Choosing a church and theology

[St Catherine]

Interesting...

So if we (the Orthodox) already have the Real Presence of Christ in our Eucharist, then why do we need the pope?

Jezz did Christ intend for a divided house?


SC

[Amazing Rando]

Here, let me give you a hand...
[I hope it uploaded ok... we'll see - preview doesn't show it.]

Yes, it is his hand...

Incorrupt...

From one thousand six hundred years ago...

Now in a monastery on Mount Athos, and on the post card you can purchase there...

A parishoner brought back a bunch of these cards, and then I found this pic on line...

Arsenios

I gotta say- I understand the icons and all, but the relic veneration of dead saints' body parts is just a bit too creepy for me.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

I gotta say- I understand the icons and all, but the relic veneration of dead saints' body parts is just a bit too creepy for me.

Would you like me to give you a hand with it??

We are very much products of our culture, and if you trueily want to know why you feel as you do, just look at how we deal with death... Look at the funeral homes [they handle everything for us], the caskets [thousands of $$$], the graves [they are many miles away], and on and on - So that all we have is memory flashes of the departed... And death is forgotten in the great rush of new shoes, McDonalds, cool videos, the latest dvd's, the latest speakers...

Yet the Orthodox do not blink in the face of death, but find cause for rejoicing in their tears of loss, for they know that the trials and troubles of this life are over for their loved one, and that now they may enter into their rest... And precious in the eyes of God is the death of his saints... And He wants us to remember, even to be always reminded, of the transient nature of this life, and its holy purpose... And the relics of the saints do this for us... As do the cemetaries at the east end of the Churches [when we can get them any more], beyond the sanctuary, and the prayers for the dead... To an outsider, it might even seem as if we are a death cult, so steadfast is our gaze into the eternal... And we could even agree, to a point, for the start we receive is into the death of Christ... Yet in this we find true life, and True God, in the faith we receive in this baptism into the death of the God-man... For by this death, we find resurrection...

All of this is, for Christians, but affirmation of the Faith, and its establishment upon this earth, where death is overcome by death, Christ's death, and our baptism into Christ and His death... So we are not blown away, or grossed out, or creeped out, by death of the flesh, but find treasure in the death of the holy ones of God, Just as the ointment bearing women, and St. Joseph of Arimathea [if I have the name right - the one who asked Pilate for the body of Christ] found treasure in the holy and now resurrected and ascended body of our Lord...

We do not affirm our fleshy lives... We are called to repentance from them... And we need ever crutch God will afford to us in this struggle... The body of Christ is founded upon Christ's death upon the Cross, and the Churches are sanctified by the blood of their martyrs, who with Paul, suffered for the sake of the Church, making up in his own body what was lacking in the suffering of Christ. Now there was nothing lacking in that suffering of our Lord, yes? nothing whatsoever... Except... OUR suffering... THAT is the suffering Paul is telling us is lacking in Christ's suffering... That is the meaning of taking up our own cross and following Him... And it is unto death... And it is solemn, and joyful, and sorrowful, and loving, and holy...

Arsenios

Edited to add:

The following just came in on another board, a reply wo a young kid, maybe 18, not even a Christian, who wrote and asked about becoming an Orthodox monk, because he really liked to read a lot and do nature walks... The reply is from a veteran monastic who has experience and who knows what he is talking about.
__________________________________________
Dear ____,

As a person not yet an Orthodox Christian, and as a preface, I must ask your forgiveness, for what follows is pure speculation, that is, what is said regarding your person.

Orthodox monastic life revolves around and is centred upon Christ - His words, His commandment, His Way, Life and Truth.

Without this absolute conversion of the heart, Orthodox monasticism is out of the question.

There are other monastic traditions in the major faiths, which, while I do not personally recommend, might encompass something of what you mention in your original post.

But quite honestly, your post suggests a person seeking a Thoreau, Walden Pond, type of existence.

In frank terms, Orthodox monasticism does and will for a novice involve the, perhaps, slow - but certain crucifixion of the human individual you are now, until the flower of the person, hypostasis, blossoms forth.

God has His own method and time for each soul regarding this. That is why we have no time plan. One does not take simple vows after a certain number of years, nor solemn vows after a number of years have passed since the pronouncing of simple vows. (Here I am using Roman Catholic terminology.)

Orthodox Christian monasticism involves both the nurturing of the heart and paradoxically the crushing of the ego-centred heart. God alone knows the time for each person, whether monastic or lay. But rest assured, before the Resurrection, lies the sometimes protracted period of Gethsemane.

Often the Gethsemane period will last years, years of the desert, of the seeming absence of God's love and presence. The stronger the ascetic heart that God alone ascertains, the longer can be the desert experience.

Essential to this, is the Orthodox concept of Holy Obedience, without which there is no monastic life. Simply put, it is the laying down and death of 'your' idea as to how things should unfold.

Thus, purely on the surface of your first post in this thread, I must be honest - anyone entering a monastery seeking the fulfilment solely of their own will, ultimately departs.

Monastic life is not dissimilar to guerilla warfare. You must be prepared to die, and in the Orthodox sense, die to yourself. The stronger the self-will, the more fierce are the flames encountered.

A person determined to follow his/her idea of how things should be, will find those false idols, one by one smashed against the Love of Christ, Who seeks our regeneration, not the continuation of our selfish desires which lead humankind to certain death.

I do not intend to dampen what could be the beginning of a true monastic calling, but whether married or monastic, you will be crowned with the crown of martyrdom.

To follow Orthodoxy is to follow Christ. Before the Resurrection is the waterless desert, 'forty years' of wandering without, it would seem, a sign along the way. Only in hindsight does the Orthodox Christian, married or monastic, see the incredible beauty, bathed in suffering/joy, all the way along the pilgrimage to Christ.

May God guide your steps.

[spitndirt]

Hasn't anyone discerned the body and blood of our Lord?????

[weighman]

when choosing a church and what to believe, you must go to the word of God in the Bible, on how to be saved. This will be found in the Book of Acts. You will not be blinded by the triditions of men. In it you will find out what you must do. when asked, Peter told them there was three things to do . Repentance, water baptism andreceiving the Holy Spirit. You choice of Church must believe in these things!

[Jezz]

Jezz did Christ intend for a divided house?

No, of course not. Christ's house never has been divided - it's just that some divided from the Church and left it. But anyway...

There are two ways that the Orthodox and Roman Churches may be reunited (without destroying them both in the process):

1. The Orthodox admit that they need to submit to the pope, or
2. The Romans admit that the Orthodox don't need to submit to the pope.

It seems that you've as good as admitted point 2 (and I recognise that you're basically following Vatican II here)... because you've admitted that we have the Eucharist, even without the pope. So if even the papists admit that we don't need the pope, it seems the easiest way to reunion between Roman and Orthodox is for the Romans to recant the claim that the pope is the head of all Christendom.

[St Catherine]

[Jezz]No, of course not. Christ's house never has been divided - it's just that some divided from the Church and left it. But anyway...

Yes as we see evidenced by at minimum 10k denominations...and some claim up to 30 k.

There are two ways that the Orthodox and Roman Churches may be reunited (without destroying them both in the process):

1. The Orthodox admit that they need to submit to the pope, or
2. The Romans admit that the Orthodox don't need to submit to the pope.

2 isn't going to happen. If you don't need the pope than neither do the Protestants and we go right back to the divided issue.

It seems that you've as good as admitted point 2 (and I recognise that you're basically following Vatican II here)... because you've admitted that we have the Eucharist, even without the pope. So if even the papists admit that we don't need the pope, it seems the easiest way to reunion between Roman and Orthodox is for the Romans to recant the claim that the pope is the head of all Christendom.

You have gotten ahead of yourself.

Just because I recognize you have the Eucharist doesn't mean I admit point two. You must realize that from my viewpoint you have an illicit form of the Eucharist. Due to apostolic succession you have a valid (Transubstantiation takes place) but illicit (due to the schism) Eucharist.

I am not an expert on Orthodox/Catholic issues...it's not something I've even done a great deal of study on. However it is my hope, and I pray daily about it, that there will be reunification.

I don't recant the claim that the pope is the head of all Christendom, that he is the legitimate successor of Peter and no faithful Catholic I know would.

Also while you probably meant no insult by the word 'papist' ...unfortunately many use it as a derogatory word towards Catholics...and some of them post on this forum....probably not a good idea to encourage them or give the wrong impression to those who are lurking :)


SC

[into_his_hands]

I've been looking for a church and thinking about what kind of things I look for in a church. And I realized that I could be happy at just about any church that worships God, even if I don't like their music or agree with everything they believe in.

So I have two questions, one light, one heavy: What do you look for when you are looking for a church, and why?

And second... for those who say theology is very important when you look for a church, why? I've been trying to think of reasons why I should be picky about a church wrt theology, and as long as they have enough common basics I know we worship the same God, i don't see anything practical that it affects. There are some practical aspects, such as how important the church sees evangelism vs. charity for instance, but these aren't usually the things people mean when they say theology. Perhaps I should just be looking at some parts of theology?

As far as agreeing with the pastor for instance... well, if I already agree with him on everything, it's obvious it's not him I'm learning from isn't it? I'll only learn from him where I don't agree. And if the pastor is truly a shepherd and not just a teacher, and exemplifies the fruits of the spirit, I'll be more likely to consider what he has to say. So that seems more important too.

For teaching others? Well, I've heard pastors say over and over again that they are teaching good sermons but their congregation isn't doing them to know that this seems common for many people :) It's only a part of a large and complicated mosaic of sources for belief. Churches sometimes kick out their pastors as well. And many pastors don't always even believe the entire statement of belief of the church, and this isn't limited to liturgical churches... one AG pastor I knew was amillenial, contrary to the AG statement of faith, and he was definitely very influential in my Christian education at that point (not saying anything about millenialism or anything, not even stating my own view, merely that he didn't toe the line with the AG statement of faith, which only has 16 statements!)

What am I missing? What kinds of theology can lead to what kinds of practical failures, or that should keep me from a church? This is a variation on age old themes probably, but I was curious. And I'm looking for a church right now... the church we are at now is a lot different from what I'm used to, but seems the best in the area for my family.

It is not about us or what we "think" or what we like. The truth is that Christ told us to follow him.

The best question is how do you follow him? How do you find him in your life?

If you are truly following after him then he will tell you where he wants you to go, he will lead you to himself. He will invite you into a unity with him.

People in America and around the world have this idea that "i can choose what is right" and that my choice is a good one because it is how i think. The truth is that there is something that is objective that exists outside of us that is true. That is what we are seeking.

Jesus says he is the way, the truth and the life. If He is those things, then following him will provide you with a way, the truth, and life.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

[Jezz]No, of course not. Christ's house never has been divided - it's just that some divided from the Church and left it. But anyway...

Yes as we see evidenced by at minimum 10k denominations...and some claim up to 30 k.

The are all children of Rome... Like the Arab caricature, where to be my friend, my enemy must only be the enemy of my enemy, they constantly fight and squabble over doctrines, thinking the words of doctrine will save or condemn them, and only join together in friendship in their disdain for Rome...

There are two ways that the Orthodox and Roman Churches may be reunited (without destroying them both in the process):

1. The Orthodox admit that they need to submit to the pope, or
2. The Romans admit that the Orthodox don't need to submit to the pope.

2 isn't going to happen. If you don't need the pope than neither do the Protestants and we go right back to the divided issue.

We have had the Patriarch of Constantinople as a titular head, a Bishop of Bishops, for a thousand years. he has no power. There aren't even very many faithful left in his jurisdiction. We spat and squabble over all manner of things except doctrine, and are one in the Body and Blood of our Lord. And we are not the Mother of the Protestant Legion... Indeed, in our view, it is the Papal assertion of his own authority over the Church that was the first Protestant, the direct father of Luther, who said in effect: "No, I am, because I have the Bible now, and I disagree with the Pope and can prove my case."

Separation births separation, you see... And the first Pope separated the Roman Church from the Holy Communion of all the other Patriarchates, and destroyed all Christian expression other than obedience to Rome as Peter in the west under Her authoritarian rule.

The basic idea that Rome has, that to be a Christian in good standing means submitting to the imposition of the authority of the Pope, is not a doctrine you will see in the first thousand years of Christianity. It is a doctrine that emerged when Rome came under the co-option of the Franks who wanted the Church to be an arm of their militaristic and authoritarian rule and contention for territory and kingdoms. So that you had bishops who would do the Eucharist in the morning, and slaughter the enemy in the afternoon, without a second thought... The politics of strategy, power, and supremacy is one central feature in the Roman Church...

The difference between Russian Mafia and Italian Mafia is that the Russian Mafia does not attend Church and receive Communion...

Just because I recognize you have the Eucharist doesn't mean I admit point two. You must realize that from my viewpoint you have an illicit form of the Eucharist. Due to apostolic succession you have a valid (Transubstantiation takes place) but illicit (due to the schism) Eucharist.

We do not even have the term trans-substantiation in our vocabulary... Well, we might, in some of the Roman influenced areas... That is a scholastic term that is not a part of the first thousand years of the undivided Church. And the fact is that you recognize our Mysteries, and especially the one of the Eucharist, fully, according to Pope JP II... No reservations whatsoever... We ARE the Ancient Church, according to him... And the counterpart of this recognition is that the Orthodox do NOT recognize the Sacraments of the Roman Church, especially the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

And that creates a logical difficulty, for Rome, in that if the Body of Christ is one, and She recognizes our participation in it, and we not Hers, then how can She claim it? And for a thousand years She has disdainfully denied our Communion as utterly foul and apart from Christ... So there has been progress, and more to be made... Yet Orthodox are wary, for the politics of warring against our Church are far too fresh in our memory to have a lot of trust... And we have been burned so many times, that not little short of total confession, repentance and contrition will do. Our eyes are always on what is done, and very seldom on what is said...

I am not an expert on Orthodox/Catholic issues...it's not something I've even done a great deal of study on. However it is my hope, and I pray daily about it, that there will be reunification.

God bless you - I do too, and join you in my daily hopes and daily prayers for our reunion... For you, the reunion must come from the Papal top on down, yet for the Orthodox, it must come from the rank and file on up... Makes me glad God is in charge! Nobody else can manage that mixture!

Arsenios

[Jezz]

[Jezz]No, of course not. Christ's house never has been divided - it's just that some divided from the Church and left it. But anyway...

Yes as we see evidenced by at minimum 10k denominations...and some claim up to 30 k.

All those denominations are outside of Christ's house. My statement stands - Christ's house has never been divided. The body of Christ cannot be divided any more than Christ Himself can be divided.

There are two ways that the Orthodox and Roman Churches may be reunited (without destroying them both in the process):

1. The Orthodox admit that they need to submit to the pope, or
2. The Romans admit that the Orthodox don't need to submit to the pope.

2 isn't going to happen.

Then there will be no reunion.

If you don't need the pope than neither do the Protestants and we go right back to the divided issue.

Correct - neither we nor the Protestants need the pope.

What we all need (Orthodox, Protestants and papists alike) is the Church - the Orthodox Church. We need to trust in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

But back to your implied claim - your claim here is that the papacy is necessary to prevent schism. But in fact history proves otherwise - the papacy is far more often the cause of schism than it is the prevention. We (Orthodox) on the other hand have managed to maintain unity precisely because we rejected the papacy.

The simple proof of this is that, of those 10,000 denominations you spoke of, 99.94% trace their roots to the papacy. Only two extant denominations (of which I am aware) trace their roots to the Orthodox Church. There may be more, but certainly nowhere near the numbers that the Roman church has spawned.

It seems that you've as good as admitted point 2 (and I recognise that you're basically following Vatican II here)... because you've admitted that we have the Eucharist, even without the pope. So if even the papists admit that we don't need the pope, it seems the easiest way to reunion between Roman and Orthodox is for the Romans to recant the claim that the pope is the head of all Christendom.

You have gotten ahead of yourself.

Just because I recognize you have the Eucharist doesn't mean I admit point two. You must realize that from my viewpoint you have an illicit form of the Eucharist. Due to apostolic succession you have a valid (Transubstantiation takes place) but illicit (due to the schism) Eucharist.

This seems to me to be Roman scholastic nonsense. Either the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, or they don't. If they do, then they are Christ's body and blood. I don't see how the body and blood of Christ could ever be called "illicit" - indeed, this seems to me almost blasphemous.

But anyway, even if I grant this attitude, then your original statement was incorrect. You said: "...the other Churches don't have the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (with the exception of the Orthodox who do)...." There are some churches (eg, Sweden, Finland) that maintained apostolic succession (by the Roman definition of that phrase) through the Reformation despite becoming Lutheran. There are some other Anglican bodies that have valid claims as well.

I am not an expert on Orthodox/Catholic issues...it's not something I've even done a great deal of study on. However it is my hope, and I pray daily about it, that there will be reunification.

And I likewise pray for reunification - every night: "Those who depart from the Orthodox Faith, dazzled by destroying heresies, enlighten by the light of Your holy wisdom, and unite them to Your Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church."

I don't recant the claim that the pope is the head of all Christendom, that he is the legitimate successor of Peter and no faithful Catholic I know would.

I didn't think that you would.

Also while you probably meant no insult by the word 'papist' ...unfortunately many use it as a derogatory word towards Catholics...and some of them post on this forum....probably not a good idea to encourage them or give the wrong impression to those who are lurking :)

As you probably know, it is customary in ecclesiastical parlance to identify schismatic and heretical bodies by either the name of their leader/heresiarch (eg Arianism, Nestorianism, Lutheranism, Calvinism) or by the name of their heresy (eg Monophysitism, Monotheletism). I am merely following this practice, as the Church has done since the beginning.

I believe that the Orthodox Church is the Catholic Church. This is fundamental to the beliefs of the Orthodox Church. It follows as a direct corollary that the Roman Church cannot be Catholic, because there is only one Catholic Church. Therefore, I am careful not to refer to them as "Catholic", because it does not accurately represent my beliefs. In order to denote your church, therefore, I must call it "papist" (because that, from our POV, is the most prominent heresy of your church), or Roman (because the false teachings that you follow came from the Roman church).

So far from using this term to give the wrong impression - I actually use it very deliberately, to give the right impression of what I believe... that belief being that papism is a heresy, and the one that most prominently characterises your church.

If you find this insulting, well... I am sorry. I don't mean any offence by it, I just want to be accurate, and speak using terminology that doesn't give a false impression. I don't want to call you something that I don't really believe that you are; that would be dishonest. IMO, there is too much dishonesty that goes around under the guise of "political correctness" and "kindness" and "charity" - but in the end, such dishonesty tends to do more harm than good, and is ultimately unkind and uncharitable. I pray that you will be able to see my actions in this light, and not judge them as being ultimately intended with kindness - even if you disagree with the ultimate motivation.

[GoBahnsen]

I've been looking for a church and thinking about what kind of things I look for in a church. And I realized that I could be happy at just about any church that worships God, even if I don't like their music or agree with everything they believe in.

So I have two questions, one light, one heavy: What do you look for when you are looking for a church, and why?

And second... for those who say theology is very important when you look for a church, why? I've been trying to think of reasons why I should be picky about a church wrt theology, and as long as they have enough common basics I know we worship the same God, i don't see anything practical that it affects. There are some practical aspects, such as how important the church sees evangelism vs. charity for instance, but these aren't usually the things people mean when they say theology. Perhaps I should just be looking at some parts of theology?

As far as agreeing with the pastor for instance... well, if I already agree with him on everything, it's obvious it's not him I'm learning from isn't it? I'll only learn from him where I don't agree. And if the pastor is truly a shepherd and not just a teacher, and exemplifies the fruits of the spirit, I'll be more likely to consider what he has to say. So that seems more important too.

For teaching others? Well, I've heard pastors say over and over again that they are teaching good sermons but their congregation isn't doing them to know that this seems common for many people :) It's only a part of a large and complicated mosaic of sources for belief. Churches sometimes kick out their pastors as well. And many pastors don't always even believe the entire statement of belief of the church, and this isn't limited to liturgical churches... one AG pastor I knew was amillenial, contrary to the AG statement of faith, and he was definitely very influential in my Christian education at that point (not saying anything about millenialism or anything, not even stating my own view, merely that he didn't toe the line with the AG statement of faith, which only has 16 statements!)

What am I missing? What kinds of theology can lead to what kinds of practical failures, or that should keep me from a church? This is a variation on age old themes probably, but I was curious. And I'm looking for a church right now... the church we are at now is a lot different from what I'm used to, but seems the best in the area for my family.

I haven't read the thread, so I may be repeating someone else. Look for a Church with all the New Testament marks of a true Church. A couple of the neglected marks, especially through the "mega church" movement, has been membership and discipline.

Membership is seen as old fashioned and stiff. Yet in the NT, we find that people, with names, were part of a local body. At times, they were excommunicated for serious unrepentant sin (discipline). All of this is much neglected today. People come and go as they please. Anonymous is the current fashion.

I would look for a Church where the Pastor and Elders are not too outweighed by the size of the congregation. The bigger the Church, the more people fall through the cracks and no one seems to care. Stuff like this, I think will serve you well to consider. IOW, be accountable. Be willing to be held accountable.

Serve, don't just be a pew warmer, thinking you're doing Church by showing up, then quickly slipping out the door before you have to "fellowship" with anyone. Yuck, the way so many Americans have come to be and how so many Churches have actually tried to accomodate them. Thus the mega Churches, where you get to be anonymous and slip away without anyone knowing or caring.