Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The traditional tensions between Catholics and Protestants have parallels to the Shia and Sunni divide.
ANY (and I do mean ANY) religious disputes that involve resorting to violence and force have NOTHING TO DO WITH God and everything to do with human vanity and hubris.
ANY (and I do mean ANY) religious disputes that involve resorting to violence and force have NOTHING TO DO WITH God and everything to do with human vanity and hubris.
John 14:6 - ... No one comes before the Father but through Me("Me" refers to Jesus Christ - not Mary, or Moses, or the mail man, or anybody else).
To my knowledge the doctrine is not that Mary or the saints fill the function of Christ (reconciling man with god). They are sort of "influence peddlers" with Christ I suppose. I didn't agree with it when I cared about such things. But I think the notion that they are substitute or alternative intermediaries is an unfair criticism. They are just departmental managers under Jesus so to speak once you ARE reconciled.
Because I didn't agree with the extra cruft like this in Catholicism, I was not a Catholic, don't get me wrong. But I think protestants mischaracterize the role of Mary and the saints in an attempt to elevate it to heresy and strengthen their position. What are they so afraid of? It's not like Protestants are converting to Catholicism in droves. If anything, the opposite is the case, I'd think, as from the outside, Catholicism seems rather more ... demanding. In my opinion, the RCC and the Episcopalians / Anglicans / Eastern Orthodox etc attract people less on the basis of some prurient interest in saint-worship, than on the basis of their high-church liturgical shtick. Some people are comforted and grounded by all the pomp and circumstance and ritual, some are repelled by it.
To my knowledge the doctrine is not that Mary or the saints fill the function of Christ (reconciling man with god). They are sort of "influence peddlers" with Christ I suppose. I didn't agree with it when I cared about such things. But I think the notion that they are substitute or alternative intermediaries is an unfair criticism. They are just departmental managers under Jesus so to speak once you ARE reconciled.
Because I didn't agree with the extra cruft like this in Catholicism, I was not a Catholic, don't get me wrong. But I think protestants mischaracterize the role of Mary and the saints in an attempt to elevate it to heresy and strengthen their position. What are they so afraid of? It's not like Protestants are converting to Catholicism in droves. If anything, the opposite is the case, I'd think, as from the outside, Catholicism seems rather more ... demanding. In my opinion, the RCC and the Episcopalians / Anglicans / Eastern Orthodox etc attract people less on the basis of some prurient interest in saint-worship, than on the basis of their high-church liturgical shtick. Some people are comforted and grounded by all the pomp and circumstance and ritual, some are repelled by it.
I would suggest Catholicism is easier to follow, liturgies repeat over 3 years, but it is also easier to leave.
Most Catholics would know some friends or family that left the Catholic church for low church Evangelical Christianity. (those that go to high church Anglican or Episopalian is usually through marriage)
It is a fairly common phenomenon as they get challenged in early adulthood by different faiths, and some have become lapsed Catholics anyway and/or are at an impressionable stage of their lives.
It is also common that the new "born again" convert will then claim they are "now saved", implicit that they weren't before.
One of the differences is that Catholics regard being saved as a lifelong process, not a once and once only event.
We believe God is a merciful God, and not exclusive to those who claim they suddenly became born again, in a man-made ceremony. (ironically because they always accuse Catholicism of being a man-made religion).
Catholics are similarly saved by God's grace and mercy and the life they have led, and not from some "once saved, always saved" mantra.
The Saints and Mary etc are more role models as well, not Gods, we know they are fundamentally human.
I would suggest Catholicism is easier to follow, liturgies repeat over 3 years, but it is also easier to leave.
Thanks for the perspective.
Having been raised in evangelical precincts and having had some experience with high church liturgy vis Episcopalianism subsequently, one thing that startled me is that high church ritual is far more interactive and participatory than I imagined it to be. I was taught since I was a young sapling that those kinds of churches were dry, lifeless, empty husks. And I suppose that might be true for some people due to the repetitious and lengthy services. But here is how I perceived the differences:
1) Evangelicals seldom sing all the verses to a hymn; generally it's the first and last and skip the rest. Episcopalians usually sing ALL the verses. Which when you think of it should be more meaningful as it was originally written as a coherent whole. Evangelical services in my experience have this distinct "go through the motions and get it over with" aspect unless they've gone over entirely to the "happy clappy" style in which case it is still relatively passive.
2) Evangelicals will stand for one or two hymns and perhaps the opening prayer, but mostly you sit through the service. Episcopalian services by contrast are almost like an aerobic workout. You sit, stand, sit, stand, perhaps at some point kneel in some churches I would guess.
3) Evangelicals have what passes for liturgy spoon-fed to them -- you do whatever the person leading the service instructs, listen to the leader pray, responsive readings are the exception rather than the rule, etc. Episcopalians juggle the Book of Common Prayer, a Bible and a hymnal -- more aerobics ;-) You're engaged, again ... there's no time for the mind to wander unless you sit passively like an evangelical while everyone else participates.
4) Evangelicals often de-emphasize communion, it is typically a special service once a month or even less often; high church it's typically the center of every service. When evangelicals have communion it's a relatively perfunctory passing around of grape juice and bread squares in the pews, like an offering; high church people walk up and form a line and take it from the priest, which is far more participatory AND personal AND communal (it is, after all, COMMUNion).
5) High church is in general more meditative and present-oriented; evangelical services are more about passively receiving teaching and it's far easier for the mind to wander. I used to say that most of the women were worried about the post-service roast in the oven, and would lynch the pastor if his sermon went longer than the allotted 20 minutes; services were generally over in an hour. High church liturgy easily runs 90 minutes total and the speaker is generally less "preachy", less concerned with delivering a payload than with actually engaging the listener (though, of course, this is a generalization, as styles vary).
Based on this I would say that high church could be either harder or easier to pursue depending on the individual and their personality and goals. It's a wash in my case. If I ever got used to all the bobbing and weaving I think I'd be on balance more engaged, but the service length does drag, and I'm not the sort of person who's centered and comforted by ritual. The big difference for me would be in the community life, which is by my lights far superior in a well constituted high church environment. The shift of emphasis away from being right (mostly in terms of doctrine) to actually doing good is a huge improvement in my view. I felt stressed and hectored in the churches I grew up in, and felt encouraged to wear masks and make nice and so forth. In more liberal churches I feel far more like I'm being met where I actually am at, and encouraged to be a better person. Again, I'm sure, one's mileage can and will vary.
I share all this because there was a time when I would have been more like the poster we were responding to, objecting to the doctrinal strangeness (to me at the time) of what we disparaged as "Mariolatry" and I've come to see that the sky doesn't fall when you actually walk a mile in someone else's shoes and really understand their beliefs and culture and don't otherize them. Even as a protestant, I thought Ave Maria was one of the most lovely and evocative religious compositions even if I didn't really "get" the veneration involved.
As an unbeliever, ironically, I'm more kindly disposed to the positive aspects of religion, apart from the silly dogmatic details, than I could be as a fundamentalist. Go figure.
Location: Removing a snake out of the neighbor's washing machine
3,095 posts, read 2,041,231 times
Reputation: 2305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek41
I would suggest Catholicism is easier to follow, liturgies repeat over 3 years, but it is also easier to leave.
Most Catholics would know some friends or family that left the Catholic church for low church Evangelical Christianity. (those that go to high church Anglican or Episopalian is usually through marriage)
It is a fairly common phenomenon as they get challenged in early adulthood by different faiths, and some have become lapsed Catholics anyway and/or are at an impressionable stage of their lives.
It is also common that the new "born again" convert will then claim they are "now saved", implicit that they weren't before.
One of the differences is that Catholics regard being saved as a lifelong process, not a once and once only event.
We believe God is a merciful God, and not exclusive to those who claim they suddenly became born again, in a man-made ceremony. (ironically because they always accuse Catholicism of being a man-made religion).
Catholics are similarly saved by God's grace and mercy and the life they have led, and not from some "once saved, always saved" mantra.
The Saints and Mary etc are more role models as well, not Gods, we know they are fundamentally human.
I grew up ELCA traditional, and currently attend an AG 'rock n roll' type church.
To my knowledge the doctrine is not that Mary or the saints fill the function of Christ (reconciling man with god). They are sort of "influence peddlers" with Christ I suppose. I didn't agree with it when I cared about such things. But I think the notion that they are substitute or alternative intermediaries is an unfair criticism. They are just departmental managers under Jesus so to speak once you ARE reconciled.
Because I didn't agree with the extra cruft like this in Catholicism, I was not a Catholic, don't get me wrong. But I think protestants mischaracterize the role of Mary and the saints in an attempt to elevate it to heresy and strengthen their position. What are they so afraid of? It's not like Protestants are converting to Catholicism in droves. If anything, the opposite is the case, I'd think, as from the outside, Catholicism seems rather more ... demanding. In my opinion, the RCC and the Episcopalians / Anglicans / Eastern Orthodox etc attract people less on the basis of some prurient interest in saint-worship, than on the basis of their high-church liturgical shtick. Some people are comforted and grounded by all the pomp and circumstance and ritual, some are repelled by it.
Ding ding ding. Hit the nail on the head.
The Catholic apologist Karl Keating once said, "It's not that Protestants hate the Catholic Church. It's that they hate what they believe the Catholic Church is."
And yes, part of my original attraction to the Episcopal Church was ritual. I was never a Catholic, but when I attended Catholic services with friends or for weddings and the like, I was attracted to the rituals.
Having been raised in evangelical precincts and having had some experience with high church liturgy vis Episcopalianism subsequently, one thing that startled me is that high church ritual is far more interactive and participatory than I imagined it to be. I was taught since I was a young sapling that those kinds of churches were dry, lifeless, empty husks. And I suppose that might be true for some people due to the repetitious and lengthy services. But here is how I perceived the differences:
1) Evangelicals seldom sing all the verses to a hymn; generally it's the first and last and skip the rest. Episcopalians usually sing ALL the verses. Which when you think of it should be more meaningful as it was originally written as a coherent whole. Evangelical services in my experience have this distinct "go through the motions and get it over with" aspect unless they've gone over entirely to the "happy clappy" style in which case it is still relatively passive.
2) Evangelicals will stand for one or two hymns and perhaps the opening prayer, but mostly you sit through the service. Episcopalian services by contrast are almost like an aerobic workout. You sit, stand, sit, stand, perhaps at some point kneel in some churches I would guess.
3) Evangelicals have what passes for liturgy spoon-fed to them -- you do whatever the person leading the service instructs, listen to the leader pray, responsive readings are the exception rather than the rule, etc. Episcopalians juggle the Book of Common Prayer, a Bible and a hymnal -- more aerobics ;-) You're engaged, again ... there's no time for the mind to wander unless you sit passively like an evangelical while everyone else participates.
4) Evangelicals often de-emphasize communion, it is typically a special service once a month or even less often; high church it's typically the center of every service. When evangelicals have communion it's a relatively perfunctory passing around of grape juice and bread squares in the pews, like an offering; high church people walk up and form a line and take it from the priest, which is far more participatory AND personal AND communal (it is, after all, COMMUNion).
5) High church is in general more meditative and present-oriented; evangelical services are more about passively receiving teaching and it's far easier for the mind to wander. I used to say that most of the women were worried about the post-service roast in the oven, and would lynch the pastor if his sermon went longer than the allotted 20 minutes; services were generally over in an hour. High church liturgy easily runs 90 minutes total and the speaker is generally less "preachy", less concerned with delivering a payload than with actually engaging the listener (though, of course, this is a generalization, as styles vary).
Based on this I would say that high church could be either harder or easier to pursue depending on the individual and their personality and goals. It's a wash in my case. If I ever got used to all the bobbing and weaving I think I'd be on balance more engaged, but the service length does drag, and I'm not the sort of person who's centered and comforted by ritual. The big difference for me would be in the community life, which is by my lights far superior in a well constituted high church environment. The shift of emphasis away from being right (mostly in terms of doctrine) to actually doing good is a huge improvement in my view. I felt stressed and hectored in the churches I grew up in, and felt encouraged to wear masks and make nice and so forth. In more liberal churches I feel far more like I'm being met where I actually am at, and encouraged to be a better person. Again, I'm sure, one's mileage can and will vary.
I share all this because there was a time when I would have been more like the poster we were responding to, objecting to the doctrinal strangeness (to me at the time) of what we disparaged as "Mariolatry" and I've come to see that the sky doesn't fall when you actually walk a mile in someone else's shoes and really understand their beliefs and culture and don't otherize them. Even as a protestant, I thought Ave Maria was one of the most lovely and evocative religious compositions even if I didn't really "get" the veneration involved.
As an unbeliever, ironically, I'm more kindly disposed to the positive aspects of religion, apart from the silly dogmatic details, than I could be as a fundamentalist. Go figure.
Interesting perspectives.
I am more familiar with the Pentecostal style of Evangelical Christianity, having attended services for the best part of a year, after a friend converted to this brand from Orthodox.
The services were generally much longer than I am familiar with in Liturgical churches, up to 2 hours compared to up to 1 hour, generally quite engaging but serious as well.
Hymns went on for quite a while as well (in fact too long), along with dancing in the aisles etc, specific to Pentecostal/ Charismatic types. Then the service would begin with one of the senior pastors. At the end there would be healings and cross callings, speaking in tongues and all that jazz, "slain in the Spirit" was one expression used. It was a bit too showy and theatrical for me.
Afterwards, members would often say what a "powerful preacher" so and so was, as often there was a guest speaker.
I'd imagine that non-Pentecostal Evangelicals would considerably more conservative than this.
In the end, the liturgical style may be repetitive at times, but it does suit certain types more, and at least you remember it.
Interesting perspectives.
I am more familiar with the Pentecostal style of Evangelical Christianity, having attended services for the best part of a year, after a friend converted to this brand from Orthodox.
The services were generally much longer than I am familiar with in Liturgical churches, up to 2 hours compared to up to 1 hour, generally quite engaging but serious as well.
Hymns went on for quite a while as well (in fact too long), ... I'd imagine that non-Pentecostal Evangelicals would considerably more conservative than this.
Yes there's generally a different style there and it's designed to be participatory and to gin up strong emotions and group hysteria / hysterics. My comments, as you said, were about non-charismatic / non-holiness fundamentalism.
In my modest experience with charismatic services there were a lot of "praise anthems" as opposed to hymns, highly repetitive and would go on in a free-form fashion for quite some time. One that seemed popular in my day had these lyrics:
Oh how he loves you and me
Oh how he loves you and me
He gave his life .. what more could he give?
Oh how he loves you
Oh how he loves me
Oh how he loves you and me
(repeat ad infinitum)
Not much content there but meant to be highly evocative of emotion. Something, you might say, to sway and raise your hands to. To get IN to.
So you're right, charismatic churches are even MORE participatory in some ways than high church.
By contrast to this upbeat vibe, and contrary to their stated value proposition, non-charismatic evangelical churches (especially those that have not given themselves over to a more "happy clappy" style) are actually the ones who are dour, one-foot-in-front-of-the-other, endure-to-the-end types. The alumni mailings I occasionally still get from the Bible institute I attended very much have that identity of beleaguered pilgrims trudging through a hostile and trial-laden world with their eye on the prize of heaven. It doesn't help, I suppose, that the old alma mater was shuttered for lack of interest in the 1980s. So much in fundamentalist experience runs counter to their own triumphalist / dominionist rhetoric. Secular / inclusivist / liberal sentiment and scientific fact (and reality in general) just keep encroaching on them and their dogma.
Location: Removing a snake out of the neighbor's washing machine
3,095 posts, read 2,041,231 times
Reputation: 2305
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Yes there's generally a different style there and it's designed to be participatory and to gin up strong emotions and group hysteria / hysterics. My comments, as you said, were about non-charismatic / non-holiness fundamentalism.
In my modest experience with charismatic services there were a lot of "praise anthems" as opposed to hymns, highly repetitive and would go on in a free-form fashion for quite some time. One that seemed popular in my day had these lyrics:
Oh how he loves you and me
Oh how he loves you and me
He gave his life .. what more could he give?
Oh how he loves you
Oh how he loves me
Oh how he loves you and me
(repeat ad infinitum)
Not much content there but meant to be highly evocative of emotion. Something, you might say, to sway and raise your hands to. To get IN to.
So you're right, charismatic churches are even MORE participatory in some ways than high church.
By contrast to this upbeat vibe, and contrary to their stated value proposition, non-charismatic evangelical churches (especially those that have not given themselves over to a more "happy clappy" style) are actually the ones who are dour, one-foot-in-front-of-the-other, endure-to-the-end types. The alumni mailings I occasionally still get from the Bible institute I attended very much have that identity of beleaguered pilgrims trudging through a hostile and trial-laden world with their eye on the prize of heaven. It doesn't help, I suppose, that the old alma mater was shuttered for lack of interest in the 1980s. So much in fundamentalist experience runs counter to their own triumphalist / dominionist rhetoric. Secular / inclusivist / liberal sentiment and scientific fact (and reality in general) just keep encroaching on them and their dogma.
My problem with 'rock n roll' worship is that it can go on anywhere from 30-50minutes, and in most instances I've experienced is TOO DARN LOUD - from any pew location. I've never had that problem in any 'pipe-organ' church.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
