Going To Church: To Go Or Not To Go?

[Rey Reynoso]

Lisa's conversation sparked something in my mind. I'm a strong believer in individuals being part of an assembly of believers. But you might not be.

 

So I want you to pretend, if you will that you believe the same way and that the whole mentality of doing Church between you and God is an aberration that should probably only happen because of sickness or something similar.

 

As part of this hypothetical though, you now realize that after perusing your area you have a doctrinal issue with all the churches around you. You battle them, even. Not say heresy, but a doctrinal disagreement. If you're young earth, they're all old earth. If you're a cessationist, they are all continuationists. If you're a premillennial dispensationalist they're all preterist amillennialists. If you're a Calvinist they're all Arminians. Whatever. The point is that the disagreement is still within the realm of orthodoxy.

 

Do you (with the earlier convictions) still go to church?

[JRKH]

Well - no - not from me anyway...

You see, I am aware that there are some 30 or so different "rites" who are all in communion with the Holy Father in Rome. There is some question as to whether these all can be called "Roman Catholic" since that term generally is understood to refer to the "Latin Rite".

That said - I am aware, as you are too, that there are certain other groups who might lay claim to the term "Roman Catholic", but are either in an "irregular" communion with Rome, or not in communion at all (sedevacanists for example), but I had never heard a number that high before.

That is why I asked about the source for the number. Not because of being, "put... all in the same boat".

In point of fact, since the source you gave me for the 242 number itself specifies that all of these Catholic churches are part of one organization, it completely nullifies your comment in your above reference original post about splitting over disagreements since none of those 242 units has split from Rome. 

Peace

James

[JRKH]

Actually Seraphim,

It has been my experience here that, even if Ryan or I never mention Rome, or Catholic, even if we simply ask questions along the lines of how otherwise discern authority, it is almost guaranteed that someone else will bring up Rome or the Pope or the RCC or whatever....

I'm not complaining necessarily... Just reporting. 

Peace

James

Seraphim said:

It's as irreverent as your being unable to discuss or post anything other than a variation of 'Come to Rome and all your problems will be solved. We are the One True and Only Church'

Sigh

(this comment was sponsored all or in part by mean gitar playin james g)

Ryan said:

Lol.  I assume you're using Barrett's number from the World Christian Encyclopedia?  You do realize he delimits by country, essentially arguing that the US Catholic Church is distinct from the UK Catholic Church.  Multiplied by 242.

[James Gibbons]

It’s a ukulele, actually.

[Marv]

Duh, we all know that.

(Do you know Tiny Bubbles?)

James Gibbons said:

It’s a ukulele, actually.

[Ryan]

I can't wait for that to make the "Video of the Day".

Marv said:

(Do you know Tiny Bubbles?)

[James Gibbons]

How about this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5JicO2bKec

or this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puSkP3uym5k

When you dis the ukulele, you prove yourself a haole. Just sayin’ bra.

Marv said:

Duh, we all know that.

(Do you know Tiny Bubbles?)

James Gibbons said:

It’s a ukulele, actually.

[Marv]

Do like me some IZ. (sigh) A few celery sticks would've done no harm.

James Gibbons said:

How about this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5JicO2bKec

or this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puSkP3uym5k

When you dis the ukulele, you prove yourself a haole. Just sayin’ bra.

Marv said:

Duh, we all know that.

(Do you know Tiny Bubbles?)

James Gibbons said:

It’s a ukulele, actually.

[Norrin Radd]

Experience is a good teacher.  How many times has it NOT been the case that your veiled intent was to promote the RCC?

JRKH said:

Actually Seraphim,

It has been my experience here that, even if Ryan or I never mention Rome, or Catholic, even if we simply ask questions along the lines of how otherwise discern authority, it is almost guaranteed that someone else will bring up Rome or the Pope or the RCC or whatever....

I'm not complaining necessarily... Just reporting. 

Peace

James

[JRKH]

Your comment below actually expresses the problem quite nicely. 

Why do you assume that there is a "veiled intent? 

Do you believe that I, a fellow Christian to be dishonest in my intent?

Peace

James

Norrin Radd said:

Experience is a good teacher.  How many times has it NOT been the case that your veiled intent was to promote the RCC?

JRKH said:

Actually Seraphim,

It has been my experience here that, even if Ryan or I never mention Rome, or Catholic, even if we simply ask questions along the lines of how otherwise discern authority, it is almost guaranteed that someone else will bring up Rome or the Pope or the RCC or whatever....

I'm not complaining necessarily... Just reporting. 

Peace

James

[Ryan]

Ser & Norrin: This is getting off topic.  If you have problems with me personally, please reach out to me privately rather than fill the thread with ad homs (I've already reached out to each of you personally).  Or feel free to contact the moderators.  Or, better yet, engage my comments instead of my person.

[JRKH]

Seraphim,

You may be right.  But his response was to my post and my concern still stands. 

When we - any of us - engage in making assumptions about the posts of another - their "veiled intentions" - it immediately damages the ability to communicate effectively. 

We have great opportunities on message boards like this one to engage in conversation, to grow and to learn from one another.   That can't happen unless we accept each other at face value.  That means that when we ask a question or make a comment, the other trusts that there is no "veiled intent" behind it. 

I appreciate your comments about my interaction here.   Also you are right, I Love Christ and His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  Nothing veiled there...  Also, as you well know, we have had some very spirited conversations here about Scripture, Authority, Church Structure and Catholic Church teaching.  Again, nothing veiled in any of those threads. 

So - I rightly feel offended when someone makes the accusation that I am acting in something less than a forthright manner. 

EDIT:  After checking on Mr. Radd, I see that he is a new member.  Loks like he joined on about the 29th of December...So perhaps he can be excused as not having seen many posts by me or my Ryan....However, because he IS new, it might be wise to get to know people before making such accusations. 

Peace

James

Seraphim said:

i think he meant to post this to ryan. James I don't see your interaction here that way. It's obvious you love your Church, but i've seen you enter into actual conversations....

JRKH said:

Your comment below actually expresses the problem quite nicely. 

Why do you assume that there is a "veiled intent? 

Do you believe that I, a fellow Christian to be dishonest in my intent?

Peace

James

[Phil James]

Depends on how its used in the argument.

If my point is to prove that you're a hypocrite, then that's fine- from a logic standpoint. If my point is to prove your argument or position is erroneous because you're a hypocrite, then it is fallacious.

Using it appropriately in a public forum is likely a moral failure. God died on account of sin, not fallacies.