all of it. But it takes all of us working together and praying together.
Glad to see you! May your Christmas be blessed.
Clare

 

[Exiled_Child]

Hey Tommy!
In my neck of the woods (deep south) the Catholic Churches do ALL of what you mentioned and more. I’m always amazed to hear that people go to parishes who have no outside ministries. To me, that’s incredible. (And frankly, I don’t really believe it). :ehh:
If someone wants all of those trimmings, believe me there are Catholic churches that offer all that. The Parish down the road which is 4000 families strong has at minimum 80 ministries that a person could get involved with.
In our tiny parish, we know everyone. In fact, one family’s house burned down Saturday, and the mama one week away from delivering their 3rd child. You better believe the entire parish has galvanized to support them.
Sometimes I believe that people who are not involved don’t think anything happens after Mass. It’s a lot. And if it’s not a lot, they should step up. Be the hands and feet of Christ, as we say. Be a greeter. Get involved. I think the frustration from Catholics on this thread is more about an understanding of what Sacred Liturgy is, and the confusion with that vs. a life in Christ. They are not separate, but they work in concert,. There’s a time for worship and Eucharist, and a time for fellowship and work. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. We can have all of it. But it takes all of us working together and praying together.
Glad to see you! May your Christmas be blessed.
Clare

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[Tommy999]

Hey Tommy!
In my neck of the woods (deep south) the Catholic Churches do ALL of what you mentioned and more. I’m always amazed to hear that people go to parishes who have no outside ministries. To me, that’s incredible. (And frankly, I don’t really believe it). :ehh:
If someone wants all of those trimmings, believe me there are Catholic churches that offer all that. The Parish down the road which is 4000 families strong has at minimum 80 ministries that a person could get involved with.
In our tiny parish, we know everyone. In fact, one family’s house burned down Saturday, and the mama one week away from delivering their 3rd child. You better believe the entire parish has galvanized to support them.
Sometimes I believe that people who are not involved don’t think anything happens after Mass. It’s a lot. And if it’s not a lot, they should step up. Be the hands and feet of Christ, as we say. Be a greeter. Get involved. I think the frustration from Catholics on this thread is more about an understanding of what Sacred Liturgy is, and the confusion with that vs. a life in Christ. They are not separate, but they work in concert,. There’s a time for worship and Eucharist, and a time for fellowship and work. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. We can have all of it. But it takes all of us working together and praying together.
Glad to see you! May your Christmas be blessed.
Clare

Hello Clare,
Always good to hear from you

Thanks for clarifying the situation. I’m glad to hear that the parish church of the OP is in the minority of Catholic churches in the USA and to hear that most have opportunities for personal growth and fellowship outside of Mass. I had a feeling that was the case but I can only go by what I read on CAF along with my visit I made to a local Catholic Church back in the summer.

In all churches (Catholic and Protestant) there will be those who are only interested in attending Mass and not doing any outside socializing or fellowshipping with others. However, it’s good to know there are social opportunities at church and outside ministries for those folks who desire them.

Merry Christmas to you, as well. I hope you have a blessed one, also.

 

[JonNC]

The Lutheran Church’s “Holy Communion” is not the Body and Blood of our Lord. To receive Protestant “communion” is a mortal sin as it is essentially a mockery of the Eucharist - Jesus’ glorified Body.

That’s not quite the way Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger put it:

“I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper.”

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon-

I need some education, because somehow I have missed this over the past few years.

What is the basis for your belief? As background:

jimmyakin.com/the-validity-of-the-eucharist-in-lutheran-and-anglican-churches

I’m only about halfway through Bainton’s biography of Luther, so maybe these questions are answered, but I don’t mind if you spoil it for me: How can Luther cut the cord to apostolic succession and then turn around and claim that valid orders and apostolic succession has been maintained in the absence of the laying on of hands by a successor of the Apostles?

Hi Randy,
The following is from the LCMS website. It is a brief explanation which cites historical precedent within the western Church for the validity of presbyter ordination.

Apostolic Succession.
Strictly speaking, the term describes the teaching of the E Orthodox, Monophysite, Nestorian, RC, Old Cath., Ch. of S India, and Swed. and certain other Luth. Christians that the ministry of their churches has come down from the apostles in an unbroken succession of bps. Of those named above, the Luths., the Ch. of S India, and some Anglicans regard the apostolic succession merely as a valuable symbol of continuity with the past, in a class with the creeds and the liturgy, and do not make it a test of the validity of a clergyman’s ministry. E Orthodox, Monophysite, Nestorian, RC and some Angl. Christians gen. regard it as necessary to the existence of the church and to the valid ministration of most sacraments; RCs make a special point of the succession of the bps. of Rome from Peter. The hist. fact of the apostolic succession can be assumed with reasonable safety after the emergence of the monarchial episcopate as the normal form of govt. in the ch.; the demonstration of the hist. fact in the crucial period immediately after the apostles is beset with insurmountable difficulties.
Although the Luth. symbols affirm the desire to retain the apostolic succession and hist. episcopate (Ap XIV 1, 5) only a few canonically consecrated bps. accepted the Reformation and, except in Swed., political and other considerations prevented them from transmitting the apostolic succession to the Luth. community. Lacking bps. to ordain their candidates for the sacred ministry, the Luths. appealed to the patristically attested facts that originally bps. and priests constituted only one order; that the right to ordain was inherent in the priesthood (a principle on which a number of popes of the 15th c., among them Boniface IX, Martin V, and Innocent VIII, acted in authorizing Cistercian abbots who were only priests to ordain); that thence “an ordination administered by a pastor in his own church is valid by divine law” (Tractatus 65); and that when the canonical bps. refuse to impart ordination “the churches are compelled by divine law to ordain pastors and ministers, using their own pastors for this purpose (adhibitis suis pastoribus)” (ibid., 72). The succession of the ministry in the Luth. Ch. may therefore be presumed to be a valid presbyterial one.
Episc. polity does not imply apostolic succession; the Luth. provincial churches in Ger. and the Meth. Ch. in the US are cases in point. In other cases, an episc. succession originated in a consecration by a clergyman in priest’s orders, e.g., in the Luth. Ch. in Den., Nor., Iceland. The apostolic succession of the medieval Waldensians, and hence of the Moravian Unitas Fratrum, also rests on improbable legends. Many “wandering bishops” (episcopi vagantes) claim to stand in some Old Cath., E Orthodox, Nestorian, or Monophysite succession, but their competence validly to ordain and to consecrate is gen. denied by the bodies from whom they claim episc. descent.
The term “apostolic succession” is at times applied in a broad, nontechnical sense to a succession of doctrine or of believers from the apostles; but this is misleading.
A. Ehrhardt, The Apostolic Succession in the First Two Centuries of the Church (London, 1953); Hans Freiherr von Campenhausen, Kirchliches Amt und geistliche Vollmacht in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten; (Tübingen, 1953); E. Benz, Bischofsamt und apostolische Sukzession im deutschen Protestantismus (Stuttgart, 1953); T. W. Manson, The Church’s Ministry (London, 1948); K. E. Kirk and others, The Apostolic Ministry (London, 1946); H. Brandreth, Episcopi Vagantes and the Anglican Church, 2d ed. (London, 1961). ACP

cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=a&word=APOSTOLICSUCCESSION

Jon

 

[Catholic_farmer]

Is there another Catholic Church within an hour of you?

We are in a rural area. We used to commute 45 minutes to church and now our commute time is 25 minutes. We also have a hybrid car because I drive into town twice per day to drop our son off and pick him up from Catholic school. You do what you have to.

 

[JonNC]

Well, let’s see.
The OP came here talking about how great the Lutheran service was.
Wonderful. I’m genuinely glad it was great. I’m glad you felt welcome and uplifted by the children in song.
I’m also glad that people have reminded the OP that as fulfilling and nice as that service was, it did not fulfill her Sunday obligation as a Catholic. No one would be saying this if she did not volunteer this info. People are rightly concerned that she missed an opportunity for receiving Christ in Eucharist, regardless of laws, legalism, or whatever people want to call it.
People are generally sad that she missed Mass.
She is believing that the Lutheran church is “better” because people noticed and welcomed her. While many Stewardship committees everywhere continue to bemoan the fact that people want to be recognized at Mass, I can’t help but wish that people would be more concerned that Christ, present in the Tabernacle, and on the Sacrificial Altar would understand that HE recognize them, welcomes them, loves them beyond what they could hope for in terms of warmth, music, joy, and embraces them.
It’s wonderful thing to see our brother Christians open their arms to anyone who come through the doors of their churches. In the Catholic Church, we have the ultimate Greeter, Christ, the Lord.
I think what maybe some of us have rather clumsily said, is that THIS is why we attend the Catholic Mass. We feel good because of what we know, whether or not the priest is ill, having a bad day, the organist is cranky, or the Deacons abrupt, the children fussy, or the donuts stale afterward.
For us, we love the Mass. And we wish the OP would see it through this lens.
All of us have room to grow in the hospitality and kindness department. God willing, the OP can galvanize her parish to be more loving, more giving, more social justice oriented, more fruitful in music and children’s ministries. Or any parish she chooses to attend.
God’s peace to you OP, in this most holy season of love.

Just to comment on the bolded, I think issues like fellowship, welcoming, nice priest, etc., are not the best reasons to change churches. It is my belief that, when thinking about transferring membership, one should take the time to thoroughly study not only the church they are moving to, but also the one they might leave behind. IOW, know what you are leaving behind as least as well as what you are going toward.

Typically, you won’t find Lutherans involved in proselytizing, particularly from communions that have/practice both word and sacrament. As you rightly say, and Lutherans would agree, Christ on the altar is the most important “greeter”.

Jon

 

[cmodrmac]

" Not to flog a dead horse, but you have most likely put yourself into a state of mortal sin and should consider confessing to a priest (no, not a Lutheran pastor) before approaching the Sacrament again. You might also look into the Donatist heresy which you seem to be flirting with. God bless and have a Merry Christmas. "

wow enough said -exactly how is it a mortal sin?-with that said I never quite understand the obligation to go to Church on Sunday under threat of mortal sin -? it strikes me that it is just a way to “control the laity”-or is it tied up with a teaching on the sabath-

I do admire a Cathoic posting on this topic -you know incoming artillery was inevitable-as far as I know RC are not tied to a particular Parish-if the Pastor is disagreeable to you go to another Parish

---

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi Randy,
The following is from the LCMS website. It is a brief explanation which cites historical precedent within the western Church for the validity of presbyter ordination.

Jon

First the article says:

Of those named above, the Luths., the Ch. of S India, and some Anglicans regard the apostolic succession merely as a valuable symbol of continuity with the past, in a class with the creeds and the liturgy, and do not make it a test of the validity of a clergyman’s ministry.

Then it goes on to describe how, in the absence of a validly consecrated bishop of their own, the early Lutherans searched for a solution to this problem and ultimately decided that (what else?) scripture proved that anyone who was a priest could validly ordain another priest.

First, if it’s just a symbol, why did they bother to come up with this explanation?

Second, this is kinda like the argument from causation or contingency (I’m not going to look it up to be sure). If every priest was consecrated by a valid priest before him who was consecrated by a valid priest before him, then who was the first validly consecrated priest?

Well, when speaking of the NT priesthood, that would have to be Peter and the guys in the Upper Seminary, wouldn’t you agree? And they were all , well, Catholic. So, your priesthood is contingent upon the Catholic episcopacy.

But hold on, why is it that Luther and Co. could just change the rules simply to meet the needs of his new church? Doesn’t it strain the boundaries of credibility to believe that whenever you happen to agree with Catholicism, then the Catholics got that right. But whenever Luther needed to make a change, well, lo and behold, here is another example of something Catholics got wrong. What an amazing coincidence!

We need a way to ordain priests…oh, look!..the answer is right here in Scripture all along. And no one ever saw it until Luther had need?

Sorry, Jon, but it’s hard not to believe that Luther simply “found” these new things hiding in plain sight whenever he wanted to do so.

 

[commenter]

" Not to flog a dead horse, but you have most likely put yourself into a state of mortal sin and should consider confessing to a priest (no, not a Lutheran pastor) before approaching the Sacrament again. You might also look into the Donatist heresy which you seem to be flirting with. God bless and have a Merry Christmas. "

wow enough said -exactly how is it a mortal sin?-with that said I never quite understand the obligation to go to Church on Sunday under threat of mortal sin -? it strikes me that it is just a way to “control the laity”-or is it tied up with a teaching on the sabath-

I do admire a Cathoic posting on this topic -you know incoming artillery was inevitable-as far as I know RC are not tied to a particular Parish-if the Pastor is disagreeable to you go to another Parish

---

 

[SyroMalankara]

" Not to flog a dead horse, but you have most likely put yourself into a state of mortal sin and should consider confessing to a priest (no, not a Lutheran pastor) before approaching the Sacrament again. You might also look into the Donatist heresy which you seem to be flirting with. God bless and have a Merry Christmas. "

wow enough said -exactly how is it a mortal sin?-with that said I never quite understand the obligation to go to Church on Sunday under threat of mortal sin -? it strikes me that it is just a way to “control the laity”-or is it tied up with a teaching on the sabath-

I do admire a Cathoic posting on this topic -you know incoming artillery was inevitable-as far as I know RC are not tied to a particular Parish-if the Pastor is disagreeable to you go to another Parish

---

A mortal sin in Roman speak, or a grave sin in Eastern speak, is failing to fulfill your first obligation due to loving God (1st Commandment) - that is worshipping God fully, truly, in Spirit and Truth. Of course there are many circumstances where attending Mass/Divine Liturgy is impossible, so in this instance, you pray how you can and go to the communal Sacred Liturgy at your next available opportunity.

A Catholic attending a Luther service is no sin in and of itself. However, skipping the worship of God in Spirit and Truth - knowing that Catholic worship is precisely this - because some other service feels good is, well… you know the rest. Of course, if you can’t attend the parish you mentioned due to moral reasons, please find another. There are friendly, welcoming Catholic parishes - believe me.

 

[SyroMalankara]

First the article says:

Of those named above, the Luths., the Ch. of S India, and some Anglicans regard the apostolic succession merely as a valuable symbol of continuity with the past, in a class with the creeds and the liturgy, and do not make it a test of the validity of a clergyman’s ministry.

Then it goes on to describe how, in the absence of a validly consecrated bishop of their own, the early Lutherans searched for a solution to this problem and ultimately decided that (what else?) scripture proved that anyone who was a priest could validly ordain another priest.

First, if it’s just a symbol, why did they bother to come up with this explanation?

Second, this is kinda like the argument from causation or contingency (I’m not going to look it up to be sure). If every priest was consecrated by a valid priest before him who was consecrated by a valid priest before him, then who was the first validly consecrated priest?

Well, when speaking of the NT priesthood, that would have to be Peter and the guys in the Upper Seminary, wouldn’t you agree? And they were all , well, Catholic. So, your priesthood is contingent upon the Catholic episcopacy.

But hold on, why is it that Luther and Co. could just change the rules simply to meet the needs of his new church? Doesn’t it strain the boundaries of credibility to believe that whenever you happen to agree with Catholicism, then the Catholics got that right. But whenever Luther needed to make a change, well, lo and behold, here is another example of something Catholics got wrong. What an amazing coincidence!

We need a way to ordain priests…oh, look!..the answer is right here in Scripture all along. And no one ever saw it until Luther had need?

Sorry, Jon, but it’s hard not to believe that Luther simply “found” these new things hiding in plain sight whenever he wanted to do so.

Randy, we’ve seen these things time and again, haven’t we? Set up the theology later to justify the actions that have been taken. Heck, we can “discover” Mary Magdalene as a bishop, Jesus as married to her, John as his boyfriend and all kinds of new “discoveries” as needed.

I just saw this guys documentary, and while I don’t agree with much of his premises, one can clearly see why he thinks what he does based on the type of Christianity he was a member of:

Losing God
youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-aJiwkSDDe3tzTmPYAlO5ISfp7ldynEG

 

[JonNC]

First the article says:

Of those named above, the Luths., the Ch. of S India, and some Anglicans regard the apostolic succession merely as a valuable symbol of continuity with the past, in a class with the creeds and the liturgy, and do not make it a test of the validity of a clergyman’s ministry.

Then it goes on to describe how, in the absence of a validly consecrated bishop of their own, the early Lutherans searched for a solution to this problem and ultimately decided that (what else?) scripture proved that anyone who was a priest could validly ordain another priest.

First, if it’s just a symbol, why did they bother to come up with this explanation?

Second, this is kinda like the argument from causation or contingency (I’m not going to look it up to be sure). If every priest was consecrated by a valid priest before him who was consecrated by a valid priest before him, then who was the first validly consecrated priest?

Well, when speaking of the NT priesthood, that would have to be Peter and the guys in the Upper Seminary, wouldn’t you agree? And they were all , well, Catholic. So, your priesthood is contingent upon the Catholic episcopacy.

But hold on, why is it that Luther and Co. could just change the rules simply to meet the needs of his new church? Doesn’t it strain the boundaries of credibility to believe that whenever you happen to agree with Catholicism, then the Catholics got that right. But whenever Luther needed to make a change, well, lo and behold, here is another example of something Catholics got wrong. What an amazing coincidence!

We need a way to ordain priests…oh, look!..the answer is right here in Scripture all along. And no one ever saw it until Luther had need?

Sorry, Jon, but it’s hard not to believe that Luther simply “found” these new things hiding in plain sight whenever he wanted to do so.

Hi Randy,
I don’t believe they had to search hard for a solution. The Catholic Church provided it when, in the 1400’s, they allowed for presbyter ordination. It is also rather apparent in the early Church.

Jon

 

[frizzgrig]

For the original poster -

You have expressed a feeling the congregation is “cold” & “impersonal” and the Mass is not about lifting each other up. The Mass is about giving thanks to God, and one way YOU can do so is helping to “lift” others.

Try this - arrive at the Catholic Church 20 or 30 min early for Mass. Stand out front near the main entrance or just inside the entrance, smile & say “good morning” to the people as they arrive for Mass. (I understand this may be difficult for you as a shy person, but give it a try.) A fair number of people will appear to not notice you, or ignore you but a number will see you there and respond.

If you are unhappy with the way your parish is, the change you seek comes not from running away but from within yourself.