CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity

[foszoe]

Very seriously. No one at the local parish can throw me out, although they probably wish they could I am too liberal on some stuff for them. The bishop would have to take action and there are church courts along the way also.

How seriously does your church take church membership and church discipline?

What does that look like in practice?

 

[T.Lex]

@GPieafhfunvuibnyandnuhr
Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose has a character that... well... maybe has lost track of the reason for that kind of thing.

 

[T.Lex]

Unlike many Protestant churches, they can't just go to another Catholic Parish and have their fate decided by the local congregation either.

Indeed, that's not supposed to happen.

In the modern church, though, I'm not sure how effective the failsafes are at preventing that kind of parish-shopping.

My point was, more generally, that when the rule-following becomes too much, people tend to become former Catholics long before the church needs to formally render any discipline.

 

[BugI02]

Very seriously. No one at the local parish can throw me out, although they probably wish they could I am too liberal on some stuff for them. The bishop would have to take action and there are church courts along the way also.

That's a high barrier to removal (excommunication?)

Are there equally daunting barriers to membership?

 

[breakingcontact]

Unlike many Protestant churches, they can't just go to another Catholic Parish and have their fate decided by the local congregation either.

Not sure how strict the Orthodox church(es) are, but the Roman Catholic church seems to have a lot of work to do in terms of booting those rejecting the faith.

SBC Baptist churches too, not pointing fingers selectively.

As far as folks being disciplined out of one church then joining another where they are unknown. Suppose that can happen, though if they continue in rejecting the faith, then they should be removed from that church as well.

 

[T.Lex]

Not sure how strict the Orthodox church(es) are, but the Roman Catholic church seems to have a lot of work to do in terms of booting those rejecting the faith.

Any actual examples, or just more generalized "Catholicism - bad" pablum?

 

[foszoe]

Yes excommunication.

I wouldn't say its equally daunting to join, but it is more work than you would have to to join most churches. When you become Orthodox you get to spit on Satan! You also have to confess the Nicene Creed and know more church history than the average church. It may seem daunting to someone who is praying at an altar call and is then considered a member.

That's a high barrier to removal (excommunication?)

Are there equally daunting barriers to membership?

 

[T.Lex]

I occurs to me that I think foszoe and I are answering the question differently than what may have been intended. Joining THE church is different than joining A church.

So for Catholics, you have to be baptized in conformance with the Catholic church. (There are rules and exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions that aren't really important for this conversation.) To join a local parish, (as far as I know) you just need to provide proof of that baptism and some other historical information related to Catholic faith formation to join your local parish.

Now, if you are not a Catholic but want to convert, then there's a process that takes about 9 months (I think) and ends at Easter when the person enters the congregation. It isn't as intense as the Orthodox (I don't think), nor really as ... private/secretive?... but it is more involved than ... what I understand the process to be at other kinds of churches.

 

[foszoe]

I have thought that the Roman Catholic Church is the more strict. Here is what I mean.

I attended some RCIA classes way back. You HAVE to go through that process I think and it takes 9 months.

Orthodox priests have some leeway. For example, I expressed an interest in late October and was chrismated by the beginning of Lent because Fr believed I needed to be in the Church during Lent instead of received on the Saturday before Pascha as is the usual custom. This determination was made based on the fact my head knowledge was already quite extensive in what I rejected on the Protestant side and the Roman Catholic side and what I knew to be true about Orthodoxy. I would have become Roman Catholic if it wasn't for the Pope or rather the Papal beliefs and the Marian doctrines that had come out of Papal Infallibility and also Purgatory. I had already accepted intercession of the saints, the Eucharist as the body and blood, a sacramental world view and other beliefs through study of the Roman Catholics

All of that was academic knowledge and he wanted me to begin gaining experiential knowledge. I have also known some that were catechumens for 1-3 years. It all has to do with acceptance of the faith. If I struggle with Jesus being fully God and fully man than I can't become Orthodox until i accept that.

I occurs to me that I think foszoe and I are answering the question differently than what may have been intended. Joining THE church is different than joining A church.

So for Catholics, you have to be baptized in conformance with the Catholic church. (There are rules and exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions that aren't really important for this conversation.) To join a local parish, (as far as I know) you just need to provide proof of that baptism and some other historical information related to Catholic faith formation to join your local parish.

Now, if you are not a Catholic but want to convert, then there's a process that takes about 9 months (I think) and ends at Easter when the person enters the congregation. It isn't as intense as the Orthodox (I don't think), nor really as ... private/secretive?... but it is more involved than ... what I understand the process to be at other kinds of churches.

 

[JettaKnight]

Nine months?! That's how long it takes to get new member in the Protestant church the "fun" way!

For us, IIRC, meet with an elder to insure your serious and agree doctrinally, get baptized if you haven't been [properly] baptized, get your picture on the wall of new members.

For us, we came "by letter" from our old church. I know we have classes now, so that might be required - but nowhere near nine months.

 

[2A_Tom]

something something rock something something

Matthew 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The rock is Jesus, the way, the truth and the life.

Your religion is said to be founded on the man Peter. Christ Church is founded on the perfect sinless Son of G-d.

 

[T.Lex]

I have thought that the Roman Catholic Church is the more strict. Here is what I mean.

I attended some RCIA classes way back. You HAVE to go through that process I think and it takes 9 months.

Orthodox priests have some leeway. For example, I expressed an interest in late October and was chrismated by the beginning of Lent because Fr believed I needed to be in the Church during Lent instead of received on the Saturday before Pascha as is the usual custom. This determination was made based on the fact my head knowledge was already quite extensive in what I rejected on the Protestant side and the Roman Catholic side and what I knew to be true about Orthodoxy. I would have become Roman Catholic if it wasn't for the Pope or rather the Papal beliefs and the Marian doctrines that had come out of Papal Infallibility and also Purgatory. I had already accepted intercession of the saints, the Eucharist as the body and blood, a sacramental world view and other beliefs through study of the Roman Catholics

All of that was academic knowledge and he wanted me to begin gaining experiential knowledge. I have also known some that were catechumens for 1-3 years. It all has to do with acceptance of the faith. If I struggle with Jesus being fully God and fully man than I can't become Orthodox until i accept that.

Fascinating, as ever. And, as usual, thank you for sharing. I guess in that respect, Catholicism may be more regimented. I think local parishes have some leeway - or maybe it is at the dioceses (bishopric) level - about how the RCIA system is implemented.

 

[historian]

The church we are (sadly) leaving (due to not wanting to drive a 7 hour round trip to go to church) had a six weeks doctrinal course we had to take before becoming members. Then we were recommended to the church for a vote.

You would also have to have been baptized by immersion (because that is what baptize means in the Greek! COUGH FOSZOE COUGH ) as a believer (because no one in the Bible was ever sprinkled as a baby).

Our new church will probably follow a similar (although I don't know if they have classes) requirement, and we will transfer by letter.

 

[breakingcontact]

Yes excommunication.

I wouldn't say its equally daunting to join, but it is more work than you would have to to join most churches. When you become Orthodox you get to spit on Satan! You also have to confess the Nicene Creed and know more church history than the average church. It may seem daunting to someone who is praying at an altar call and is then considered a member.

Would you be surprised, that my Baptist church, doesn't do "altar calls"?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

 

[JettaKnight]

Would you be surprised, that my Baptist church, doesn't do "altar calls"?

GOOD.

The church I left had a little show they'd put on.

Every sermon had a point that I called "the turn", where the rather milquetoast sermon subtly shifted into a an altar call. That's bad enough, but here's the deceptive part: anyone wanting to join the church had to walk down the isle and appear to be spontaneous. For instance, if you were meeting with the pastor for weeks to become a member, he'd choose a Sunday, and instruct you to get up and walk up front after he ask, "is the Holy Spirit leading you to join the church? Don't wait - come down and answer the call!"

Same thing if you accepted Christ. Did you do so on a Tuesday in private? Well then, you need to answer the altar call on Sunday to show [STRIKE]how good the pastor is[/STRIKE] your sincerity.

I don't recall, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was a devotee of Osteen.

 

[breakingcontact]

GOOD.

The church I left had a little show they'd put on.

Every sermon had a point that I called "the turn", where the rather milquetoast sermon subtly shifted into a an altar call. That's bad enough, but here's the deceptive part: anyone wanting to join the church had to walk down the isle and appear to be spontaneous. For instance, if you were meeting with the pastor for weeks to become a member, he'd choose a Sunday, and instruct you to get up and walk up front after he ask, "is the Holy Spirit leading you to join the church? Don't wait - come down and answer the call!"

Same thing if you accepted Christ. Did you do so on a Tuesday in private? Well then, you need to answer the altar call on Sunday to show [STRIKE]how good the pastor is[/STRIKE] your sincerity.

I don't recall, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was a devotee of Osteen.

Yeah, it seems that "tradition" started in the 1800s as did many of the problems in the protestant church.

 

[Hoosierdood]

Would you be surprised, that my Baptist church, doesn't do "altar calls"?

In the 14 years that I was a Baptist pastor, I never did a single "altar call".

 

[CampingJosh]

Yeah, it seems that "tradition" started in the 1800s as did many of the problems in the protestant church.

Here's a fun series of blogs on the topic: How Charles Finney Ruined Worship, part 1, part 2, and part 3

(I didn't write those. I just read them several years ago, and the ideas have stuck with me.)

 

[foszoe]

That's why we dunk.

You believe you have to be a believer, but that is not explicitly in Scripture.

Repent and be baptized" is linked by a conjunction that does not convey a temporal progression. Regardless, if one tries to make that assertion based on that verse alone then my immediate question is based on that verse alone what do you HAVE to do for remission of sins? Many protestants do not believe baptism does anything but rather is simply an outward symbol of an inward experience. Repenting and believing tends to be their focus. I realize I use a broad brush but with Protestantism you can't cover everyone as easy as Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, or Coptic Orthodox because Protestants who have a serious difference in doctrine church shop until they find acceptance.

Believing infant baptism is not explicitly enumerated in scripture, is in my opinion correct, but to assert it didn't occur in scripture would be too strong to prove. When households are baptized in scripture, it is not explicitly stated that it was only the adults.

The practice of the church BEFORE the Scriptures were canonized was to baptize infants. It is witnessed to in the 3rd century by at two heretics and one saint.

Ironically, the whole controversy over infant baptism arose because of a faulty interpretation of original sin in Augustine that the guilt of Adam was passed on to his descendants. Although modern day theologians, Latin and Protestant are walking away from that assertion, the theology in both still bears its mark. Baptism removed original sin and the question became can you repent as an infant, greatly simplified of course.

In the East, Baptism was to unite the infant into the Body of Christ, the Church. Yes the washing away of sins in Baptism is also believed but I would say that is not primary concern as in the West because the guilt of original sin would sent babies to hell or limbo.

In the East, as has been discussed, the catechumen is educated in the faith prior to baptism so as adults, it is a credobaptism. However, the prayer said over the catechumen and the state of the catechumen make it clear that the seeker's salvation is in God's hands and we believe in God's mercy so that if he/she dies before baptism there is not a theological crisis of final destination. Those type of legal issues are common in Western theology. In the Great physician, sin is a disease in need of healing view, is VERY different than the western forensic/legal approach to sin.

As to how an infant can be joined to the church without a consent, that is based on the fact that in Orthodoxy, salvation is communal AND Personal.

An old proverb, "No one is saved alone". The Brothers Karamazov is told of a person who died and was making the journey to heaven carrying an onion.

Once upon a time there was an old woman who had died and found herself in hell. She complained to Satan that her assignment to the netherworld was a mistake.


Satan told her, "You've been a greedy, selfish woman all your life. Surely, this is where you belong."


The woman thought a long time, trying to recollect some shred of altruism in her life. After several minutes she exclaimed, "Aha! I did a good deed once! I gave an onion to a beggar."


Satan replied, "Oh, yes. That is right. You pulled an onion out of the ground in your yard and handed it (bulb, stalk, and all) to a beggar at the fence."


At that very moment, God's hand descended into hell, holding the onion out for the woman to grasp. Holding onto the onion with both hands, the woman found herself miraculously being pulled up and out of hell.


As she rose, to the woman's horror, dozens of people began to grasp at her legs and ankles, and as they were pulled up along with her, yet more people grasped onto the lower-most people's own legs and ankles, until it seemed that the bowels of hell clung like an endless chain from a single woman's body and the onion to which she clung.


Though there was great weight tethered to the onion, the connection remained secure and God's hand continued to lift eveyone up out of hell. Remarkably, the onion held; it did not fray.


More and more people who had previously been doomed for eternity found themselves slowly, miraculously, being raised from hell by way of the woman's firm grasp on the onion. There were soon thousands, and after several minutes millions of people hanging from the onion.


Yet the onion held fast.


Halfway to heaven, which is a long distance up from hell, the woman looked down at the vast human chain following her.


She was angry and resentful that these people -- who may have done even less good in their lives than herself -- should be so easily redeemed by virtue of simply clinging to her spindly old legs. She was also afraid, and so excaimed in a great shout, "If all of you grab on to me like this, the onion will surely break and I will not get to heaven!"


So, resolving not to allow anyone to harm her chances for redemption, the woman began to kick and smash the people hanging from her legs and ankles and toes. One by one as she struck them they fell, with each loss of a handhold causing tens of thousands of people to plunge back into hell.


But with each kick -- though the physical load grew lighter -- the onion began to fray. And as the onion frayed, the woman, in her anger and haste, began to kick more ferociously still, thinking that it was the weight of hell's denizens -- and not her anger and selfishness -- that tore at the onion.


She kicked until but one person remained clinging to her left big toe, with yet another endless chain of people dangling from him. Millions of people hung from that precious, single toe. Still, the onion held though it was severely frayed. But the woman couldn't bear the risk of losing her only chance to join God in heaven, so she kicked at the last remaining person; and as the person lost his grip, the onion snapped, and the selfish old woman -- from a great height, having made it almost all the way to heaven -- fell back into hell.

For scriptural defense, I would point to the paralytic who is saved by the faith of those who lower him through the roof and to the wife who sanctifies her unbelieving husband.

The church we are (sadly) leaving (due to not wanting to drive a 7 hour round trip to go to church) had a six weeks doctrinal course we had to take before becoming members. Then we were recommended to the church for a vote.

You would also have to have been baptized by immersion (because that is what baptize means in the Greek! COUGH FOSZOE COUGH ) as a believer (because no one in the Bible was ever sprinkled as a baby).

Our new church will probably follow a similar (although I don't know if they have classes) requirement, and we will transfer by letter.