The Heart Matters

It must be the Lenten season, right? Turn on the television or the radio. McDonalds promotes its filet-o-fish sandwich.  The campy wall bass now calls out via cell phone to those seeking a “meatless” repast. The local news reports on people heartedly devoted to completing the Northeast Ohio fish fry circuit, after all you only have forty days to partake in all that battered, fried goodness. So many parishes to hit. So little time.

People suddenly are giving up the things they love. Some deny themselves sugar, others “smokes.”  Denying oneself pleasure is the object of the season. Then there are those who cease to consume meat. One will abstain from all meat including fish for 40 days while another will substitute red meat with fish on Fridays only. People seem to pick and chose what they do. Are there rules?

I’ve asked people why they abstain from meat, substitute fish on Fridays or why they give up anything during the season of Lent. Most people answer that don’t know why they do it. It’s just what one does during this time of year if you’re Catholic. Many evangelicals say that they just like the idea of giving up something for the Lord. My favorite reason for abstinence comes from those who have no religious motivation. They just want to fit in with their Catholic and well-meaning Protestant friends. It’s fun to fit in.

I grew up in the Lutheran Church. I had little exposure to this concept of giving up something for Lent. Lutherans observed the Lenten season and were encouraged to solemnly consider Christ’s sacrifice and our relationship with our Savior, but did not practice fasting (honestly, I never met a Lutheran who would willingly give up a meal). It wasn’t until I attended the public high school that I came into contact with this idea of seasonal abstinence. (How fitting that this season was the forerunner of bikini season).

At first, I was rather perplexed by the Lenten practices. Quickly, I warmed up to the idea that I could do something for God to show Him just how great I was and how much I loved Him. I had always been drawn to the idea that somehow I could validate my devotion to the Lord through some act of my will. What better way to prove your love than to impose self “suffering.” I found this ritual completely delightful. The bonus was that as a teenage girl, I could refuse to eat and it would be considered godly and not psychologically unhealthy. Godly devotion trumps parental concern. I win and get to serve God. What could be better?

That was the perpective of a teenager who struggled with a border line eating disorder, but is it much different from how Lent observers reason today? Seriously, how does giving up something benefit God? What can man do for the Lord that God lacks?

It seems that people who observe Lent through self denial are well intentioned. They desire to worship the Lord and to honor Him. Many seem very sincere in their abstention, sincerely mistaken. The Lord himself points out the folly of misguided human tradition.

Then the Lord said, “Because this people draw near with their words And honor Me with their lip service, But they remove their hearts far from Me, And their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote. Isaiah 29:13

Jesus rebukes the religious people of his day in Mark 7: 7-8.

“Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God. For you ignore God’s law and substitute your own tradition.”

No where in scripture does Christ command that his followers participate in a 40 day fast of remembrance commemorating his death and resurrection. The only rituals which Christ instituted are communion and baptism.

Now people have told me that fasting is a way to draw near to God. They say that spiritual disciplines are a means to see more clearly the way and will of the Lord,“For man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.” Perhaps they are onto something. Didn’t Jesus fast for 40 days and nights in the desert prior to entering his adult years of ministry? Didn’t Jesus, who happened to be God, do battle with Satan in the wilderness, weilding the word of God as his only weapon? Perhaps this is the goal of eating fish on Fridays?

Yes, clearly I am Lent picking. My main beef (he-he) with Lent is not that people want to be near to God or even that they have a need to reflect on what Christ accomplished on the cross. Those are good things to consider. What vexes me is that people, through human rituals and observance, are trying to be righteous before God through their own efforts. This is just plain madness. Paul raved about this foolish tendency in Galatians 3.

1You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. ²I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? ³Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?

Christianity is all about freedom. Freedom from sin. Freedom from “works” and the law. Freedom from slavery. Freedom from death. Galatians 5:1 reads:

 ¹It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

So, let’s not deceive ourselves during this traditional season of penitence. We are not bound by rules or regulations, nor do we need to observe special seasons and festivals. Each day we live in Christ is a victorious feast of community in relationship. The rules have been abolished. There is no need for filet-o-fish advertisement campaigns. No longer a need to fill McDonald’s coffers with slave money. We are free to eat meat -  free to dig into a Salisbury steak dinner on Friday.

I say free the fish!

Additional Information

Luther wanted an open discussion.

It seems only fitting to acknowledge the earnest stance that Martin Luther took against the establishment when he nailed these 95 Theses to the doors at Wittenberg.  He wanted to openly discuss these ninety-five propositions, but Pope Leo and the institutionalized church were not in a talking mood. They were outraged.

Luther did not intend to break from the Catholic Church, but he saw that there were some heresies within the church that needed to be addressed. He was calling for repentance by using the language of the Vulgate, “Poenitentiam agite”, as he quoted John the Baptist in Matthew 3:2 and later Jesus in Matthew 4:17. The rage of the mighty papacy rose up against Luther and thus ensued the Protestant Reformation. (Well, that’s the short of it.)

Being raised in the Lutheran Church, Reformation Day was an notable day. I recall that we would pile into our lemon-yellow Honda Civic and head over to Concordia Lutheran Church in downtown Akron. The stain glass window rose majestically into the sky. This was indeed a “mighty fortress.” Concordia was magnificent in stature to our humble Redeemer in Cuyahoga Falls.

Our annual pilgrimage to Concordia

We filed into the sacred space and donned our musty choir robes. I remember stumbling over the weighty robes as we entered onto the balcony to sing in celebration of the Reformation. ( I thought it was a balcony, but it could have been the main worship center.)

It usually rained and that made the robes smell even more dank, but that never seemed to bother me. My eyes were always drawn upward to the brilliant glasswork before me. My mind and heart were fixed upon the song we were about to perform. I took this singing thing quite seriously, after all if it weren’t for Luther and those Theses, I’d be a – dare I say - Catholic.

You see, one thing a good Lutheran girl did not want to be called was Catholic. To this day, I’m not sure why, the idea of being Catholic brings a cold sweat to my brow. It think it all goes back to those revered Reformation services that paid homage to this brave act of independent thought. Luther was a righteous rebel. His act of defiance was a stand for the gospel – for grace alone.

Tetzel was the name that made my blood boil. “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs.” This phrase accompanied the sale of indulgences which Johann Tetzel claimed insured forgiveness for sins not yet committed. The monies from their sale went to the papal coffers to fund the building of St. Peter’s Basilica. The charges Luther brought against Tetzel and the Church were scandalous.

I, as a ten year old girl, was disgusted by the idea of paying for forgiveness. Sola fide was the slogan I recall to be paramount. I guess that is why I hated it when people would say to me, “Oh, a Lutheran. You are pretty much a Protestant Catholic.” Gross me out the door. Even today I am annoyed when people lump Catholic’s and Lutheran’s together, but I digress.

The lasting impact of my past as a Lutheran and my Reformation Day experiences is this, that if some doctrine or idea of man is contrary to the inspired Word of God then it must be challenged. So, as Luther we ought to challenge a doctrine that is in opposition to the gospel.  We as believers, disciples of Christ and Fellow heirs to the Kingdom of God, must stand up and state was is true and right. If the institution is wrong – is errant – who cares. Abolish it. Tear it down. Get back in touch with the Head of the Church, who is Christ.

We can repent – not only as individuals, but also as a church. Why become hostile when the way we do something is challenged or merely questioned? I recommend people revisit Luther’s 95 Theses. They are an intriguing and illuminating read. I have included them below for your convenience. Dialogue is good. Pursuit of the truth – even better. Best is clinging to the truth – absolutely!

Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.

In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

• 1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.
• 2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.
• 3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers mortifications of the flesh.
• 4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
• 5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by that of the Canons.
• 6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God’s remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven.
• 7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest.
• 8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.
• 9. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.
• 10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.
• 11. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops slept.
• 12. In former times the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.
• 13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties; they are already dead to canonical rules, and have a right to be released from them.
• 14. The imperfect health [of soul], that is to say, the imperfect love, of the dying brings with it, of necessity, great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater is the fear.
• 15. This fear and horror is sufficient of itself alone (to say nothing of other things) to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.
• 16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair, almost-despair, and the assurance of safety.
• 17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase.
• 18. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of increasing love.
• 19. Again, it seems unproved that they, or at least that all of them, are certain or assured of their own blessedness, though we may be quite certain of it.
• 20. Therefore by “full remission of all penalties” the pope means not actually “of all,” but only of those imposed by himself.
• 21. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope’s indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved;
• 22. Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to the canons, they would have had to pay in this life.
• 23. If it is at all possible to grant to any one the remission of all penalties whatsoever, it is certain that this remission can be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to the very fewest.
• 24. It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and highsounding promise of release from penalty.
• 25. The power which the pope has, in a general way, over purgatory, is just like the power which any bishop or curate has, in a special way, within his own diocese or parish.
• 26. The pope does well when he grants remission to souls [in purgatory], not by the power of the keys (which he does not possess), but by way of intercession.
• 27. They preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles into the money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory].
• 28. It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God alone.
• 29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory wish to be bought out of it, as in the legend of Sts. Severinus and Paschal.
• 30. No one is sure that his own contrition is sincere; much less that he has attained full remission.
• 31. Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also the man who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most rare.
• 32. They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of pardon.
• 33. Men must be on their guard against those who say that the pope’s pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to Him;
• 34. For these “graces of pardon” concern only the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, and these are appointed by man.
• 35. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessionalia.
• 36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon.
• 37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in all the blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is granted him by God, even without letters of pardon.
• 38. Nevertheless, the remission and participation [in the blessings of the Church] which are granted by the pope are in no way to be despised, for they are, as I have said, the declaration of divine remission.
• 39. It is most difficult, even for the very keenest theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the abundance of pardons and [the need of] true contrition.
• 40. True contrition seeks and loves penalties, but liberal pardons only relax penalties and cause them to be hated, or at least, furnish an occasion [for hating them].
• 41. Apostolic pardons are to be preached with caution, lest the people may falsely think them preferable to other good works of love.
• 42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy.
• 43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons;
• 44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.
• 45. 45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God.
• 46. Christians are to be taught that unless they have more than they need, they are bound to keep back what is necessary for their own families, and by no means to squander it on pardons.
• 47. Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is a matter of free will, and not of commandment.
• 48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting pardons, needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for him more than the money they bring.
• 49. Christians are to be taught that the pope’s pardons are useful, if they do not put their trust in them; but altogether harmful, if through them they lose their fear of God.
• 50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St. Peter’s church should go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep.
• 51. Christians are to be taught that it would be the pope’s wish, as it is his duty, to give of his own money to very many of those from whom certain hawkers of pardons cajole money, even though the church of St. Peter might have to be sold.
• 52. The assurance of salvation by letters of pardon is vain, even though the commissary, nay, even though the pope himself, were to stake his soul upon it.
• 53. They are enemies of Christ and of the pope, who bid the Word of God be altogether silent in some Churches, in order that pardons may be preached in others.
• 54. Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or a longer time is spent on pardons than on this Word.
• 55. It must be the intention of the pope that if pardons, which are a very small thing, are celebrated with one bell, with single processions and ceremonies, then the Gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.
• 56. The “treasures of the Church,” out of which the pope. grants indulgences, are not sufficiently named or known among the people of Christ.
• 57. That they are not temporal treasures is certainly evident, for many of the vendors do not pour out such treasures so easily, but only gather them.
• 58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the Saints, for even without the pope, these always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outward man.
• 59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church were the Church’s poor, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.
• 60. Without rashness we say that the keys of the Church, given by Christ’s merit, are that treasure;
• 61. For it is clear that for the remission of penalties and of reserved cases, the power of the pope is of itself sufficient.
• 62. The true treasure of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God.
• 63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last.
• 64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.
• 65. Therefore the treasures of the Gospel are nets with which they formerly were wont to fish for men of riches.
• 66. The treasures of the indulgences are nets with which they now fish for the riches of men.
• 67. The indulgences which the preachers cry as the “greatest graces” are known to be truly such, in so far as they promote gain.
• 68. Yet they are in truth the very smallest graces compared with the grace of God and the piety of the Cross.
• 69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of apostolic pardons, with all reverence.
• 70. But still more are they bound to strain all their eyes and attend with all their ears, lest these men preach their own dreams instead of the commission of the pope.
• 71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema and accursed!
• 72. But he who guards against the lust and license of the pardon-preachers, let him be blessed!
• 73. The pope justly thunders against those who, by any art, contrive the injury of the traffic in pardons.
• 74. But much more does he intend to thunder against those who use the pretext of pardons to contrive the injury of holy love and truth.
• 75. To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin and violated the Mother of God — this is madness.
• 76. We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are not able to remove the very least of venial sins, so far as its guilt is concerned.
• 77. It is said that even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could not bestow greater graces; this is blasphemy against St. Peter and against the pope.
• 78. We say, on the contrary, that even the present pope, and any pope at all, has greater graces at his disposal; to wit, the Gospel, powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written in I. Corinthians xii.
• 79. To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross of Christ, is blasphemy.
• 80. The bishops, curates and theologians who allow such talk to be spread among the people, will have an account to render.
• 81. This unbridled preaching of pardons makes it no easy matter, even for learned men, to rescue the reverence due to the pope from slander, or even from the shrewd questionings of the laity.
• 82. To wit: — “Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial.”
• 83. Again: — “Why are mortuary and anniversary masses for the dead continued, and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded on their behalf, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?”
• 84. Again: — “What is this new piety of God and the pope, that for money they allow a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God, and do not rather, because of that pious and beloved soul’s own need, free it for pure love’s sake?”
• 85. Again: — “Why are the penitential canons long since in actual fact and through disuse abrogated and dead, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences, as though they were still alive and in force?”
• 86. Again: — “Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?”
• 87. Again: — “What is it that the pope remits, and what participation does he grant to those who, by perfect contrition, have a right to full remission and participation?”
• 88. Again: — “What greater blessing could come to the Church than if the pope were to do a hundred times a day what he now does once, and bestow on every believer these remissions and participations?”
• 89. “Since the pope, by his pardons, seeks the salvation of souls rather than money, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons granted heretofore, since these have equal efficacy?”
• 90. To repress these arguments and scruples of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christians unhappy.
• 91. If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they would not exist.
• 92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Peace, peace,” and there is no peace!
• 93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Cross, cross,” and there is no cross!
• 94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell;
• 95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many tribulations, than through the assurance of peace.

Additional Information

Last week I attended a Catholic baptism for my nephew Dennison. I was really looking forward to meeting this newest addition to the Gerber clan, but I must admit I was also a bit apprehensive. My apprehension had nothing to do with potentially explosive interactions, quite familiar to the Gerbers and the Harnacks in attendance, rather what had unsettled me was knowing that soon I would be witnessing the rite of infant baptism, a practice that has confounded me since I first began actively reading the Bible for myself.

Being raised in the Lutheran church, infant baptism was a big deal for everyone in attendance. There was always the pre-ceremony build up. This small child was soon to be a member of God’s family. It was a big deal. God parents were selected and solemn vows were taken. The whole congregation would raise up their voices as one, reciting the words set before them in the service manual. I somehow believed that child would not have to burn in hell if death preceded adulthood. Adulthood somehow coincided with eighth grade confirmation. Hmm… It was not until I began to read scripture for myself that I questioned this practice.

A familiar ritual in many churches

But this day, I was attending my nephew’s baptism, not of the Lutheran Church, but of the Catholic Church. My brother’s wife is Catholic and he, I believe, still considers himself a Lutheran. I recall that he agreed to raise their children as Catholic so that he could be married in the Catholic Church. Honestly, this has always confounded me. How could someone agree to raise their kids in a faith that they themselves are not in agreement with? I never understood this.

But I have digressed from my point which is that infant baptism unsettles me as a Bible reading Christian, or at least this particular ceremony confounded me. Here are the things that really bothered me:

First, the lack of scripture used during this ritual. This bothered me the most. I mean, what or who is the authority or power behind this sacrament. The priest read from some liturgical material and talked a lot about the family of God and that this particular child was now somehow set free from being born into original sin. The priest mentioned that in some mysterious way that now this child contained “the Spirit in part” and that “upon confirmation the whole of the Spirit would either indwell or rest” upon my nephew.

This really confused me for several reasons:

One, how can one person have a part of the Spirit? Is not the Spirit, God Himself, a complete person? Can the Spirit just splinter part of Himself off to people and plant a “Spirit seed” that matures upon the rite of confirmation? Where was the scripture to support this view? Huh?

Two, is not baptism a witness of individual choice? Baptism, from what scripture shows, is a proclamation of what has already happened, meaning that the Spirit has already indwelled a believer. Baptism does not make one pure, as once was practiced in Israel through purification rites, rather a believer has already been made pure through the sacrifice that Christ made upon the cross. Baptism is a public testimony of what Christ has already done for someone who has made a choice to accept Him as Lord and Savior.

Three, how does the act of confirmation bestow the fullness of the Spirit? Again, is it not an act of faith to believe in Christ that makes one part of His family? All the reading and classes or rites can do nothing apart from faith. At least this is what I believe the scriptures to indicate.

A second thing that disturbed me about this baptism was that this particular priest did not even know my nephew. I suppose he knew my sister-in-law’s family, but she and my brother live in Colorado. Her local community or “church” did not participate in this “welcoming into the family of God.” It seemed strange to not have a ceremony in the community where you live. I guess it is like going back to your hometown to get married. I suppose the priest was welcoming my nephew into the universal body of Christ. It just seemed odd. To be fair though, they probably held the ceremony in Ohio because family could attend.

The final thing that bothered me had nothing to do with the baptism in itself. It had to do with knowing the difference between Lutherans and Catholics. Raised as a Lutheran, I know that Lutherans neither revere Saints nor do they consider Mary some sort of perpetual virgin with super intercessory powers. Yet, much to my dismay, my entire Lutheran family requested through liturgical response that Mary, St. Ambrose and a litany of other Saints “pray for them.”  (Say what!)

I thought that my eyes and ears were deceiving me. I mean – they were praying to dead people. Not to God – but to people. This was just wigging my world. I had always found some comfort that as a Lutheran, I had not prayed to people, except to Christ. I knew that Lutherans had some unfounded rituals – but LUTHERANS DO NOT PRAY TO SAINTS OR THE HOLY BLESSED MOTHER.

Why did this upset me the most? I suppose it hurt my pride. It also broke my heart. People will follow the crowd and do what everyone else is doing, even if they don’t agree. Or, maybe worse, they don’t even know why they do what they do. There is no substance to belief. It is all out of religious traditions, so respect some else’s traditions. Just do it – go along with it.

I suppose the ceremony was held in the right church after all. Not knowing anything about Saint Ambrose, I did a little reading up on his life. Here is a little quote from this venerable patron saint:

Ambrose - When in Rome...

“When I am at Rome, I fast on a Saturday; when I am at Milan, I do not. Follow the custom of the church where you are.”

His advice has remained in the English language as the saying, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” Following this advice, in Catholic “churches” pray to the Saints and when in a Lutheran “church,” do not pray to saints. Personally, I’d rather follow what Jesus did and pray directly to God.

^{Final thoughts on this church and its doctrine:}

• Scripture is not important – just listen to what the priest says and repeat after me.
• Listen to a watery and disconnected teaching about the family of God, making sure that Mary gets her floor time.
• Be sure to include the Lord’s Prayer – it counts as scripture and everyone knows it so no need to use the Bible.
• Ritual supercedes truth – so just follow along.
• Personal decision really don’t matter – ritual does.
• Saints have some sort of super intercessory powers, after death. You not only need the priest to intercede but also some long dead religious dudes.
• Visitors are encouraged to read along in rituals – even if they don’t believe what they are saying. Peer pressure make a nice ceremony.

To be fair to my brother and his family, I do not know what they personally believe. I am merely responding as an outside observer to what I witnessed and presenting the reasons that my family did not participate in the recitations.

Honestly, the church building was not overstated and had a subdued appearance. It did not have that high church feel. The picnic that was held afterwards was delightful and most pleasant. My only regret was that I wasn’t able to spend more time with my brother and his lovely family. I would just love to understand what they believe.

Additional Information