Catholic and Orthodox rites, sacraments and "rituals"

[Joseph_3]

I am not asking this from a protestant point of view or disagreeing with these things, but wondering about them out of ignorance. I was taking a walk through the graveyard of a house of Nuns, and came across maybe 7 people walking about a paved circle path, maybe 30 feet in diameter. It was obvious that they were performing some sort of organized action, I suppose in reverence of the Nuns at rest there. Obviously, I did not interrupt it. It seems very strange to me.

The Orthodox carry icons, kiss pictures of the saints and burn Livani incense. It was a familiar smell, as the Catholics must also burn it but not in so open a manner.

Both pray to the saints for intercession. Both demand adherence to their own version of the Filioque, which is not something I mean to discuss, but bring it up in the meaning of speaking specific prayers. Does God respond any differently to "From the father and Son" versus, "From the Father?"

Why do we pray openly like we do? Why do we recite the various and many prayers? Is there profit to be gotten of them? Does God respond to these prayers, any more than He would otherwise? Of course, I remember the few examples of intercession (Moses interceding for Israel, ect). However, my question does not lie with intercession itself, but how the prayers are conducted. Does God or do the saints respond more favorably to opulent prayers than they would to simply "pray for me," or "Lord protect me."

I search my soul for these answers. Something says "do not pray to the dead saints." I ask about burning incense in the name of God and something says "do not burn incense." I have not been partaking in the Sacramental bread. Something tells me not to. The supersubstancial bread which Jesus feeds us is devoured by the Soul. The thought of partaking conjures up a strange feeling in me. There is a zealous rejection of it in me. You simply could not force me to eat it. I see it in the same way as I would consecrated meat. Please pray for me.

I don't know if I have a devil or something. I am uncomfortable in the Church because of the rituals. I do not call them rituals out of disrespect but because I don't know the actual term for them. The Protestants are completely incorrect, so I don't fit in with them either. I went to an Orthodox Church and the priest there makes $130,000 a year. They pass the pan through the congregation while the man preaching is rich, their ceiling is adorned in beautiful art and large brazen furniture decorates the place. Does God respond more favorably to ostentatiousness than to three or four men congregating in His name in the forest? Their Sacramental bread was also leavened and fluffy.

I think I am a heretic. I pray to God for understanding and discernment but it has lead me to this. I am not a wise man. I am not blessed with profound sagacity. I am not of astounding virtue, but a sinner. I must be wrong. Please pray for me and educate me on these matters.

[james03]

God has established how he is to be worshipped in the Old Testament.

As far as public worship / prayer, just go back and read what King David used to do.

Why do we pray openly like we do?

For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them

You seem to be suffering from scruples.  Consult with a priest over it.

[Severinus]

We have different kinds of religious rituals, some that are properly spiritual, and others that might be described as communal. The sacraments are rituals defined conjointly by God and the Church (through her power to bind and loose) which elicit from God specific supernatural acts. The liturgy, on the other hand, is a set of rituals which support the sacraments and the public life of the Church by organizing and uniting the faithful and transforming our experience. Private prayer and devotion frequently reflect liturgical ritual in miniature and for the same purposes, since even private acts have a communal dimension, particularly in the united spiritual body of the Church.

Are you very isolated or anti-social, such that you have difficulty understanding community or participating in communal life even in a secular sense? For instance, do you find yourself wondering why table manners exist, or why we follow clothing conventions for different events, or why after a competitive sports match the opposing players shake hands and congratulate eachother, and other things like that? Most people seem to intuit without any particular difficulty that communal life involves ritualized behavior, and find structure, comfort, and connection in acts like these.

[Michael Wilson]

In the case of the sacraments, these were established directly by Our Lord as the means to transmit to souls the fruits of His Passion and death. Each one serves for a different purpose, but all contribute to our sanctification and salvation.
The rites and ceremonies that accompany the administration of the sacraments are there to inculcate in the faithful respect for the sacredness of the sacrament and in many cases to instruct as to its purpose.
The "voice" that you hear telling you to doubt or deny the sacraments or receiving Our Lord in Holy Communion, or doubting the efficacy of the liturgical prayers, is a temptation, which you should reject immediately and make an act of faith.

[Joseph_3]

Michael, it's not a voice as in schizophrenia or an episode of psychosis. It's not audible, it's my inner monologue. If an audible voice was commanding me around, I would be a bit more concerned about that itself than what it's saying. Felt the need to clear that up lol.

I do not doubt the efficacy of liturgical prayers of any sort, in the slightest. I know, not personally as I have never prayed to a saint but I trust the testimony of others, the power of intercession by the saints.

I will consider an act of faith to undertake.

[Joseph_3]

Severinus:

Thank you for your response.

I was unaware that there is separation between spiritual and communal actions, but had suspected such. Do you mean to say that there are rituals, which promote communion with the Church, which I understand to be the body of Christ (correct me if I'm wrong), and others which encourage oneness with God?

As for your second paragraph. I understand the reasoning behind manners, sportsmanship and clothing conventions, although from an abnormal perspective. It's not something to do because somebody tells you, or because it's necessarily beneficial for the individual, but because the status of society itself depends on polite conformity or else it will fall into simplistic barbarism.

[Severinus]

Severinus:

Thank you for your response.

I was unaware that there is separation between spiritual and communal actions, but had suspected such. Do you mean to say that there are rituals, which promote communion with the Church, which I understand to be the body of Christ (correct me if I'm wrong), and others which encourage oneness with God?

Strictly speaking, oneness with God and with the Church are not separable, even logically. You couldn't have one without the other. The distinction I'm trying to make is just between sacramental and non-sacramental rituals, which I've personally termed communal. These are logically separable: for instance, the Church has one formula for the sacrament of baptism, but it may be embedded in different rites; or in extremis, a baptism may be performed in the absence of any communal ritual. But the communal rituals contribute to the life of the Church by organizing and uniting the faithful and transforming or spiritualizing our experience. Rituals also have the benefit of excluding improper, erroneous, or heretical notions that would inevitably crop up in individualistic worship. Note that this is far from saying that individual acts of worship or spiritual practice must be ritualized from start to finish - spontaneous prayer and personal prayer, theological thought, and personal practices are vital, at least in my opinion.

As for your second paragraph. I understand the reasoning behind manners, sportsmanship and clothing conventions, although from an abnormal perspective. It's not something to do because somebody tells you, or because it's necessarily beneficial for the individual, but because the status of society itself depends on polite conformity or else it will fall into simplistic barbarism.

Yes, I believe this speaks to my point. Most people accept and experience rituals as emotional loci that don't require a rationalized explanation. They are just "what we do," a critical component of "who we are." It's one thing to analyze them, attempt to understand them, be critical of this or that, if you are a thoughtful person, but another to feel an internal resistance or overarching suspicion towards them as a whole, as you seem to in your OP. I think it points to a specific defect of insularity against ones neighbors. It might be of initial benefit, when you pray or attend mass, to remind yourself that you're doing so as part of a larger body.

[josh987654321]

Does God respond any differently to "From the father and Son" versus, "From the Father?"

That's anyones guess IMO. I do know that an imperfect prayer from the heart has more merit than a perfect prayer said with indifference. As for the Filioque, personally I've never considered it that big of an issue to be caught up on. I believe the Catholic position is the correct one due to the following -

John 16:7
7 But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, then I don't know why Christ had to leave first, and Christ says that He will send it in this passage. Furthermore, the Father and Son are one and the same anyway.

The Trinity IMO is like methods of communication, I can talk to you in person, over the phone, or over video call, it's the same person, just different methods of communication each with their different limitations. C.S. Lewis related it to a writer writing himself into a book.

When viewing it like this too, the hang up on the filioque is even more pointless IMO, as all 3 are one and the same, so whatever proceeds from the Father must proceed from the Son too, whatever proceeds from the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son also IMO. 

Does God or do the saints respond more favorably to opulent prayers than they would to simply "pray for me," or "Lord protect me."

There are a lot of factors involved, impossible to give a one size fits all answer IMO, there is an aspect of witnessing, there is an aspect of internal disposition (which IMO is the most important). 

I search my soul for these answers. Something says "do not pray to the dead saints."

If they are in Heaven, we can ask their intercession. Why not?

I ask about burning incense in the name of God and something says "do not burn incense."

This would go back to the Old Testament I think, I can't answer this, but that's where I would look, as the New Testament completes the Old Testament, so to make sure we are getting the New Testament right, we must look to the Old Testament, this how we know the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and that it is very fitting and appropriate to honour Our Mother in a way that exceeds any other human being, as we do.

For those unaware, could look like worship, just as the way the Israelites treated the Ark of the Covenant would look like worship to the ignorant, nevertheless, the Israelites knew it was not God just as we know the Blessed Virgin Mary is not God.

Despite the Ark of the Covenant not being God, the Israelites could never have made it to the Promised land without the Ark of the Covenant, it is likewise with the Ark of the New Covenant for us, the Blessed Virgin Mary.   

I have not been partaking in the Sacramental bread.

Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_miracle_of_Lanciano

(There are more Eucharistic Miracles too)

Matthew 26:26
26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body.

It was the festival of unleavened bread (Passover), Christ being the new Sacrificial Lamb (Lamb of God) of which the Israelites had to eat for the Passover.

I don't know if I have a devil or something.

Prayer, spiritual/scriptural reading. IMO I suspect it's a conviction problem as you have many doubts.

I pray to God for understanding and discernment

You have to do the work too, as the old saying goes, God multiplies our efforts but 0x2 is still 0.

I am not a wise man.

Well humility is the key to everything and all this will take time. I'll try and answer specific things as they come up, there is always more to learn. I'll say a prayer for you.

God Bless

[Michael Wilson]

That's anyones guess IMO. I do know that an imperfect prayer from the heart has more merit than a perfect prayer said with indifference. As for the Filioque, personally I've never considered it that big of an issue to be caught up on. I believe the Catholic position is the correct one due to the following -

It is a "big issue" because one cannot be a Catholic or have a true understanding to the mystery of the Blessed Trinity without acknowledging the double procession in the Blessed Trinity, one by way of intellect the other by will.

When viewing it like this too, the hang up on the filioque is even more pointless IMO, as all 3 are one and the same, so whatever proceeds from the Father must proceed from the Son too, whatever proceeds from the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son also IMO. 

Yes, if one holds that the Church's teaching on the Blessed Trinity isn't very important, and optional for Catholics, then why get up in a tizzy about the "filioque"?
The Blessed Trinity are one in substance, but three different Persons. "Whatever proceeds from the Father must proceed from the Son too"??? No the Son proceeds only from the Father and not from Himself.
No Person proceeds from the Holy Ghost, He proceeds from both the Father and the Son.
 

[Severinus]

It can be hard today to understand why what seems like minutiae about who proceeds from whom were taken to the point of a major schism.

It's like what is the immediacy of that in an non-religious age, when it's hard enough to get most people to not smoke drugs and watch smut all day? Isn't believing in the Holy Trinity enough?

In a way, reconciling with the historical necessity of that rift requires its own act of faith. Like "alright, Magisterium, you decided this was that important, and I accept that."

[josh987654321]

It is a "big issue" because one cannot be a Catholic or have a true understanding to the mystery of the Blessed Trinity without acknowledging the double procession in the Blessed Trinity, one by way of intellect the other by will.

Why is that such a big issue though? I know through the Scriptures that the Holy Spirit is as good as God or Christ, who are all one and the same (Blessed Trinity) and will never contradict.

John 16:15 (Holy Spirit)
15 All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine. Therefore I said, that he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you.

John 8:58 (The Son)
58 Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am.

Exodus 3:14 (The Father)
14 God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you.

The Father is "My Lord and my God" Christ is "My Lord and my God" and the Holy Spirit is "My Lord and my God". Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit; as it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be.

Outside of space and time is eternal, now unless we want to deep dive into what exactly one means by 'proceeds' then at the end of the day, as long as they acknowledge that all 3 are one and the same, the One Triune God, One God in three persons, then why get so caught up on this proceed stuff?

When understanding that outside space and time is eternal, and that before Abraham was, Christ was, that in the beginning was the word and that the word was with God and was God and that everything was made by Him, it becomes even harder to imagine distinction between them.

John 1:1-3
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.

In saying all that, the Catholic view IMO is the most logical simply in order of arrival, begotten of the Father (John 1:14), therefore the Son proceeds from the Father, and the Holy Spirit could only arrive after Christ (John 16:7), therefore proceeding from the Father and the Son.

I'm reminded of the story of St Augustine trying to understand the Trinity, with a boy trying to fill a small hole in the sand with all the water in the ocean. 

No the Son proceeds only from the Father and not from Himself. No Person proceeds from the Holy Ghost, He proceeds from both the Father and the Son.

Okay, if you say so, it has no bearing on how I live my faith (Other than the Nicene Creed, which the Filioque was added later but I agree with the Filioque), the important thing is that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One God in three persons (God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God), how exactly one wants to try and explain this is up to the theologians to argue about IMO.

Furthermore, in terms of the Orthodox and Catholic schism, I do not believe it was about the Filioque, the Filioque was merely a focal point that could be used to amplify much deeper divisions occurring around that time between the East and West Roman Empires.

God Bless

[Michael Wilson]

So why make a big deal about the "Real Presence"?  Who cares whether Our Lord is present only "symbolically", "spiritually" or "Substantially" in the Blessed Sacrament? What's the big deal, it has no effect as to how we acknowledge His presence in the bread? "It has no bearing on how we live our faith"; leave the theological nitpicking to the experts. If you want to insist on and get hung up on the term  "transubtantiation"; well that is your privilege. See how that sounds? As if an article of faith can be unimportant; and if the dispute involved with those who denied this was a mere quibbling among theologians with too much time on their hands. The articles of faith demand in themselves a full and complete assent of intellect and will, because they have been revealed by God who is holiness Himself, who cannot deceive or be deceived. 
As for the Filioque being a "pretext", rather than a "cause" of the schism. I agree, Constantinople was in and out of schism with Rome for a great deal of time from the 5th C. onward, mostly due to the interference of the Eastern Emperors with the Patriarchal See. But that doesn't mean that the Filioque is unimportant or doesn't affect us, as it involves the whole theology of the Blessed Trinity as it comes down to us from the Church Fathers, especially St. Augustine, St. Thomas and the Council of Florence.

[Miriam_M]

To the OP:
It is very easy to become caught up in the many competing "voices" in the world today, or should I say, it is very difficult to filter them out; perhaps that's a better way to put it.  The inauthentic voices are competing for our attention, and in general, the demons are taking full advantage of any distraction from the One True Faith.

Why should we care about how other religions worship, including those religions that were derived from Catholicism and/or mimic it? Keep in mind that this was going on while the Church was being founded and while Paul was doing his missionary work.  Pagan belief and worship definitely competed with early Christianity, which required those disciples of Christ to stay focused and ignore other voices, as well. 

The only difference between then and now is that "social media" in a general sense --that is, "listening" to the messages of heterodoxy, New Age, atheism, "Mindfulness," and what-have-you have staked out a higher claim on the individual to question allegiance and personal conviction.  People feel they need to "check in" and "confirm" whether it's socially acceptable to be a Catholic.  Of course it isn't, but that shouldn't affect you, me, anyone on this board.

I take it, Michael Wilson, that that's what Josh may mean about "it [the Filioque argument] doesn't affect him."  I agree.  If we're fixated on what/how other religions believe -- to the point where we're actually concerned about the "effect" on Catholicism -- then it seems to me that we're somewhat weak in our faith, no?

Back to the OP:  You shouldn't feel a compulsion to "explain" why Catholicism is true and Orthodoxy is false, or feel you need to "reconcile" the two -- unless you are a theology professor somewhere.

[Michael Wilson]

I take it, Michael Wilson, that that's what Josh may mean about "it [the Filioque argument] doesn't affect him."  I agree.  If we're fixated on what/how other religions believe -- to the point where we're actually concerned about the "effect" on Catholicism -- then it seems to me that we're somewhat weak in our faith, no?

Miriam, I don't doubt Josh's good intentions; but the statements that follow show a very marked effect of the desire to minimize the difference between Catholic doctrine and that of non-Catholics; such as,  how it is pointless to worry about who proceeds from whom in the Blessed Trinity; or that whatever proceeds from the Father must proceed from the Son too, and whatever proceeds from the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son also IMO. As if it were a question of mere personal opinion, and not a matter of faith.

[josh987654321]

So why make a big deal about the "Real Presence"?

Because unless we eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man we have no life in us (John 6:54).

So this one is a big deal, therefore I think resolving the leavened vs unleavened difference is a FAR greater issue than the filioque (The irony that it was the Filioque and not this, priorities were out of order IMO). Nevertheless, they still use Red Wine which is valid matter thankfully. 

"It has no bearing on how we live our faith";

The Real Presence has huge bearing on how we live our Faith due to John 6:54.

See how that sounds? As if an article of faith can be unimportant; and if the dispute involved with those who denied this was a mere quibbling among theologians with too much time on their hands.

Not unimportant, just not "that" important.

The articles of faith demand in themselves a full and complete assent of intellect and will, because they have been revealed by God who is holiness Himself, who cannot deceive or be deceived.

So what of those who learned the original Nicene Creed and said "Proceeds from the Father" and then later the Filioque was added? Were they all wrong? Including the original Council of Nicaea? 
 

Constantinople was in and out of schism with Rome for a great deal of time from the 5th C. onward

Yup, it was never about the Filioque.

But that doesn't mean that the Filioque is unimportant or doesn't affect us, as it involves the whole theology of the Blessed Trinity as it comes down to us from the Church Fathers, especially St. Augustine, St. Thomas and the Council of Florence.

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word 'unimportant' but rather, I do not consider it that important. I agree wholeheartedly with the Catholic position, but those who strictly adhere to the original Nicene Creed without the Filioque are not exactly wrong, just that as our understanding improves, the Filioque makes more sense.

God Bless