Protestant service last night.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ron_Obvious
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
latingirl said:
Thank you for sharing this insight with us and explaining some of what draws Catholics to Evangelical services. However these things cannot be said for all.

Take me for example.

I have more theological freedom and spirit of life in me that ever since I left Evangelical Protestantism for the Catholic Church. I have often been overcome with emotion at Catholic Masses. Understanding the beauty and gloriousness of what’s going on helps alot!! Morse what you have stated here are preferences. I like the fact that Catholicism says “This is the truth no matter how you feel.” We don’t serve God on our terms, we serve God on HIS.

by the way, chant and plainsong speaks to my soul WAY MORE than happy gospel music or rock-n-roll hymns.

I’ve got to say nothing quite fulfills that longing for the transcendent, the profound and ancient like Catholicism (or perhaps Orthodoxy)
Click to expand...
I always get tears when we recite the creed for our Priest raises his voice loudly and says…“I believe” and then we all join in. I am struck with awe that this is the creed of years and years and I am part of the OHCAC that has recited it. I am so grateful for what was done to set down the beliefs. The liturgy of the eucharist is always an emotional experience for me as well.
 
Maryann_C said:
Good advice. Honestly I think that unless one is a seasoned and well armored Catholic apologist going into such a Church is like walking into the lion’s den.

Sometimes the best friend we can be is to be the example that says “sorry I can not enter a Church Service where I know that the people hate all that I know and love to be true because if I did it would be as if i was saying I was in communion with them” This is also what I would have said as I got up and left. By remaining there you gave assent to what this pastor said.

Who is it who said something like ‘all that is needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing’?

Jesus threw the money peddlers out of the temple court But they were selling things to be sacrificed to God!

There is a time and place for everything be ecumenical at a conference or at Lunch in discussions but not by attending another’s church. Would you enter a Hindu temple and listen /worship there if your friend was Hindu? Be a witness by standing firm in truth.
Click to expand...
What may I ask is the C of E?
 
CopticChristian said:
I always get tears when we recite the creed for our Priest raises his voice loudly and says…“I believe” and then we all join in. I am struck with awe that this is the creed of years and years and I am part of the OHCAC that has recited it. I am so grateful for what was done to set down the beliefs. The liturgy of the eucharist is always an emotional experience for me as well.
Click to expand...
Yes when you look up the history and see how many people died for that apostolic faith, it does overwhelm you with gratitude and thanksgiving for God- the Eucharist too! What is a greater gift!
 
CopticChristian said:
I have attended too many Protestant Evangelical services and I find them to be remedial, boring and redundant not providing any new insights. I find them to be repetitive teaching their theology that others believe to be inspirational and new because they do not know that they are being taught Protestant theology. Once you know what the message is and you hear it over and over it gets old.
Click to expand...
No wonder the children are not in attendance at the lengthy “adult” lecture type service. :yawn::sleep:
At least for most of the Protestant Sunday Worship Services anyway that I have been too.

I could not live without the Liturgical element of the Catholic Mass, for it is truly the highest form of Worship that we can give to God. I am part of the thanks and praise that is offered up to God for being so good to me rather than being a spectator at an entertainment venue instead.

No offense meant to my brothers and sisters in Christ, I prefer the worship of God in the Mass at the Catholic Church for it satisfies my thirst.

:amen:
 
latingirl said:
Thank you for sharing this insight with us and explaining some of what draws Catholics to Evangelical services. However these things cannot be said for all.

Take me for example.

I have more theological freedom and spirit of life in me that ever since I left Evangelical Protestantism for the Catholic Church. I have often been overcome with emotion at Catholic Masses. Understanding the beauty and gloriousness of what’s going on helps alot!! Morse what you have stated here are preferences. I like the fact that Catholicism says “This is the truth no matter how you feel.” We don’t serve God on our terms, we serve God on HIS.

by the way, chant and plainsong speaks to my soul WAY MORE than happy gospel music or rock-n-roll hymns.

I’ve got to say nothing quite fulfills that longing for the transcendent, the profound and ancient like Catholicism (or perhaps Orthodoxy)
Click to expand...
Yes and there is nothing that quite compares to the large, life-like Crucifix that drapes behind the Alter. There is no place to hide from God. The empty cross at the Protestant services does nothing for my soul.

For when the celebrant Priest rises from his chair and raises The Word of God over his head and we sing Alleluia (“Praise Yahweh”) before hearing him proclaim the Good News of the Gospel, I find my heart rings out in the form of tears of Him who died for my sins. It is a very personal encounter with God and thank God for good, Catholic Christian parents that raised me to love my Catholic faith!

However, during the past few weeks, during our Lenten walk through the desert, we are currently singing “Praise and Honor to you, Lord, Jesus , In Your Endless Glory.”

I can’t wait to greet Our Risen Lord with great shouts of “Alleluia!”

It is also a reminder that the Kingdom of Heaven is already established on earth, in the form of the Church, and that our participation in Mass is a participation in Heaven.
 
It seems to me that this discussion shows what to me is obvious: different people respond differently to different styles of worship.
Code: 
Three styles come to mind.

**Heavy Liturgy.** Roman Catholic, Orthodox and to a lesser degree Anglican and Lutheran. Millions of people find spiritual inspiration and support through this mode of worship. It has an aesthetic quality that is lacking in much Protestant worship. The down side (to many) is that it can often seem like robotic ritual, too attached to formal prayerbook procedures with little room for variation. The personality of the priest/pastor makes a major difference. Too often, however, worship - especially for young people - can seem staid and repetitious.

 **Mild liturgy**, mainline Protestant. Methodists, Presbyterians, UCC and others employ a degree of liturgy, but the services can vary. There is room, for example, for worship services led by youth, perhaps, or an all-music Sunday service, possibly, etc. The sermon usually is longer than in more liturgical churches. Today thers is likely to be more adherence to the ecumenical lectionary than in past generations, but there usually is no compulsion to follow it if circumstances - whatever they may be - suggest that focus should be put on something else in the life of the church, the community, the nation or the world.
** Evangelical Protestant.** These can vary between non- (and even anti-) Pentecostal forms of worship to what we once referred to as ‘holy-roller’ worship. Rarely does any one actually roll, but there is considerable emphasis upon religious experience, feeling the movement of the spirit in our hearts and souls… The music usually is key to much emotion, whether beloved and touching gospel hymns or lively and contemporary praise music.
Code: 
 I'm inclined to let God speak through different means, methods, and modes. We have a mighty and mysterious Lord and let's worship him in spirit and in truth without judging the worship styles that may draw others to Christ. Whom Bishop Sheen couldn't reach, perhaps Norman Vincent Peale or Billy Graham could. I am more distressed by religious bigotry than by religious diversity. I view anyone who seeks God - loving the Lord and seeking to serve others in the Lord's name - any such person is my brother or sister whom I respect, whatever his or her church affiliation.  

  True religion should serve as a bridge and not as a barrier.
 
Roy5 said:
CopticChristian
Code: 
Catholics are drawn to mainline Protestant churches for very different reasons. One of them is theological freedom. Another is a liberal position in many of them on gay issues, even 'pro-choice' over 'pro-life'. They also may favor women priests, marriage of clergy, etc. - all part of modern mainline Protestantism..
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, I think this is probably true. Following Christ will involve suffering, through which we must persevere. I can understand the appeal of a church that promises health, wealth, donuts, and rock music - and forgets to remind Christians that they must take up their crosses and follow Him. The idea is to draw these believers in and make them comfortable (so that they stay and contribute in some way - time, talent, or treasure). A thousand years from now the protestant churches will hardly be recognized as a body of believers as pastors continue to cater more and more to their followers’ “human” needs. Catholics, on the other hand, will likely be castigated as archaic, at best, or evil (no women priests, opposition to birth control, opposition to homosexual marriage, opposition to abortion, opposition to fornication, etc.).

[BIBLEDRB]2 Tim. 3:12[/BIBLEDRB]
 
stewstew303
Code: 
 Protestantism is a grossly varied phenomenon, **but few of the mainline church preach **the 'prosperity gospel' **as you seem to suggest. That is much more likely to be found among certain evangelical churches on TV etc which talk about 'planting your seed' (sending them money and then harvesting major rewards (money, health, whatever)  promised by God. Some probably are sincere. Others I view as exploiters, scammers, false preachers.
** Mainline churches are much less likely to have rock music, too**, though at times some may have services not unlike folk masses. Yes, they often do have coffee hours that serve donuts and promote warm parish fellowship. I can’t fault that. These devices haven’t been all that successful in the mainline churches as they, like Catholic churches, have suffered a continuing decline in attendance.

** The evangelicals have been the ones to prosper in recent years**. One of the reasons is that they often do preach a version of the ‘prosperity gospel’ and people like to hear that. This is one factor in the large number of Hispanics who in the US and Latin America have been drawn into the evangelical camp. Music, emotion, a multi-purpose program, fervent evangelism, dynamic preaching - these and other factors may help explain the rapid growth of evangelism among Hispanics. I’ve read that in Brazil, for example, more Brazilians attend worship in evangelical churches on a normal Sunday than in Catholic churches. Some of this may be a form of backlash, also - a major factor in the rapid demise of Catholicism in Quebec, once solidly French Catholic. Since I have French-Canadian background I am especially acquainted with the situation there.**
 
Smith and Koresh, of course, were not Protestants. They were about as Protestant as they were Catholic. Really cult figures, like Moon or Jones, etc. To call them Protestant would be like calling Hitler and Mussolini etc. Roman Catholics. Offensive? I think so… Romney’s problem among many Evangelicals is that they don’t regard Mormonism as Christian. Ditto for Koresh, Moon or Jones - etc.
Osteen, in contrast, is a legitimate Protestant. Protestants may disagree on how they react to him, He seems to be widely respected among both Evangelical and Mainline Protestants. He gives the impression of being an Evangelical, but his messages suggest that he is more like a Norman Vincent Peale or a Bob Schuller, both really mainliners. Happy and healthy and positiive and moral living under God. Not such a bad emphasis, but less Biblically conservative than most Evangelicals.
 
Roy5 said:
It seems to me that this discussion shows what to me is obvious: different people respond differently to different styles of worship.
Code: 
Three styles come to mind.
** Heavy Liturgy.** Roman Catholic, Orthodox and to a lesser degree Anglican and Lutheran. Millions of people find spiritual inspiration and support through this mode of worship. It has an aesthetic quality that is lacking in much Protestant worship. The down side (to many) is that it can often seem like robotic ritual, too attached to formal prayerbook procedures with little room for variation. The personality of the priest/pastor makes a major difference. Too often, however, worship - especially for young people - can seem staid and repetitious.
Mild liturgy, mainline Protestant. Methodists, Presbyterians, UCC and others employ a degree of liturgy, but the services can vary. There is room, for example, for worship services led by youth, perhaps, or an all-music Sunday service, possibly, etc. The sermon usually is longer than in more liturgical churches. Today thers is likely to be more adherence to the ecumenical lectionary than in past generations, but there usually is no compulsion to follow it if circumstances - whatever they may be - suggest that focus should be put on something else in the life of the church, the community, the nation or the world.

** Evangelical Protestant.** These can vary between non- (and even anti-) Pentecostal forms of worship to what we once referred to as ‘holy-roller’ worship. Rarely does any one actually roll, but there is considerable emphasis upon religious experience, feeling the movement of the spirit in our hearts and souls… The music usually is key to much emotion, whether beloved and touching gospel hymns or lively and contemporary praise music.
Code: 
 I'm inclined to let God speak through different means, methods, and modes. We have a mighty and mysterious Lord and let's worship him in spirit and in truth without judging the worship styles that may draw others to Christ. Whom Bishop Sheen couldn't reach, perhaps Norman Vincent Peale or Billy Graham could. I am more distressed by religious bigotry than by religious diversity. I view anyone who seeks God - loving the Lord and seeking to serve others in the Lord's name - any such person is my brother or sister whom I respect, whatever his or her church affiliation.  

  True religion should serve as a bridge and not as a barrier.
Click to expand...
Roy,

close your eyes and imagine when you open them you are looking at the temple of Solomon and the Levitical Priests are preparing service…would you believe or imagine that your criticism or running commentary as to what they are doing or were doing would play into a change of the service…you worship on this hill and we worship on that hill…I say we worship what we know and you worship what you don’t know.🙂
 
Roy5 said:
It seems to me that this discussion shows what to me is obvious: different people respond differently to different styles of worship.
Code: 
Three styles come to mind.

**Heavy Liturgy.** Roman Catholic, Orthodox and to a lesser degree Anglican and Lutheran. Millions of people find spiritual inspiration and support through this mode of worship. It has an aesthetic quality that is lacking in much Protestant worship. The down side (to many) is that it can often seem like robotic ritual, too attached to formal prayerbook procedures with little room for variation. The personality of the priest/pastor makes a major difference. Too often, however, worship - especially for young people - can seem staid and repetitious.

 **Mild liturgy**, mainline Protestant. Methodists, Presbyterians, UCC and others employ a degree of liturgy, but the services can vary. There is room, for example, for worship services led by youth, perhaps, or an all-music Sunday service, possibly, etc. The sermon usually is longer than in more liturgical churches. Today thers is likely to be more adherence to the ecumenical lectionary than in past generations, but there usually is no compulsion to follow it if circumstances - whatever they may be - suggest that focus should be put on something else in the life of the church, the community, the nation or the world.
** Evangelical Protestant.** These can vary between non- (and even anti-) Pentecostal forms of worship to what we once referred to as ‘holy-roller’ worship. Rarely does any one actually roll, but there is considerable emphasis upon religious experience, feeling the movement of the spirit in our hearts and souls… The music usually is key to much emotion, whether beloved and touching gospel hymns or lively and contemporary praise music.
Code: 
 I'm inclined to let God speak through different means, methods, and modes. We have a mighty and mysterious Lord and let's worship him in spirit and in truth without judging the worship styles that may draw others to Christ. Whom Bishop Sheen couldn't reach, perhaps Norman Vincent Peale or Billy Graham could. I am more distressed by religious bigotry than by religious diversity. I view anyone who seeks God - loving the Lord and seeking to serve others in the Lord's name - any such person is my brother or sister whom I respect, whatever his or her church affiliation.  

  True religion should serve as a bridge and not as a barrier.
Click to expand...
This is an insightful post. It made my day better.

When I was Protestant the lack of silence in our worship was to me a barrier. I like the silence that is part of the liturgy, I can be still and talk to God. Moreso, what I treasure about the Catholic Mass is that I am not a spectator but a participant. I get to move, to speak, to kneel and stand. To worship with my whole body!

I also must add that the worship described in the Book of Revelation is liturgical, with chanting, prayers and incense and things being said at certain times. The Jews were liturgical and so were the first Christians.

I am too distressed by religious bigotry. We have that in common. although I must add that I never experienced hate towards my religion until I became Catholic.
 
Roy5 said:
It seems to me that this discussion shows what to me is obvious: different people respond differently to different styles of worship.
Code: 
Three styles come to mind.

**Heavy Liturgy.** Roman Catholic, Orthodox and to a lesser degree Anglican and Lutheran. Millions of people find spiritual inspiration and support through this mode of worship. It has an aesthetic quality that is lacking in much Protestant worship. The down side (to many) is that it can often seem like robotic ritual, too attached to formal prayerbook procedures with little room for variation. The personality of the priest/pastor makes a major difference. Too often, however, worship - especially for young people - can seem staid and repetitious.

 **Mild liturgy**, mainline Protestant. Methodists, Presbyterians, UCC and others employ a degree of liturgy, but the services can vary. There is room, for example, for worship services led by youth, perhaps, or an all-music Sunday service, possibly, etc. The sermon usually is longer than in more liturgical churches. Today thers is likely to be more adherence to the ecumenical lectionary than in past generations, but there usually is no compulsion to follow it if circumstances - whatever they may be - suggest that focus should be put on something else in the life of the church, the community, the nation or the world.
** Evangelical Protestant.** These can vary between non- (and even anti-) Pentecostal forms of worship to what we once referred to as ‘holy-roller’ worship. Rarely does any one actually roll, but there is considerable emphasis upon religious experience, feeling the movement of the spirit in our hearts and souls… The music usually is key to much emotion, whether beloved and touching gospel hymns or lively and contemporary praise music.
Code: 
 I'm inclined to let God speak through different means, methods, and modes. We have a mighty and mysterious Lord and let's worship him in spirit and in truth without judging the worship styles that may draw others to Christ. Whom Bishop Sheen couldn't reach, perhaps Norman Vincent Peale or Billy Graham could. I am more distressed by religious bigotry than by religious diversity. I view anyone who seeks God - loving the Lord and seeking to serve others in the Lord's name - any such person is my brother or sister whom I respect, whatever his or her church affiliation.  

  True religion should serve as a bridge and not as a barrier.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are trying to say with the different types of worship. I have experienced them all. My only problem is this makes it sound like well, here is your choice. Like we can choose our style of worship and any of them are fine and all roads lead home. Bringing faith and our eternal salvation down to a decision on how you want to worship is like saying it doesn’t matter what you believe or what you are being taught while there, so long as you are happy with the worship service. That’s just not right.

The thing is, it is not about us. It is not about how we choose to worship. It is about God and how He says we should worship and where you find God’s truth. :harp:
 
Diana_Catherine said:
I understand what you are trying to say with the different types of worship. I have experienced them all. My only problem is this makes it sound like well, here is your choice. Like we can choose our style of worship and any of them are fine and all roads lead home. Bringing faith and our eternal salvation down to a decision on how you want to worship is like saying it doesn’t matter what you believe or what you are being taught while there, so long as you are happy with the worship service. That’s just not right.

The thing is, it is not about us. It is not about how we choose to worship. It is about God and how He says we should worship and where you find God’s truth. :harp:
Click to expand...
sounds like we worship what we know!👍
 
Let me reluctantly add a passing thought that has led me to some discomfort with Catholicism.
Code: 
  Here was Jesus, who often had no place to lay his weary head, who preached against the ecclesiatical establishment with its severe legalisms and precise rituals, who walked dusty roads on hot days without any of the comforts that most people have (and even had then). Then I turn on EWTN and I see the Pope, a fine and learned man to be sure, in elaborate robes, leading mass in the massive Vatican and other ornate sanctuaries, being hailed by adoring crowds like a movie celebrity, surrounded by men in red hats. people bowing before him and kissing his ring. and I have to wonder - how can I somehow make the two pictures match? 

  I know, early Protestant iconoclasts were vile in their disregard for great art, etc. But there is something about a simple white New England church that can be very attractive. There is reverence in that simplicity. There is an absence of ostentatiousness. The minister, if he wears a robe, wears a plain one, maybe all black or all white, possibly with a simple stole. Am I wrong to find that attractive - and even wonder which one better symbolizes the Christ that we seek to follow? 

   I've decided that wherever one encounters Christ most fully is a place for the Christian to be. He/she may find inspiration in the huge cathedral or in the simple New England church, in a monastery garden or on a beach as the sun begins to rise (or set). The notion that there is one infallible church in all this, that this church alone knows the full splendor of truth - hm! yes, that is a problem for me. And isn't God much too big to be contained in just one expression of faith? Maybe all the faiths combined don't do justice to his glory and majesty???  Let us respect the different paths that pilgrims choose when they seek the Almighty as long as they reflect genuine love for God and for one another. It strikes me that Christ seemed to be saying that, as when the lawyer asked him how to inherit eternal life. His answer: the parable of the Good Samaritan.
 
stewstew03 said:
Agreed. How many more Joseph Smiths, David Koreshs, or Joel Osteens can one faith endure?
Click to expand...
Smith and Koresh were not Christians.
The “one faith” is Christianity. If you are speaking of protestantism as “one faith”, this is factually incorrect. And this is the problem with the term. To group the varying western, non-Catholic communions as a monolith has never been accurate.

Jon
 
Roy5 said:
Let me reluctantly add a passing thought that has led me to some discomfort with Catholicism.
Code: 
  Here was Jesus, who often had no place to lay his weary head, who preached against the ecclesiatical establishment with its severe legalisms and precise rituals, who walked dusty roads on hot days without any of the comforts that most people have (and even had then). Then I turn on EWTN and I see the Pope, a fine and learned man to be sure, in elaborate robes, leading mass in the massive Vatican and other ornate sanctuaries, being hailed by adoring crowds like a movie celebrity, surrounded by men in red hats. people bowing before him and kissing his ring. and I have to wonder - how can I somehow make the two pictures match? 

  I know, early Protestant iconoclasts were vile in their disregard for great art, etc. But there is something about a simple white New England church that can be very attractive. There is reverence in that simplicity. There is an absence of ostentatiousness. The minister, if he wears a robe, wears a plain one, maybe all black or all white, possibly with a simple stole. Am I wrong to find that attractive - and even wonder which one better symbolizes the Christ that we seek to follow? 

   I've decided that wherever one encounters Christ most fully is a place for the Christian to be. He/she may find inspiration in the huge cathedral or in the simple New England church, in a monastery garden or on a beach as the sun begins to rise (or set). The notion that there is one infallible church in all this, that this church alone knows the full splendor of truth - hm! yes, that is a problem for me. And isn't God much too big to be contained in just one expression of faith? Maybe all the faiths combined don't do justice to his glory and majesty???  Let us respect the different paths that pilgrims choose when they seek the Almighty as long as they reflect genuine love for God and for one another. It strikes me that Christ seemed to be saying that, as when the lawyer asked him how to inherit eternal life. His answer: the parable of the Good Samaritan.
Click to expand...
Ecclesiacstical legalism is not exactly what Christ preached against, it was that legalism without knowing the reason for it! It was doing all these things and not being close to God. You should really research the history of early Christianity. They had quite the liturgy and church laws. You might forget that Catholicism came right from Judaism and has alot of carry over.

Kissing the pope’s ring, seriously. He doesn’t force people to do it. It is done out of respect much like bowing is done out of respect in China. The crowds? ummm. Paul and Peter were greeted with adoring crowds and so was Jesus!!

You are aware that the Catholic Church while having all these nice things is still the largest charity in the world and feeds and educates more people than any charity in the world.

I’m sorry but complaining that the pope and vatican have nice things is a very materialistic way of looking at things. We should be looking at the soul, what these bishops do spiritually instead of judging them by what they wear. Jesus also tells us not to judge by appearances but right judgement.

plus if you really think Protestantism is a simple religion you need to take a look at the myriads of pastors who conduct church in fine suite and drive fancy cars and who have rolex watches! Their churches have huge screens and expensive lighting systems and despite that- they do not even produce as much charity as the Catholic Church does daily.

The pope has no salary and no bank account. None of what he wears and uses is his own. If you have noticed, he wears alot of the same vestments that the previous pope wore and they even say it sometimes on tv that his clothes belong to pope so-and-so.

I’m sorry, to be uncomfortable about the Catholic Church because of its wealth and cultural customs is very shallow. It just looks like a list of excuses and human preferences to me.

People who have been fed and clothes and had their lives changed by this church such as me, (I was very poor and the Catholic Church helped me) truly know the Catholic Church’s wealth is spiritual. It is wisdom and music and prayer. If that fancy stuff is distracting you and causing an outrage in your soul, maybe you need to examine your soul. If things are what is keeping you from the Catholic Church. things! yes, you need to examine yourself.
 
I also forgot to mention that included in the Catholic Church’s true wealth are the sacraments, the sacred Scriptures, the testimonies of the apostles and martyrs and the manifold graces of God which he heaps upon his beloved children as they sleep…

Things and appearances should NEVER get in the way of this!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top