Look before you leap

Following Rod's guidelines, I reply: If anyone is thinking of becoming a Lutheran in one of the little denominations that do stick to the Lutheran Confessions, he should be prepared for the likelihood of encountering a pretty defensive and sectarian attitude. This is not really something inherent in adherence to the Lutheran Confessions: see J. S. Bach. He should also be prepared to have to do a fair amount of his own thinking about living a sanctified life. In striking contrast to popular evangelicalism (as I understand it), there is very little about lifestyle and a great deal about correct doctrine. I'm all for correct doctrine because if the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth like Jesus said He is, then He does not and cannot work savingly through false doctrine, though He may work in spite of it. But conservative Lutheran preaching generally doesn't have much to say about daily sanctification. Good guys like Rev. Paul McCain are aware of this and are trying to get other Lutherans to wake up.

I'm getting ready to celebrate my 11th anniversary as a Catholic. I was converted intellectually by reading various apologetics works which meant that I was completely unprepared for the mostly left of center parish I unwittingly joined. A couple of years later, I found the Tridentine rite (Latin Mass) and thought I'd finally found the "it" I'd been looking for. After many years there I'm starting to wonder if I've not traded one ear-tickling message for another. I found it hard to resist (not that I tried very hard) the kind of pharisaical rubricism that their emphasis on liturgy lends itself to. Today I attend the Tridentine rite on Sundays, but the Vatican II rite during the week. As I've said before here, I've come to realize that the ordinary folks who go to daily mass are those you want to imitate - no matter which rite that may be. Make no mistake, I still believe that the Tridentine rite is head and shoulders objectively superior to the Novus Ordo rite. But the same zeal and seriousness that attracted me to it, can get warped into a mentality that effectively empties the Faith of its core. I'm not sure I'd want to know any of this if I were a convert, though. I guess the only thing I'd offer them is this: the Catholic faith is true. But that doesn't mean it won't sometimes break your heart.

This is one of maybe two times I've commented here, but this is a subject that I think needs to be discussed among converts, whatever faith you joined. I converted to Judaism in 2000, because it made intellectual and spiritual sense to me. I was taught about the commands, (all of them), by my rabbi, and when I formally converted, I vowed to keep those commandments to the best of my ability. I come from a socially and politically conservative point of view, so as I watched my congregation shift to the left, along with its rabbi, I was disappointed and hurt. Then, when the Conservative movement, which champions a view that Halachah should be given a fresh look from time to time to make sure we don't get caught up in ritualism, decided to tell its rabbis that it's OK to officiate at same-sex unions and that it's OK to ordain openly gay people to the rabbinate, I seriously flerted with abandoning ship. I had no idea where I was going to go, just that I was, and still am, torn and hurt over what I see as the latest in a string of liberalization for liberality's sake. i suppose I would tell perspective converts that, no matter what things may seem to be like when you sign on, they probably won't stay that way. You have to be careful that you don't idealize your congregation, or the clergy, because they're all just people with varying levels of commitment, and they probably aren't going to be nearly as zealous about the faith as you are, and that could be because either they weren't educated in the finer points, or just don't worry about the finer points, but also, contrast that with the realization that you're not going to be perfect either, and over time your own zealousness will probably cool. Spirituality is like any other relationship, and that means it's going to have it's high points along with its low points.

Richard: Those of us who went through "liturgical reform" in other communions dread the very words when they arise in an Orthodox context. Before any thing like that occurs the prelates would do well to talk to former Episcopalians, Methodists, Roman Catholics, etc. who have become Orthodox. I have no doubt that the vast majority will say "Whatever you do, don't mess with the Liturgy!" As for Rod's original question, I would tell potential or new converts to Orthodoxy not to be discouraged by the presence of fairly large numbers of the "nominal" Orthodox churchgoer. This manifests itself in a sort of disconnect in many people between parish life and spiritual life. You have folks in the church who may be extremely involved in activities, fund raisers, etc., and who serve on the councils and committees, but who come to church only for Sunday liturgies and who rarely attend the other services or events of a spiritual nature, like retreats or seminars or what have you. This was disconcerting to me, having come from a Protestant/Evangelical background, where one's nominalism tends to be more internalized, and thus easier to hide. The important thing, though, is to resist strongly the tendency to judge such folks (even the pointing out of their existence is a bit judgmental). That carries with it a strong odor of self-righteousness.

Be careful of churches that are "non-denominational" and are modeled after the first-century Christian church (described in Acts). Belonging to a close-knit group of believers can be wonderful, but there is always the potential for abuse from "elders" or "leading ones" if they aren't open to correction. If you feel that your conscience is being violated, then confront it directly or leave. But it's not easy to leave a group that has become your family for many years. It's heartbreaking. I would be interested in any people who have left these types of churches (including non-denominational evangelical groups, Plymouth Brethren type groups, etc) to describe where they went to next, and what process they went through in finding a new spiritual home. (I hope this isn't a hijacking of your comment thread, Rod. Trust me, there are many Christians who have gone through a similar ordeal as what you describe, except within the evangelical tradition rather than the Catholic or Orthodox one.)

Having grown up with a Protestant mother and Catholic father my memories of the old Tridentine Mass my Dad took me to as a little girl actually *were* steeped in incense, tradition and heavenly choirs (and this was in Europe), so it was indeed a shock when I actually entered the church as an adult through a local American parish. This parish was very much self-styled a progressive "Vatican II" parish (although not by my definition). Social justice was a very strong theme, worship was contemporary and the priests' homilies didn't resonate with me very often. Although I had been very well prepared intellectually through personal research and reading the "culture" of this parish left me in turmoil. I eventually ended up in a parish staffed by Benedictines where the liturgy is faithfully celebrated and the homilies inspire me to walk with Jesus in my daily life. To potential Catholic converts I would say investigate the RCIA programs in your area, trust your instincts and if a parish doesn't "fit" with what your spiritual life needs go looking until you find one that does. Throughout her long history the Roman Catholic Church has seen her ups and downs and it is my prayer and hope that the silly season of the 60's is finally coming to an end. One can stil find beautiful liturgies and sound teaching but at the moment, unfortunately, not everywhere, which would of course be the ideal. With those caveats, I'm glad I made the journey and find peace and joy in my life as a Catholic.

Richard and anonymous -- As a convert to Orthodoxy from a Charismatic background, I understand what you both are speaking of. But as Richard implied, you can't break it down into simply a 'convert vs. cradle' thing in regards to the nominally Orthodox. In our parish, which is probably about 85%/15% cradle to convert, there are quite a few very devout committed folks who were born and raised Orthodox. They, as it happens, are the ones who have most readily reached out to and accepted we convert 'newcomers.' Like attracts like, and I think those who are spiritually committed will find others of like mind in a parish, whether cradle or convert.

Awlsdad, I have to respectfully disagree with you. The "cafeteria" mindset is decidely not the norm for Catholics. I worshipped at an Episcopal parish for about a year before entering the Catholic Church. There are still some very concrete issues that divide Catholics and Anglicans/Episcopalians. I found the extremely latitudinous attitude of the Episcopal church (as a body, of course, not on an individual basis) a real stumbling block.

Richard -- good point. This is undoubtedly part of the reason why the 'nominal' cradle Orthodox are often not particularly welcoming to converts.

It's easy to develop a superiority complex as an Orthodox catechumen. My advice is to visit as many different types of Orthodox churches as possible, if you can. And take your time as a catechumen. Above all, try to cultivate a sense of gratitude for your past, even if you disliked your church. Few conversations are more tedious to me than when someone is dissing the Protestant or Catholic church in comparison to the Orthodox church. Look around a little and you'll see we have enough problems of our own to take care of and there are more than a few things we can learn from non-Orthodox Christians. If there is one thing I wish I knew about Orthodoxy before joining it I guess it would be how difficult it is to attend the midnight Pascha service with two children who are only sixteen months apart. :) I've learned to pace myself and follow the example of some cradle Orthodox I know and loosen up a little already. It's a marathon, not a sprint.

Rod, As usual, you are TOO KIND. Whenever I convince someone to visit their local Catholic Church (because they are "curious" about RCC) I can be almost certain that an hour and fifteen minutes later, they know what Church they DO NOT want to belong to. What you are really saying is that potential converts have to be prepared, when they enter a Catholic Church, to meet priests, liturgical directors, and lay ministry leaders who are HOSTILE to both the teachings of the Church and the sacred liturgy. They have to be forwarned that the art, architecture, music, and theology that they thought they would encounter inside the church might be completly missing. You must tell them "forget those Masses you see in the movies, because anti-religious athiest movie directors have a better sense of the sacred than the fool who is running your particular church." You should remind them that the Holy Trinity is now Illegal Aliens, Death Row Inmates, and Muslims. And if pop psychology, political correctness, or kitchy music rub them the wrong way, you should tell them to consider other options.

It does seem that there will be some serious theological struggles within the Orthodox Church over the coming years. It's not that uncommon. There have been serious theological struggles, from those that led to the Ecumenical Councils through those that accompanied the split between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Old Believer sect, throughout the history of the Church. Having a day to reflect, my language isn't the best. Here's a second attempt at what I think might be afoot. I think it is quite possible that there will be a clash within Orthodoxy that will result in, on the one hand, a "puritan" faction of zealous converts and hardline cradle Orthodox, and on the other a faction of moderate believers much more willing to make accommodations with different elements of modern life. Both can go too far, and almost all of the public critique of these two developing factions is directed towards the latter. They are accused of being "nominal" in their faith, of not allowing their faith to sufficiently influence their daily choices regarding work, childrearing, entertainment, dress - or their politics or scientific beliefs. For some, this criticism is justified. Thus the widely varying demographics that are reported. Are there just over a million Orthodox in America, or 4-6 million? Should everyone who's been baptized Orthodox, but hasn't set foot in a church for 30 years, be counted? Of course not; nominalism does exist. But the "puritan" faction doesn't, in my own opinion, receive enough public critique. This is practically becoming a red/blue, conservative/liberal split. The "puritan" vs. "liberal" split lines up very strongly with the "intelligent design" vs. "evolution" split, although of course there's a lot of complexities to that whole debate not worth getting in to here. "Puritan" Orthodox condemnation - or at least distaste - of everything from couples choosing a Hawaiian vacation to letting their kids play video games to women working outside of the home and wearing short skirts is, I believe, on the rise. The more "puritan" cradle community has always been a part of the mosaic of Orthodoxy. But it does seem like there's something new in the mix now that this group has been augmented by a large influx of converts from very conservative, often Evangelical, backgrounds. There's a "flavor" to this new "faction" (forgive, but all the quote marks are because I'm thinking on the fly with this language and consider a lot of it conditional) that one priest summed up for me as "Evangelical Protestantism with Orthodoxy sauce". Some of this has congealed around an almost cultish allegiance to certain figures, such as the deceased monk Fr. Seraphim Rose. As often is the case, Rose was wonderful but "Rose-ism" is a problem. At it's heart Orthodoxy has always maintained the potential transfiguration of joyful physical existence, elevating it in marriage to the level of sacrament. The very term "sacrament" speaks of the unifying of the physical and the spiritual realities, of reclaiming their essential unity. This plays itself out very differently in different contexts - the monastic context, the Sodom and Gomorrah context. But in general, the average person's every day life is something to be celebrated. "My Big Fat Greek Wedding", for all it's silliness and flaws, does a good job of communicating this. There's certainly things worth condemning in modern American/Western life. But there's also a lot worth celebrating. I think Orthodoxy is beginning to play out the "culture war" though, and that with this will come genuine theological debates and divisions. Is Orthodox theology, without some genuine re-evaluation of certain teachings that have been passed down, compatible with a creed of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? With a reverence for "quality of life"? With a multicultural melting pot that celebrates equally different lifestyle choices, particularly those that are bound up with the role of women in society? With public discussion of ways to improve the sex life of married couples? With marriage between Orthodox and non-Orthodox? With a society that treats mental health as having a strongly physical component treatable through medicine? With anti-depressants? With, potentially down the road, genome manipulation for the sake of "improving" the lives of people? These are hard, hard questions, and I think there is a beauty and strength to Orthodox theology that will in the end enable it to guide the faithful through these times. But it won't come without a lot of sincere struggle, a lot of which I expect will be driven by the "neo traditionalist puritans" who seem to have a subconscious aversion to any and all modern development that are primarily manifestations of an individual desire to increase the physical/sensual/emotional joy in their lives through any means other than increased time spent in prayer and worship.

Don: What you are really saying is that potential converts have to be prepared, when they enter a Catholic Church, to meet priests, liturgical directors, and lay ministry leaders who are HOSTILE to both the teachings of the Church and the sacred liturgy. They have to be forwarned that the art, architecture, music, and theology that they thought they would encounter inside the church might be completly missing. Yes, this is very true. As I've written before, I made two fundamental errors at the beginning of my walk as a Roman Catholic: 1) I thought that if I had the intellectual stuff worked out, everything would be fine; and 2) though I knew that the Church I met in books and magazines was not going to be the Church I dealt with in the parishes, I badly underestimated how serious the discrepancy was, and the difficulty I would have adjusting to it. I strongly caution converts not to make the same mistakes. Though I invite local Catholic catechuments who ask me about this stuff to come to services at my Orthodox parish, I also tell them that I don't want to be a stumbling block to them becoming Catholic. Actually, I would end up being a stumbling block if I didn't help them prepare for the reality they will face. And in that respect, I really appreciate what Doug Cramer and others are saying about Orthodoxy and its faults. This is helpful to me. Real helpful.

...but that aside, there's a lot in your posts with which I agree; certainly Orthodox Christianity has a lot of hard questions to face in this culture, standing fast is going to be tough but necessary, and it will be how we frame our answers, not just what the answers are, that will be the real witness. It doesn't do any good to just say, "You're wrong," but a better answer in a better context must be provided. For example, there are secular scholars who want to argue that early Christian asceticism is basically a masochistic fetishism bound up with power issues. It's not enough for the Orthodox or Catholic academic to just sit there, get mad, and say, "That's not true"; they have to come up with a better argument. Bp. KALLISTOS Ware has certainly tried, but it's easy to dismiss him because he's a monk and is therefore biased; Brown University professor Susan Ashbrook Harvey, on the other hand, is doing a wonderful job of this in her current work. Culture cannot dictate what the faith must be; faith must rather always be attempting to shape the culture. Orthodox Christianity, I believe, needs a C. S. Lewis, needs a J. R. R. Tolkien, a G. K. Chesterton, a Peter Kreeft for that matter, who can do so at a popular level AND at an academic level. Richard

Richard, on your second post I agree completely. Here's a great Bishop Kallistos quote: We must look, then, for signs of the Truth, traces and footprints of the Truth, throughout our modern culture. . . . We Orthodox, particularly those of us who are Western converts, are often in danger of becoming church mice. We just live inside the church and nibble at the crumbs in the church, but we don t look outside at the presence of Christ in the world as well. We Orthodox who live in the West are heirs to the entire cultural and intellectual tradition of the West, much of which indeed is profoundly Christian. We are heirs to Dante, to Shakespeare, to Milton, to Wordsworth. Of course we have our own Orthodox interpretation of their work. But if we are to play our role as Orthodox in the Western world we must be willing to listen and to learn from the spiritual masters of the Western tradition. . . . [Some] of us must surely engage in a dialogue with Western culture. Otherwise we are betraying our roles as Orthodox placed here in the West as mediators and witnesses.

Christine: The whole interview is really amazing: http://www.conciliarpress.com/again/content/view/92/9/9/ Doug

Regarding those quotes--sure. The way my own priest puts it is, "Effective evangelism is finding out what your people's gifts are, and putting them to work." Heaven knows that the parish I'm in is small enough that without lay involvement at every level, little would get done. Unfortunately, the players I described seem to be the ones who are desperately trying to make themselves the public face of these issues, and I think the wrong message gets sent as a result. What I detect, largely, is that Orthodox Christianity in this country sees itself as largely impoverished and accustomed to "thinking poor" and essentially apologizing to itself and everybody else as a result. "Yes, we are the True Church, but we're somewhat at loose ends at the moment... loan us a twenty till Friday?" This may or may not be seen as a good thing, but it's at least seen as normative, which is where Fr. Thomas Hopko's quote comes into play. I've also heard him say in person, "It's difficult to convince somebody that the bar needs to be raised when they don't want to acknowledge that there's a bar in the first place." I'm the choir director/cantor at my parish, and I run into this mindset all the time. A maximalist reading of our rubrics clearly calls for antiphonal, left choir/right choir singing, for example, but my initial attempts at implementing that were met with blank stares. "Does anybody actually do it that way? I've never heard of that before," was the response I got. (Luckily, our priest is a St. Vlad's grad, where this is common practice, and he knows exactly what I'm going for.) We've got to figure out how to "think big" in manageable ways, or at least "think small" in ways that will be extensible and adaptable later, rather than boxing ourselves in by assuming that poor and small is all we'll ever be, thereby generating a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we honestly believe we're the Church, why would we do it any other way? Richard

Richard: Yes, there is certainly a flavor of the psychology of the abused in American Orthodoxy. "Well, yes, I suppose I know that deep down I'm a good person. But who is interested in what a wretch like me has to say?" Bless, Doug

Sorry, forgot to add my name to the above post.

"But conservative Lutheran preaching generally doesn't have much to say about daily sanctification." Major Wootton | 02.20.07 - 8:54 pm | # Major - this was the first thing that came to my mind reading the end of Rod's post. While the church seems to be effective communicating the concept of Grace, we seem to come up short in teaching the Mortification of Sin. I think an inward focus on holy living is key to any new convert to Christianity, regardless of sect. Christ attacked Sin with a fury, rather than with the humble passivity so many Christians mistakenly take on as the "Imitation of Christ." Jesus was anything but passive when it came to Sin.

Christine: I respectfully disagree. "There is one God, and one Mediator between God and man." The veil is torn.

Rob G: Okay. Let's see the Scripture that says Our Lady of Loreto currently petitions God for protection of the Argentine Air Force. Also - the believer needs no recourse to saints past, when we have recourse to Christ Himself. Prayer to anyone other than the Godhead falls on deaf ears.

RB -- I'll say it again then: don't ask your pastor to pray for you, because the logic in doing so is identical. Christine has it exactly right -- the abuse doesn't nullify the proper use.

Converts from Anglicanism to Catholicism certainly need to know that, depending on where they live, their local parish may not be a lot like the Catholicism they have read about. I would stress to them, first, that it is the Catholic church throughout all ages that they are joining, and that the music of Hagen and Haug is as transient a part of Catholicism as were some of its other horrors; poisoning Popes and the sales of indulgences. They have to understand that Catholicism is huge, even now, still, a church of the masses, not a church of a few devout like minded souls or of an intellectual elite. In this country it means among other things that it is the church of suburbanites, Americans whose primary values are those of suburbia yet who retain some allegience to the Church and some desire to give honor and service to God. These are also Americans whose primary tastes are those of suburbia and it is not surprising that their churches often look like bland suburban living rooms. Miserably bland. Just as the churches of Italian immigrants were overly ornate, full of gilt and pastel colors and cheap, dare I say garish art. (I have made my peace with this style by now and greatly prefer it to suburban bland as a style for churches.) Gerard Manley Hopkins said, responding to his father's letter about his conversion "I am surprised you wd say I do this because of fancy and aesthetic tastes; one is always finding bad taste in the accessories of Catholicism." So that is the first thing; expect bad taste in music and art and it is possible that you will be pleasantly surprised otherwise. The second thing is that the church is just beginning to settle down a bit from the upheaval after Vatican II, that there was an "anything goes" mentality for a few (40 is a few) years following on a period of narrow minded conformism, and they may happen into parts of the church (say in Rochester NY or Los Angeles) which are still in that 1960's time warp. They should be ready for this but know it is NOT what The Church teaches, and that it is not universal, and that it is changing. They should know they have a right to look for a more small o orthodox parish, but if they live where they can't find one, they should remember that the Eucharist is still the great action of the Church which makes Jesus's sacrifice present in the world day after day, and makes Him present to us. Even if they are singing pathetic puerile ditties and listening to Fr. Friendly preach vague and vapid Luv, still, they are really standing in church with St. Augustine and St. Thomas...or with St. Polycarp and St. Gregory, offering with the priest the same Eucharistic sacrifice. I agree, it is hard to remember this sometimes. I myself have fled to the Byzantine rite, but if it were not available, you would still find me at mass in my local parish.( ..in fact I am going there tonight for Ash Wednesday, because I am still too Western to let Ash Wednesday go without observation.) But, those who know Ron will have to be truly committed to Catholicism despite its superficial flaws if they continue on to become Catholics after attending Divine Liturgy with him! Susan F. Peterson

"what is it about this doctrine in particular that helps you with holy living on a daily basis?" The short of it, the saints are human beings who loved Christ so much that their lives shone with it. One of my own personal devotions is to Saint Therese of Lieseux, known as the Little Flower. Her life shows so clearly that we can achieve holiness in the "ordinary" living of our lives. Like Mother Teresa of Calcutta, St. Therese shows me how to do *small* things with *great love*. It's something that has to be experienced rather than just intellectualized. As one wise sage put it, Jesus is never alone but always comes with his friends. I think, if I may humbly guess, Rob wasn't suggesting that you pray TO your pastor, but that your pastor would certainly be willing to pray FOR you.

"Just as the churches of Italian immigrants were overly ornate, full of gilt and pastel colors and cheap, dare I say garish art." I have to run a little defense here. Some of those early ethnic parishes in America were not wealthy and the "plaster" art they displayed was their way of imitating the beautiful woodcarved ecclesiastical art of Europe. In northeast Ohio we have three parishes, one an historically Polish (now a shrine church) and two that were German in origin that acquired their art directly from Europe. The woodcarving and stained glass would take your breath away. Just as an aside. Wishing all my Western and Eastern brothers and sisters a holy Lent.

Christine- My experience is limited; I was thinking of my "home" parish, where I was received into the church, St. Mary's in Annapolis. They have toned it down a bit now but it still has near life sized plaster statues in the reredos (the colors are more muted in the latest repainting.) When I first looked into this church as an unbeliever drawn to Christianity, it was as strange and foreign to me as a Hindu temple with six armed goddesses would have been. That was one reason for my brief detour through Anglicanism. I went up the street to the Episcopal church and had my conversion experience there. It took me nine intense months to find my way back to St. Mary's and Catholicism. I am very attached to St. Mary's' I have pictures of its interior pinned to the walls of my cubicle here at work. But one could never say those plaster saints are art. Not great art, anyway. And, to be honest, those pictures of the sacred heart...especially the ones of a disembodied heart floating somewhere with rays coming out of it, still repulse me. From my standpoint, they do constitute "bad taste." But I know they are a way of expressing concretely belief in the love Jesus Christ has for us and I don't despise them, and prefer them to bland suburban living room churches which express nothing. My point was that the art and music of a Catholic church in any particular time and place does not embody all that Catholicism is...and those people who attend one mass and decide Catholic is one thing they don't want to be, are operating out of a very shallow frame of reference. Susan Peterson

RB - You're missing the point (whether intentionally or not, I have no idea): we don't "pray" to Saints, as in offering worship. We converse with them as you would your pastor, mother, best friend. They are alive in heaven and fully hear our "prayers" just as certainly as your pastor hears you when you speak to them.

'You're hung up on the word "prayer" and defining it more narrowly than we are.' Right. "Pray" is simply an archaic word for "ask" or "petition." It's not limited to the Deity. "...how do you reconcile prayer to saints and Mary with the Apostle Paul's instructions concerning communication with the dead?" God is not the God of the dead but of the living. St. Paul condemns necromancy, which is entirely different from the intercession of the saints (which is based on the idea of the communion of saints, which is in the Creed.)

Well, great, I'll remember that the next time I need help finding a lost fish or whatever, but until then, I'll just answer Rod's original question. Actually, scratch that, I'll say this instead. Flame "on". Some of you tend to forget that not all of us reading this site are of a liturgical tradition. Some of us of a protestant tradition [looking at RB] forget that religious arguments between liturgical and non-liturgical creeds are pretty much off the topic of whatever Rod has asked in the first place and are pretty much a moot point. We aren't likely to convince anyone in this forum. That said, if I have questions, I'm sure you can answer them and I'd be happy to converse with you. But.... FOR CRYIN' OUT LOUD PEOPLE STICK TO SOMETHING RESEMBLING THE TOPIC!!! [pant, wheeze....] It is really difficult to try to weed through the fluff of doctrinal arguments and measurements of angels and heads of pins so I can actually try to intelligently have a discussion on what has been asked. Actually, I apologize for yelling. What really torked me was when Rod asked about a Christian variant of Slow Food a couple of weeks ago and a couple of people hijacked the discussion into something about the communion host and whether it was sinful to enjoy it as food. Or something like that. Flame "off." I'll be over in the corner grumbling into my coffee... :) k.

teacherKD -- please note that the non-liturgical personage in question began the rabbit chase by criticizing the notion of prayers to the saints; we liturgical personages rose to its defense. The question has been answered, although not, perhaps, to the questioner's satisfaction. Further comment is probably not needed.

"But one could never say those plaster saints are art. Not great art, anyway. And, to be honest, those pictures of the sacred heart...especially the ones of a disembodied heart floating somewhere with rays coming out of it, still repulse me." Forgive me for digressing just one more time, but Susan's comments do point out the dilemma faced by converts, especially adult converts. Her reaction is perfectly normal for someone not raised Catholic. Apologetics, intellectual/doctrinal/dogmatic formation are the substance of the conversion experience. But Catholic (or any other tradition) "sensibility" is something that is formed by a spiritual culture emobodied by one's friends, family, etc. It is something that adult converts unfortunately aren't always able to tap into because they have no experience of it as children. Those Sacred Hearts that repulsed Susan were very much beloved by the Catholics who built and worshipped in those parishes. Conversions are, ultimately, unique to every individual but there are some common threads. One other observation -- the book "The Riddle of Roman Catholicism" by the great church historian Jaroslav Pelikan, written when he was still within the Lutheran fold, was the impetus for my own journey into the Catholic Church. Pelikan stated very unequivocally that he felt in the interests of ecumenism Christians should stay in the traditions into which they had been baptized and work from there for the reunion of the churches. Pelikan was received into the Orthodox Church several years ago before his death.

Dilys, I am rolling with laughter, you've made my day! Your story could have been told of many ethnic organizations, religious and otherwise! I remember visiting an Orthodox parish many years ago and finding the same conditions (and let me be quick to assert that they were present in ethnic Catholic parishes also). Now, the local OCA parish in my neighborhood is a joy to visit. The priests and people are friendly, welcoming and a splendid witness to Orthodox spirituality.

Eesh, is that enough "as well"'s?!

My church is Presbyterian. I was raised within the Presbyterian church, so I don't know what would come as a surprise to a convert. We have a liturgy. The format stays the same from week to week, but with the exception of the recitation of some brief creeds, the words change. I always thought of the parts to the liturgy that don't change as a means to state, as a group, why we are gathered together. The Apostles Creed or the Nicene Creed are more of a statement to define what the group believes, but stating the creeds never left me feeling spiritually moved. I've never attended a church that had an extensive liturgy. So, I guess if you like that, then you'd not like my church. However, if you like things to vary a little from week to week, then you might like my church. The music is pretty traditional. It's a large church, so it has a pretty good music program. It has a lot of programs. It's friendly towards outsiders. The morning message and the sermons are the best. Dr. Hess is great. I think that the church has a large membership because he's so wonderful. He's some examples of his sermons if anyone's interested in listening. I just finished listening to the one on prayer. http://www.firstpreswc.com/component/option,com_sermon/Itemid,23/

RB, what do you make of the historic fact that virtually all Christians in the world asked the intercessions of the saints, until the time of the Reformation? Which is to say, the cult of the saints (I use "cult" in the strictly sociological sense) dates from virtually the beginning of the faith. Were all those Christians wrong?