The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[The Archregimancy]

For example, we both agree that the Virgin Mary / Theotokos lived a sinless life, but where Catholics hold that she was immaculately conceived without sin (the Immaculate Conception), Orthodoxy generally holds that she was a human (though undoubtedly a specially honoured one) who did not sin, without necessarily defining the mechanism of her sinlessness; this itself arguably stems from different points of emphasis on, and understanding of, Original/Ancestral sin.

As I understand it, the Immaculate Conception can also be a theologumenon in the Orthodox Church, right?

Possibly; depending on who you talk to. But I don't think there's a formal Orthodox position on that.

The majority of Orthodox Christians reject the doctrine for a range of reasons, but you can find some individual voices that are more sympathetic.


I would personally lean towards the viewpoint that the doctrine is unnecessary, rests on a different approach to the question of ancestral sin, and the manner of its formal promulgation is profoundly objectionable.

But I would agree that it's not inherently heretical.

[Dylar]

You're 2/3 on the things I actually do at my home church (though the powerpoint replaces the bulletin/whatever guide mostly)

It's typically right to kneel before a King.

Oh sure, it rather hurts my knees even with the padded bar

You don't know real pain until you've knelt on river rocks for 30 minutes at an initiation Mass into the Knights of the Holy Temple

[Lower Nubia]

It’s funny and sad, the power-points and cheesy praise music are genuinely believed by these groups to be a continuation of Biblical worship. If not Biblical that the “type” of worship is a modern equivalent of first century worship styles. It’s all a big oof.

Speaking as an atheist who was raised Protestant, I'd say I'd rather attend a Baptist Church with tacky powerpoints, a laidback down to Earth sermon, and a worship team consisting of two singers, two guitarists, a drummer and a bassist, all performing Christian rock. Over a Roman Catholic Church with really stuffy, prudish, outdated sermon and aesthetics with a worship team consisting of a choir singing gregorian chants.

This assumes they both equally offer what Christians need, by the same thing but one is more fun. Seeing as they don’t, then this point is irrelevant.

[Lower Nubia]

It’s funny and sad, the power-points and cheesy praise music are genuinely believed by these groups to be a continuation of Biblical worship. If not Biblical that the “type” of worship is a modern equivalent of first century worship styles. It’s all a big oof.

"Sing to the Lord a new song; sing to the Lord, all the earth."

“Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Speaking as an atheist who was raised Protestant, I'd say I'd rather attend a Baptist Church with tacky powerpoints, a laidback down to Earth sermon, and a worship team consisting of two singers, two guitarists, a drummer and a bassist, all performing Christian rock. Over a Roman Catholic Church with really stuffy, prudish, outdated sermon and aesthetics with a worship team consisting of a choir singing gregorian chants.

This assumes they both equally offer what Christians need, by the same thing but one is more fun. Seeing as they don’t, then this point is irrelevant.

But they do, don't they? They're both Christian after all. What do Christians need that they can't get in a Protestant Church?

[Lower Nubia]

This assumes they both equally offer what Christians need, by the same thing but one is more fun. Seeing as they don’t, then this point is irrelevant.

But they do, don't they? They're both Christian after all. What do Christians need that they can't get in a Protestant Church?

Baptist and Pentecostals literally offer nothing but happy Sundays.

Edit: Of the service, half of it is sermon, the other half is song, so that’s a 30 minute split, so only 0.29% of the week is occupied by “worship” song. Neither of these churches emphasises sanctification, or even has consequences (such as exclusion from communion) for failing to do so. While communion, if it’s ever had, is literally guilty grape juice time.

[Diopolis]

Ok, honest question. What are the differences in doctrine between Catholics and Orthodox? I'm rather familiar with Protestantism (I'm from the American south, Methodists and such aplenty).

You have no idea what a can of worms you've opened by returning us to one of the recurring thread battles.

I will try and reply to this as neutrally as possible. Tarsonis will likely give you a different answer that seeks to find commonality from the Catholic perspective, rather than outline differences from the Orthodox perspective.

Some of the differences are matters of emphasis and terminology. Where Catholics often seek to specifically define fine matters of doctrine (perhaps influenced by Western European medieval scholasticism), Orthodox theology is often more comfortable taking a more mystical approach that accepts that some matters of doctrine are mysteries that can't be explained (perhaps influenced by the strong tradition of apophatic theology in Eastern Christianity).

For example, we both agree that the Virgin Mary / Theotokos lived a sinless life, but where Catholics hold that she was immaculately conceived without sin (the Immaculate Conception), Orthodoxy generally holds that she was a human (though undoubtedly a specially honoured one) who did not sin, without necessarily defining the mechanism of her sinlessness; this itself arguably stems from different points of emphasis on, and understanding of, Original/Ancestral sin.

Whether these differences of emphasis represent serious doctrinal differences that move heterodox schismatics to open heresy is a matter of degree. You'll often find that Catholics and Orthodox arguing in these threads disagree over what they disagree about (with those disagreements as likely to be intra-denominational as inter-dominational).

However, the one point we all agree we disagree over is Papal supremacy, and the associated doctrine of Papal infallibility. Catholics hold that the Bishop of Rome is supreme both in church governance and in his ability to make an infallible pronouncement on matters of doctrine under specific circumstances (Catholics, I'm assuming that Cappuccina won't understand 'ex cathedra'). Orthodoxy holds that while the Bishop of Rome could be recognised as first among equals (were the two churches not in schism), and we would likely be willing to recognise his right to hear inter-jurisdictional appeals on purely administrative matters, all bishops are doctrinally equal; issues of doctrine can only be resolved collegially via an ecumenical council of the whole church.

Beyond that, the extent of the importance, and the origins, of the filioque (the Orthodox version of the Creed states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father; the Western version states that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son; 'ex Patre Filioque procedit' in Latin); of the Immaculate Conception; of Original/Ancestral sin (and what to call the latter); and similar issues is something that we'll likely continue to disagree on in these threads to the end of NSG.

I haven't outlined differences in custom and practice since you've only asked about doctrine; but there are many of the latter. How important these differences of practice are is something else we disagree over. There are Orthodox monks who have placed themselves in schism with their local bishops just because the latter have adopted a modified Gregorian calendar for Easter rather than stick with the Julian calendar (not that Catholics are immune to this sort of thing; see reaction to Vatican II).

One thing that we do definitely, absolutely agree on is a rejection of the common Protestant theologies of sola scriptura and sola fide.


I acknowledge that I've often oversimplified the above for the benefit of someone who's new to this discussion and is looking for a quick outline rather than a detailed discussion. I hope I've done my best to be neutral rather than just give him the Orthodox perspective.

Not to mention that a lot of doctrinal points are heresy to one side but not the other.

[Luminesa]

...Honestly you haven't been to a Catholic Church in a while if you think the sermons are outdated and the choir sings Gregorian Chants.

Okay, you found me out, I've never actually been to a Catholic Church service, but the way some in this thread described Catholic services gave me that impression. I've been to plenty of Protestant Churches but no Catholic Churches.

I’ve attended the Novus Ordo-type Masses for all my life, save for the couple times I’ve attended a Latin Mass. I find the Latin Mass to be a transcendental experience. Novus Ordo is still beautiful, but the liturgy has a different feel in the vernacular. I imagine you might like some Catholic Churches that, yes, do have guitars and drummers and bassists. Mine had all of those for a while, and the piano as well. Personally I like a piano and an organ at Mass.

[Salus Maior]

...Honestly you haven't been to a Catholic Church in a while if you think the sermons are outdated and the choir sings Gregorian Chants.

Okay, you found me out, I've never actually been to a Catholic Church service, but the way some in this thread described Catholic services gave me that impression. I've been to plenty of Protestant Churches but no Catholic Churches.

Honestly, it would be amazing if the Catholic church were consistently what you think it is.

[Lord Dominator]

You're 2/3 on the things I actually do at my home church (though the powerpoint replaces the bulletin/whatever guide mostly)
Oh sure, it rather hurts my knees even with the padded bar

You don't know real pain until you've knelt on river rocks for 30 minutes at an initiation Mass into the Knights of the Holy Temple

Why would I want to do that? I'm making jokes, not trying to win a pain-off

[Walrusvylon]

This assumes they both equally offer what Christians need, by the same thing but one is more fun. Seeing as they don’t, then this point is irrelevant.

But they do, don't they? They're both Christian after all. What do Christians need that they can't get in a Protestant Church?

Valid and licit sacraments under Canon Law.

[Bienenhalde]

It’s funny and sad, the power-points and cheesy praise music are genuinely believed by these groups to be a continuation of Biblical worship. If not Biblical that the “type” of worship is a modern equivalent of first century worship styles. It’s all a big oof.

Speaking as an atheist who was raised Protestant, I'd say I'd rather attend a Baptist Church with tacky powerpoints, a laidback down to Earth sermon, and a worship team consisting of two singers, two guitarists, a drummer and a bassist, all performing Christian rock. Over a Roman Catholic Church with really stuffy, prudish, outdated sermon and aesthetics with a worship team consisting of a choir singing gregorian chants.

As a Lutheran, I prefer hymns played on an organ and sung in four-part harmony, but Gregorian chant is at least better than cheesy modern praise music. And the I think the aesthetics of the tradition liturgy are dignified and timeless. Contemporary worship seems gimmicky, commercialized, and lacking in any real sense of sacredness.

[Hakons]

Kneeling before our crucified Lord is one of the most beautiful and powerful parts of the mass.

Behold Him Who takes away the sins of the world

Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.

I wish my brain didn't phase-out as much as it does during the Liturgy of the Eucharist. My mind splits to like 15 different things as I'm kneeling, and I wanna be better at focusing. Christ deserves more than what I give.

That can happen a lot during the liturgy! Since we already know what's going to be said. I find it helpful to repeat the words back in my head, which makes me focus on every word being said. Even though I've heard the Eucharistic celebration a lot, the depth and meaning of the liturgy is still beautiful to focus in on. I think having trouble focusing is a problem shared by nearly every Catholic, and not just while kneeling. I zone out way to much during the scripture readings haha

[Hakons]

...Honestly you haven't been to a Catholic Church in a while if you think the sermons are outdated and the choir sings Gregorian Chants.

Okay, you found me out, I've never actually been to a Catholic Church service, but the way some in this thread described Catholic services gave me that impression. I've been to plenty of Protestant Churches but no Catholic Churches.

Well, now I have to describe the mass in agonizing detail
I won't do that, but I can describe a few parts in the last mass I went to in relation to what you thought.

I go to a university parish, so our cantor (the person who leads us in song) was a university student. She led us in hymns, perhaps not obviously, vernacular English hymns. Maybe, that can be considered "outdated," but the hymnal has a wide range of songs (800!), many if not most from the 50s and onward. Here's a version of one of the songs that I liked a lot from Sunday, Neither Death nor Life. Now we didn't have a Gospel version, but it was sung by the cantor on a microphone, a small choir, and the whole congregation, along with an accompanying piano. So yes, our music isn't like Protestant worship, it is distinctly Catholic, but it is also relevant, spiritually beneficial, and more able to strengthen and explain our beliefs.

Our priest is a Dominican friar in his thirties, which admittedly is way younger than in most parishes. He's a really great orator (pacing, rhetoric, doesn't need notes), and his homilies are so relevant that it can be uncomfortable. He is constantly driving home the message that we need to not be complacent and answer the call of God to follow His will and serve our neighbors. He's also rereading Lord of the Rings and announced on social media that he will now include references for the next few months (hopefully this was just a joke).

Our aesthetics are of course distinctly Catholic, but I think there is beauty in the ageless and universal Church. Why should the priest dress like a businessman, and not like a priest? Doesn't a depiction of Christ crucified as the main center of attention behind the alter massively improve our understanding of His sacrifice? Is it not beautiful seeing alter servers dressed in white kneeling beside the alter as the priest in his vestments raises the Eucharist? I think if you would attend a Mass, regardless of your beliefs on what's actually happening at the Mass, you would find our aesthetics hardly stuffy or worn-out.

[Narland]

Speaking as an atheist who was raised Protestant, I'd say I'd rather attend a Baptist Church with tacky powerpoints, a laidback down to Earth sermon, and a worship team consisting of two singers, two guitarists, a drummer and a bassist, all performing Christian rock. Over a Roman Catholic Church with really stuffy, prudish, outdated sermon and aesthetics with a worship team consisting of a choir singing gregorian chants.

As a Lutheran, I prefer hymns played on an organ and sung in four-part harmony, but Gregorian chant is at least better than cheesy modern praise music. And the I think the aesthetics of the tradition liturgy are dignified and timeless. Contemporary worship seems gimmicky, commercialized, and lacking in any real sense of sacredness.

I love the old hymns, even hymns done with a garage band worship team. I cannot stand "worship" music that sounds like it was written by Tom Petty. I have nothing against listening to something written by Tom Petty per se, but do not want to hear 21st century "worship" leaders with their own songs that sound like an alt band playing Tom Petty song with the identity of the girlfriend swapped with God or the Lord. It is what I least want to to hear as part of the service program.

I enjoy 3 or 4 hymns (in four part) and a prayer before the sermon (and a monthly Lord's Supper) with a hymn and benediction afterward (altar call to follow for the Wesleyan's in our midst).

I love choir gospel with soul while driving, and sometimes do not mind Dallas Holmes and "Contemporary Christian."

Give me Evangelical free (little f free) church Congregational with low church services and some Presbyterian polity when/if needed and a Romans 14 non-denominational attitude. I sometimes miss Evangelical Friend's watchnight services as they are as free-form as it gets (other than with some Revivalist Pentecostals). I am not fond of a strict liturgy but am not opposed to it for those to whom it ministers. I find even the Orthodox Presbyterian Church liturgy can be a bit much (and it is has the least prescriptive acts compared the to others).

[Lord Dominator]

I mean, the paintings on the wall & the Jesus crucified thing behind the altar were nice

That said, I didn't actually dislike it outside of my ribbing about the quantity of kneeling.

[Tarsonis]

Maybe they prefer kneeling over a bad powerpoint presentation, awful cheesy ''praise'' music, and screaming people holding their hands up.

Just trying to be funny btw.

You're 2/3 on the things I actually do at my home church (though the powerpoint replaces the bulletin/whatever guide mostly)

It's typically right to kneel before a King.

Oh sure, it rather hurts my knees even with the padded bar

I do the kind of half kneel, where you kneel on the bar and sit back on the pew. I’ve got military miles on my knees. They still work but they’re not the best.

[Tarsonis]

I mean, the paintings on the wall & the Jesus crucified thing behind the altar were nice

That said, I didn't actually dislike it outside of my ribbing about the quantity of kneeling.

The mass engages the heart, the mind, and the body. If I take
This joke any further than that I think I’ll be in trouble

[Tarsonis]

As a Lutheran, I prefer hymns played on an organ and sung in four-part harmony, but Gregorian chant is at least better than cheesy modern praise music. And the I think the aesthetics of the tradition liturgy are dignified and timeless. Contemporary worship seems gimmicky, commercialized, and lacking in any real sense of sacredness.

I love the old hymns, even hymns done with a garage band worship team. I cannot stand "worship" music that sounds like it was written by Tom Petty. I have nothing against listening to something written by Tom Petty per se, but do not want to hear 21st century "worship" leaders with their own songs that sound like an alt band playing Tom Petty song with the identity of the girlfriend swapped with God or the Lord. It is what I least want to to hear as part of the service program.

I enjoy 3 or 4 hymns (in four part) and a prayer before the sermon (and a monthly Lord's Supper) with a hymn and benediction afterward (altar call to follow for the Wesleyan's in our midst).

I love choir gospel with soul while driving, and sometimes do not mind Dallas Holmes and "Contemporary Christian."

Give me Evangelical free (little f free) church Congregational with low church services and some Presbyterian polity when/if needed and a Romans 14 non-denominational attitude. I sometimes miss Evangelical Friend's watchnight services as they are as free-form as it gets (other than with some Revivalist Pentecostals). I am not fond of a strict liturgy but am not opposed to it for those to whom it ministers. I find even the Orthodox Presbyterian Church liturgy can be a bit much (and it is has the least prescriptive acts compared the to others).

You know, much of the music we use in Mass now was the pop music of the day when it was written. Food for thought.

[Tarsonis]

Today I learned that Ratzinger didn’t want to be pope.

[Lord Dominator]

You're 2/3 on the things I actually do at my home church (though the powerpoint replaces the bulletin/whatever guide mostly)
Oh sure, it rather hurts my knees even with the padded bar

I do the kind of half kneel, where you kneel on the bar and sit back on the pew. I’ve got military miles on my knees. They still work but they’re not the best.

If felt kinda weird to do that, from a perspective of potential embarrassment

Today I learned that Ratzinger didn’t want to be pope.

Ah, a completely normal sentence

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Baptist and Pentecostals literally offer nothing but happy Sundays.

Edit: Of the service, half of it is sermon, the other half is song, so that’s a 30 minute split, so only 0.29% of the week is occupied by “worship” song. Neither of these churches emphasises sanctification, or even has consequences (such as exclusion from communion) for failing to do so. While communion, if it’s ever had, is literally guilty grape juice time.

Happy Sundays and the ability to communicate with other Christians and find out how to be a better Christian and a better person. Isn't that the whole point of Church?

Not too sure what sanctification is, but it seems like something that doesn't originate in the Bible and isn't necessary to being Christian, in fact it might even be counterproductive to being Christian. Consequences seem to run counter to Jesus' ethos of believing in mercy and redemption and dwelling with sinners, etc. The Baptist Church I used to go to had communion, but what's "guilty grape juice time?" Are Protestant communions not fancy enough or not reverent enough or something?

Honestly, it would be amazing if the Catholic church were consistently what you think it is.

That's probably why I was under the false impression that all Catholic Churches were like that. Because while they're not all like that, many Catholics seem to wish they were.

As a Lutheran, I prefer hymns played on an organ and sung in four-part harmony, but Gregorian chant is at least better than cheesy modern praise music. And the I think the aesthetics of the tradition liturgy are dignified and timeless. Contemporary worship seems gimmicky, commercialized, and lacking in any real sense of sacredness.

A lot of Christian Contemporary music and Christian rock is quite soulless and commercial, but it has its moments, and what do you mean by "sacred?"

Valid and licit sacraments under Canon Law.

"Valid under canon law" according to whom?

[Luminesa]

Baptist and Pentecostals literally offer nothing but happy Sundays.

Edit: Of the service, half of it is sermon, the other half is song, so that’s a 30 minute split, so only 0.29% of the week is occupied by “worship” song. Neither of these churches emphasises sanctification, or even has consequences (such as exclusion from communion) for failing to do so. While communion, if it’s ever had, is literally guilty grape juice time.

Happy Sundays and the ability to communicate with other Christians and find out how to be a better Christian and a better person. Isn't that the whole point of Church?

Not too sure what sanctification is, but it seems like something that doesn't originate in the Bible and isn't necessary to being Christian, in fact it might even be counterproductive to being Christian. Consequences seem to run counter to Jesus' ethos of believing in mercy and redemption and dwelling with sinners, etc. The Baptist Church I used to go to had communion, but what's "guilty grape juice time?" Are Protestant communions not fancy enough or not reverent enough or something?

Honestly, it would be amazing if the Catholic church were consistently what you think it is.

That's probably why I was under the false impression that all Catholic Churches were like that. Because while they're not all like that, many Catholics seem to wish they were.

As a Lutheran, I prefer hymns played on an organ and sung in four-part harmony, but Gregorian chant is at least better than cheesy modern praise music. And the I think the aesthetics of the tradition liturgy are dignified and timeless. Contemporary worship seems gimmicky, commercialized, and lacking in any real sense of sacredness.

A lot of Christian Contemporary music and Christian rock is quite soulless and commercial, but it has its moments, and what do you mean by "sacred?"

Valid and licit sacraments under Canon Law.

"Valid under canon law" according to whom?

Jesus talked very much about consequences. See His Lament of Jerusalem in Matthew, see His flipping the tables in the temple, see His verse about those who lead others to scandal getting a millstone around their necks...I’m not sure what Bible you’re reading that says Jesus doesn’t believe in consequences. Mercy doesn’t exist without consequences. Christians believe in God’s mercy because they understand the price, the consequence, that Jesus paid for our sins on the cross.

Sanctification is...basically the reason people read the Bible? Maybe the word is not used specifically in the Gospels, but Jesus and St. John the Baptist call for people to “repent and believe” a lot.

[Minachia]

I love the old hymns, even hymns done with a garage band worship team. I cannot stand "worship" music that sounds like it was written by Tom Petty. I have nothing against listening to something written by Tom Petty per se, but do not want to hear 21st century "worship" leaders with their own songs that sound like an alt band playing Tom Petty song with the identity of the girlfriend swapped with God or the Lord. It is what I least want to to hear as part of the service program.

I enjoy 3 or 4 hymns (in four part) and a prayer before the sermon (and a monthly Lord's Supper) with a hymn and benediction afterward (altar call to follow for the Wesleyan's in our midst).

I love choir gospel with soul while driving, and sometimes do not mind Dallas Holmes and "Contemporary Christian."

Give me Evangelical free (little f free) church Congregational with low church services and some Presbyterian polity when/if needed and a Romans 14 non-denominational attitude. I sometimes miss Evangelical Friend's watchnight services as they are as free-form as it gets (other than with some Revivalist Pentecostals). I am not fond of a strict liturgy but am not opposed to it for those to whom it ministers. I find even the Orthodox Presbyterian Church liturgy can be a bit much (and it is has the least prescriptive acts compared the to others).

You know, much of the music we use in Mass now was the pop music of the day when it was written. Food for thought.

Yeah, but that music wasn't mass produced and made into an industry.

[Tarsonis]

You know, much of the music we use in Mass now was the pop music of the day when it was written. Food for thought.

Yeah, but that music wasn't mass produced and made into an industry.

Sure it was. You think the music industry is new?