Choosing a Church, and Then What?

 What is the Mass for?  Why do we go?

1. to worship God

2. to pray

3. to commune with God/Christ

4. To be reminded we are loved and that our identity is in Christ

5. To be inspired, motivated, and convicted to apply Christ's teachings to our life

Litmus test for choosing which church to attend and raise our children in: how well does it deliver on these five points?

1. What does worship look like?  Is it oriented towards God?  Are we in a position of humility before God?  Are we in a state of awe before God?

2. Are we able to pray here?  Or are we distracted by what's going on around us?  Do we have enough time to enter into prayer without expectation of doing the next thing?

3. In what way do we commune with God? Are we able to prepare for it?  Do we feel a part of a community together communing with God?  What does it feel like to be in God's presence?  Is that communing with God?

4. Does the atmosphere remind us who we are? (Loved children of God who rebel against Him through our sins.) Does the preaching do this?  Do the other parishioners?

5. Do the homilies and practices of the church encourage me to repent and believe?  Do they challenge me to grow in my faith and walk with Christ?  Can I taste just enough heaven on Earth to want to work towards being there in eternity?

What else should my walk with Christ include, other than a faithful church community?

1. Daily prayer.  The habit of prayer.  Time set aside to pray.  A place conducive to prayer.  Bringing questions and concerns to the Lord.

2. Scripture study.  Daily reading of the Bible.  An ongoing exploration of Jesus' teaching and example, so as to discern best course of action.

3. Silent reflection.  Just sitting in the presence of the Lord, in nature or Adoration or on retreat.  Waiting and listening for the Lord to speak.  Ready to journal when He does.

4. Habit of fasting.  Making room for God.  Training my will to submit to God.  Uniting myself with those who have no choice but to fast.  Growing thereby in charity and generosity.

5. Acts of charity.  Almsgiving.  Biting my tongue.  Offering assistance.  Listening.  Observing to watch for needs that arise.  Seek ways to serve Christ in others.

Does the TLM point to Orthodoxy?

 As I ask questions of the TLM crowd online, I'm being referred to the way things were prior to Vatican 2, and I'm unearthing more and more similarities between the Orthodox and Catholic churches in this way.  It is making me see just how it really was One, Holy, Universal, and Apostolic church.  I think the use of the word "Catholic" in the creed is rather unfortunate, as it is currently associated with the Roman Catholic Church, and not with the intended universality of the church.

Speaking of universality, though... I'm also noticing how many differences there are from diocese to diocese, between countries, etc.  Certain feasts are celebrated on different days depending on country.  Bishops decide for their own diocese if the Tridentine Mass will be available.  These are just two recent examples.  And immediately I start to wonder... what about universality?  

Then I think of the Novus Ordo Mass, celebrated in the vernacular, and how I've attended Mass in Poland and the US, and it really is a different experience.  Even from parish to parish within the US, with the level of freedom each pastor has to implement different features of the NO Mass in different ways, it can be a quiet, reflective experience, or a rowdy, festive experience.  The music can be different.  The interior of the church can be very different.  The length, style, and content of the homily can be very different.  It's basically anyone's guess what Mass will look like on any given Sunday, in any given Novus Ordo church.

And again I ask myself, what about that universality?  Does having a Pope and a Catechism really provide that universality?  What is universality, anyway, when it comes to the Christian Church?  Is it about aesthetics?  Faith? Practices? Morals? All of the above?

And I am reminded of the Orthodox church.  I think of how they have managed to stay much more in line with both ancient expressions of Divine Liturgy and modern expressions of DL from church to church, all without the presence of a "unifying" head or catechism.  How is that even possible?  They have always used the local language in their worship, and yet there are enough embodied elements that are not verbal that express that universality.  There can only be one explanation for that: the head of the Orthodox church is Christ Himself.

But why hasn't the Orthodox church called any councils since the Great Schism?  Rome claims it's because they need the Bishop of Rome (aka the Pope) to do so.  But does calling a council necessarily make it valid?  What if the Orthodox are communicating that there cannot be further councils unless and until East and West are reunited into the one original Christian church?  What if they are being honest and humble about what they can and cannot do on their own, without that one original patriarchate (Rome) that broke away from the ancient church? 

What if it's not at all evidence of their not being the original church, but rather the opposite?  What if the fact that Rome continues to call councils as if the Great Schism was of no consequence is actually nothing to boast about?  What if it's essentially arrogant to claim that they are the one, true church with or without the East?  The East likewise claims to be maintaining the Tradition and beliefs and practices of the ancient church from before the split, but perhaps by their not calling further councils, they are pointing to the very deep wound that was created when Rome left their unity?

Maybe we've been looking at it all wrong.  Maybe it's not a matter of if East left West or if West left East, if it was the Orthodox church that split from the Catholic church or vice versa, but rather that the two split from something that was united and that something therefore no longer exists.

Maybe their reunification is precisely what will signal the end times, when Christ's original, ancient, one, holy, universal, and apostolic church once more exists as it once did.

Nostalgia, Reverence, Piety, Preference, Truth?

I guess when you are convinced there is such a thing as a religious organization's perfect or near-perfect explanation and embodiment of spiritual Truth, it becomes much easier to discern where you ought to worship and belong.  

But when you are convinced that Truth is completely elusive to any single human endeavor, the standard arguments for or against any one expression of said Truth become obsolete.  

Instead, you need to rely on your own personal relationship with God.  Where does God want you to be, for whatever reason?  Maybe it will be life-long, maybe not.  But for where you are in life now, where is God calling you to follow Him?

For me, years of research and contemplation have helped me narrow down my choices to within Christianity.  At least there's that.  Furthermore, I've also eliminated Protestant denominations due to the fact that once they started protesting, there has been no end to the protests.

Let's ponder this a bit more.  Why have I eliminated Protestantism?  First to go were fundamentalists and evangelicals.  They're understanding and focus on the wrath of God against non-Christians simply doesn't jive with my understanding of a loving and merciful Father of all creation.

But what about mainline Protestants?  They're much more subdued.  They don't preach hellfire and brimstone.  Why not them?  

I've been to Anglican, Lutheran, Baptist, etc churches.  I can't for the world of me figure out what exactly separates them?  It seems every time there's a disagreement about a factor of faith or practice, there's been a split.  And so, you just never know if the church you join will split again while you're there, and you'll be forced to choose sides.  

I had been attending what I thought was an Episcopalian church for about 5 months when I found out that they had recently split from the Anglican church, and the particular parish I was attending chose the more conservative Anglican side of things, but mislabeled themselves as Episcopalian in order to "lead seekers to the truth".... via a blatant lie.  (I literally asked the pastor about this mislabeling, and that is the response I got!)

I have also eliminated Protestant denominations for another reason - aesthetics. And while I know it sounds superficial, it really isn't.  Not when we're talking about an embodied faith.  If whatever is good, and true, and BEAUTIFUL comes from God, then a beautiful aesthetic ought to be our goal whenever we desire to approach God.

Modern aesthetics have been relativized with everything else, unfortunately.  We no longer agree on what is beautiful.  We claim that beauty is "in the eye of the beholder".  But there is only a little bit of truth to that, and what's most important is that our preferences are largely learned!  If we are exposed to a certain interpretation of "beauty", then we will come to only see beauty in that way.  

But if that's the case, then how can anything be objectively beautiful?  It's all in how beauty affects us.  Does it inspire us to do something?  Does it give us a sense of awe?  Does it take us out of the here and now and connect us to something somehow eternal?

Especially in worship, beauty is a crucial component of helping us turn our hearts and minds towards God.  We want to stand in awe before our Creator.  We want to be reminded that God is greater than anything we alone can do.  Enter: liturgy.

Protestant churches that I have attended leave much to be desired in terms of beauty.  The music - if present - is either boring or downright entertainment.  Neither is conducive to inspiration or awe.

And if the interior is plain, as often is the case, that leaves nothing for the imagination.  You're in a secular place, through and through.  Nothing special about this time and place "set aside" for God.

I don't go to church out of obligation.  I don't believe what I'm told to believe just because someone told me to believe it.   There, I've said it. I believe in universal revelation (Taoism/Deism), and I believe in personal revelation (private discernment).  Third party revelation becomes very tricky for me.  There have been various conflicting claims regarding revelation.  It's quite difficult for me to not take such claims with a grain of salt.  

Because I don't feel compelled to allow other people's revelations be binding on myself, I have a different problem; instead of the problem of having to submit my will in obedience to some authority (obviously, I want to submit to God), my problem is having to weigh the various aspects of different options (of a denomination, or church, or liturgy) and decide.

My choices are to choose option A, option B, or to alternate between the two.  For the time being, our go-to has been some variation of option C (alternating between the two).  

Since we already belong to the Catholic church, receiving Holy Communion can be a part of our experience when going there.  On the other hand, while we have to abstain from Communion at the Orthodox church, otherwise we are welcome to participate without any formal conversion.

At one point I was concerned about separating what I considered the more reverent/joyful liturgy (Orthodox) from the reception of the Eucharist in the Catholic church.  I was worried that it would send the wrong message - that the reverence wasn't for the sake of the Eucharist.  But then I started to realize that the Eucharist has become a sort of idol within Catholicism, and perhaps it is not that bad after all if there is that separation.

Jesus did say, take and eat/take and drink .... and we do at Catholic Mass.  And at the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, we get all those other spiritual needs met, become inspired to pursue a relationship with God, and surround ourselves with like-minded (read: similar values) people.

For the time being, this is the best we can offer for our children.  That said, I still want to iron out which Catholic Mass will serve as our alternate Sunday option - some sort of elusive reverent Novus Ordo Mass?  Or a silent Tridentine Low Mass?  Or a sung Tridentine High Mass?  If we are lucky, we may come to love the TLM (high or low or both), and perhaps then we can take the Orthodox DL out of rotation.  But for now, this is the game plan.

What is Reverence?

I realize saying I'm looking for a reverent Mass does not mean I will get recommendations that are aligned with what I'm looking for.  I've been to churches that came recommended, and I had no idea how they were considered any more reverent than any others. So I will have to depend on my own personal criteria, and to do so, I'll need to figure these out first.

I also realize now that I may have been associating the graces God has bestowed on me through certain expressions of the Christian faith via my senses and personal preferences with reverence.

For instance, I have associated kneeling with reverence. But in the Orthodox tradition, kneeling is specifically associated with repentance.  There are times repentance is appropriate, and there are times it is not.  If I associate something with reverence, I'll assume it's always appropriate.

I also have gotten hung up on the host as a physical representation of the Eucharist, and Eucharistic Adoration as a means to grow in faith in Jesus's real presence in the Eucharist. 

But my Orthodox siblings in Christ have pointed out that for the Orthodox Christian, the Eucharist is not a thing unto itself, as it were.  It is a part of a larger whole - the Divine Liturgy itself.  And as such, it is the entire Divine Liturgy that ought to permeate of God's presence.  

And as for practical ways to grow in faith in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the Orthodox again have reminded me how far our Novus Ordo Mass has fallen from the Tridentine Mass tradition.  Not only is the liturgy itself watered down, but practices surrounding it have likewise fallen by the wayside. 

 Orthodox are instructed to fast from midnight on before receiving Holy Communion.  They are encouraged to go to Confession regularly, and since the parishes tend to be quite small and intimate, there is no getting around the priest noticing if one hasn't been in a while.  

The final tip I got can just as easily be applied to Catholics (and any denomination claiming Jesus is present in their Holy Communion), and that is to practice acts of charity, because if we can see Christ's image in our neighbor, we can much more easily see Christ in the Eucharist/Liturgy.  And here I was actually thinking that believing in the Real Presence was what was to lead people to see Christ in their neighbor.  I had it backwards!  

Perhaps, dare I say it...?  Have Catholics turned the Eucharist into an idol?

I recently heard Catholic Bishop Barron explain how God Himself can be turned into an idol, which blew my mind!  But he explained that basically, if we make God into an image that we have ourselves conjured up, then we have reduced Him to a mere idol.  If we start attributing human frailty and limitations onto God, then we are no longer thinking about God Almighty but a caricature of God.

In that same vein, have we Catholics turned the Eucharist into such an idol?  Yes, Jesus is really present in the bread and wine after the consecration, because He said He would be.  But why did He say to do this in remembrance of Him?

What exactly are we supposed to remember about Jesus when breaking bread and sharing the cup?  Are we merely supposed to cower down before His holy presence?  Did He expect His disciples to do as much?  No!  He expected His disciples to pick up their cross and follow Him.  He told them to gather together, break bread and share a cup, and these would become His body and blood.

The next day, His physical earthly body was indeed broken on the cross, and His physical earthly blood was indeed shed.  The Last Supper is a foretelling of the Crucifixion.  In Catholicism, we believe that the Mass is how we are able to be transported to be present on Calvary.  Of course, with the watering down of the liturgy in the Novus Ordo, I think I've only ever seen one person, a priest, behave as though he were in the presence of Jesus on Calvary.  

In Orthodoxy, the focus of the Divine Liturgy is not on the crucifixion but on the resurrection of Jesus.  I still have to reconcile how the Eucharist fits into this view of the liturgy.  If Divine Liturgy is about Jesus's resurrection, then what was the Last Supper about?  When Jesus said, "take and eat, this is my body given for you" and again, "take and drink, this is my blood poured out for many" - was this pointing to His resurrection?  

In a very real sense, we do have to admit that there would be no resurrection without the crucifixion, but there could very well have been a crucifixion without a resurrection.  So we have to go through the crucifixion, through the consuming of Jesus's body and blood, in order to rise with Him on the other end, victorious. 

A Catholic by Any Other Name... Is Still a Catholic?

It seems I can't even "convert" within Catholicism from Novus Ordo to Tridentine Mass without some level of controversy.  

Apparently, the most hard-core TLMers outright reject the NO as invalid.  Even those who don't often do not embrace various devotions that I'm familiar with, like the Luminous Mysteries of the Rosary, or the Divine Mercy Chaplet, or even papal encyclicals like Humanae Vitae (Theology of the Body).

If some would consider my "switching" to TLM as a conversion, even a schism, then what's the difference bw that and "switching" to Orthodoxy?  So really, if the Catholics can't agree among themselves who is "in" and who is "out", they don't agree on the sainthood of Pope JP2, they don't agree on the validity of apparitions, encyclicals, liturgical style, focus of homilies, etc... then where exactly is that "unity" that is supposedly present in the Catholic church?

I mean, if the Pope is supposed to be the glue that holds us together, but there are people who believe they are more Catholic than the Pope.... that sort of begs the question.... maybe there's something other than the person of the Pope, or the office of the papacy, that counts as Christian unity?  Maybe it's as simple as the creed, held in common with Orthodox and Protestant believers (for the most part, filioque notwithstanding).

Personally, I don't have a particular attachment to the Pope or the papacy.  I can go either way on what Jesus meant when He said "on this rock I will build my church" - whether He meant on this Petras (St. Peter) or on the Confession of faith that Peter had just verbalized.  What I find interesting is that in the Creed professed by Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants, we say that we believe in "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church".  I cannot shake the presence of that word, Catholic.  I know it means universal, but no denomination that I'm aware of has changed it to that synonym.  Almost as if it's beckoning us to return to the fold.

Then again, the creed is one thing, but the Liturgy, the experience of the weekly gathering for worship of the Lord is another.  That is where our faith becomes embodied.  That is where we unite as a group of believers to worship the Lord.  That is where the faith moves from the head (creed) to the heart (body).  So I feel as though I should focus my decision on what is and isn't being focused on in the embodiment of my faith, since the creed is the same.  The details clearly differ within Catholicism, so they're not as consequential as the creed and the liturgy.

It will come down to the style of the Eucharist versus the style of music/lack thereof, I believe.  The overall sense of awe, joy, and reverence of the Divine Liturgy has an incredible pull on my and my family.  On the other hand, the Eucharist in the form of Host and Wine given separately and while kneeling has an equally strong pull on me, perhaps due to nostalgia, perhaps due to my autistic inability to generalize (ie. I don't recognize the Orthodox Eucharist as such because it looks and is distributed differently.)

Conversion Within Catholicism In Progress...

When Lay Eucharistic Ministers became the norm in the Novus Ordo, it became much more difficult to explain why we cannot have female priests.  

When the priest stopped facing ad orientem, the liturgy started to be focused on the charisma of the individual priest rather than him being merely a vessel for Christ's work in His church.

When the vernacular became the norm, the liturgy began to be filled with excessive verbiage, making it nearly impossible to actually pray.  There's hardly any time of silence at all.

When we stopped kneeling at the altar railing to receive Communion on the tongue, the Eucharist stopped being considered sacred.

When taken to its natural conclusion, the Novus Ordo is basically the Catholic Protestant service.  Music, sermon, some vestments, fellowship, communion assembly line, Bible focus (not Eucharist focus), fellowship focus (not sacred silence), explanation (not mystery).

Even the Low TLM is better than the NO Mass because it allows for personal prayer, and it highlights the reverence due to Jesus in the Eucharist.

Is it better than the Orthodoxy Divine Liturgy, though, which seems to always be the equivalent to the Missa Cantata/High Mass.  The reason we love it is that it is reverent and joyful. Silence is reverent, but is it joyful?  Incense, candlelight, and ongoing chanting in a church interior that is beautiful and colorful... can this be found in a local TLM?

What if I'm being asked to let go of the beauty found at the Orthodox Divine Liturgy?  Let go of the chant, the colors, the joy, and instead truly surrender to the weekly opportunity for a prayerful atmosphere.  It's not about all the fixings.  They are nice, but not essential.  Our prayerful attitude and the presence of Our Lord are what is key.  The Novus Ordo does not incline one to a prayerful attitude, so the presence of Our Lord gets lost on us.  And the Orthodox indeed inclines to prayerful attitude, but for me personally, the presence of Our Lord is not really more obvious than in the NO Mass.

What if I trust the Lord about what it is my children and I need in order to be formed in the faith?  To be surrounded by like-minded families and individuals?  What if it's not what I expected or even hoped for?  Am I prepared to accept what the Lord offers instead?  Am I prepared to trust Him?

What if it's enough to dress up and be surrounded by others who are dressed up?  To settle into the silence until our own prayers find the thought-words needed without rushing? To have only a reverent reception of the Eucharist modeled and experienced?

My goal is for my children to take the faith seriously, not to have fun at church, right?  

When Did We Become Protestants?

I just realized that sometime in the past 30 or so years, we have become Protestants.  By we, I mean us modern Catholics.  It totally snuck up on me, personally.  

When I arrived in the US from Poland, I was already familiar with the only Mass I knew, the Novus Ordo, but it was one where the altar railing was still a matter of course, and the Eucharist was universally received on the tongue while kneeling.  The sacred space of the church was respected by silence and proper attire.  We attended a Polish parish where I received my First Holy Communion.  But after we moved from our apartment to our first house, the commute eventually became too great for us to keep making every week, and so we started attending a local American parish.

I guess I didn't notice the change at first.  Maybe I assumed it came with the territory of it being an English-language Mass, but Communion was now being distributed in an assembly-line fashion, albeit still on the tongue.  

As an adolescent, I guess I didn't notice or it didn't matter to me if there was chitchatting going on before or after (or during!) Mass.  Part of the reason may have been that my parents seemed to like to leave immediately after receiving Communion, so perhaps I never got to see that people were "fellowshipping" after Mass was over.

Since religion in my family was culturally based, once we were removed from the greater Polish culture, it didn't take much for us to become mostly secularized.  We attended Mass on Sundays, we displayed some religious art around the home, and we celebrated religious festive days.  But we did not pray together, not even grace, and we did not read Scripture either.  

We did discuss religion, mainly my mom and I, because I had developed a special interest in all things spiritual.  Starting around age 14, when I was preparing for my Confirmation, I became very interested in the faith.  Looking back, I think this was when I subconsciously started to notice it slipping away from me and wanted to hold on to it in whatever way I knew how.  Around age 17, I became interested in Mother Theresa of Calcutta, and in becoming a religious sister.  But it was a brief interest, as it was quickly squashed by my family.  

I was told that if I were a boy and expressed an interest in becoming a priest, they would support me.  But as a girl wanting to be a nun, they didn't want to see that happen.  Looking back, I guess they were concerned with the vow of poverty and obedience.  There was definitely an element of reaction to sexism there, even reverse sexism.  I interpreted it to mean that there was injustice in the fact that I couldn't become a priest, because I wanted my family's support.  I did not see it as an injustice on the part of my family withholding their support, but rather an injustice on the part of the Church in not allowing me to be something my family would support (!).  And so the feminist in me awoke.

From my late teens on, I researched off and on all sorts of world religions, I identified as a feminist, and I set out to "prove myself".  Really, what I was doing was trying to right a wrong.  I had been blessed to have been brought up in the Catholic church, so full of mystery and wisdom and beauty and truth!  But all of that was watered down by the liturgical traditions of the American Novus Ordo parishes I attended and the lack of support or shared interest by my family.

Whenever I approached a religion seriously, with authentic consideration of conversion, it was because I thought becoming this religion's adherent would reinstate for me a sense of being set apart for God.  I saw the discipline, the virtues, the seriousness with which religionists of these various faith traditions pursued their spiritual life, and I wanted that for myself.

I had already assumed that it was impossible for me within Catholicism because when I started to look into deepening my faith, I was stopped dead in my tracks, without any redirection, without any inquiry as to my reasons, without any sort of aid in discernment.  I didn't know what I didn't know, and so I wandered aimlessly looking for something I assumed could only be found "out there". 

The Lord was good to me throughout.  Time and again He brought me back to the Catholic faith, and time and again, I settled for a time before again becoming restless.  I was essentially on the verge of pure secularism when something (Someone ;) ) made me quit reading a book about Buddhism and instead start reading a book about Jesus by a Jesuit priest.  

Prior to falling into secular apathy, my last stop on my lifelong spiritual journey had been to Eastern Orthodoxy.  And so, I immediately returned to the Antiochian parish I had attended off and on and took Intro to Orthodoxy classes.  This time, I managed to get my husband and children to join me, and soon they were all sold and feeling God's presence.  

I started to see positive changes in my daughter's attitude towards spiritual things.  She started dressing up for church without being nagged about it.  Soon, I started a daily prayer rule and after about a month of doing it myself, I started including my children in my morning and evening prayers.  On a couple of occasions, my daughter has briefly tried veiling during prayer (I started veiling for personal prayer as well as Church after being encouraged by the popularity of the practice at the Orthodox church we attended.)  Once, my daughter even chose to fast with me before church.

I was tired of looking here and there and started to understand that my spiritual quest was no longer just about me.  It wasn't just about trying to fill that God-shaped hole in my heart, though it was that, too.  It was now about finding the right environment in which to raise my children within the Christian faith.

I wanted to be sure I didn't leave any rock unturned, so I kept looking for different Catholic churches to visit before deciding to become Orthodox catechumens.  We finally attended an Eastern Rite Catholic Divine Liturgy and a Latin Mass (apparently a Low Mass, as it was silent) both on the same day.  We were not impressed with either, especially as compared to the beauty and engagement and reverence and joy we felt at the Orthodox church. 

On the way home, my husband and I discussed this and essentially agreed to go ahead and focus all of our attention on Orthodoxy.  I started to gather questions for another meeting with the Orthodox priest before requesting to start the Catechumen process.  But there was something, something quite big, actually, that first had to be decided.

My son had just officially begun his two-year process of sacramental preparation to receive his First Holy Communion at our Catholic home parish.  After several conversations, my daughter was comfortable with the idea of him receiving Communion at an earlier age than she did (since he'd be able to receive immediately upon entering the Orthodox church).  But really, we wanted to maintain dual affiliation and continue with my son's sacramental prep while simultaneously preparing to enter the Orthodox church as a family.  It didn't take long for the cognitive dissonance to kick in.

The same day, when praying in the evening, I knew I couldn't proceed as planned.  It would be dishonest to both churches.  And while I knew that my allegiance is to Christ and not either church, I also knew that I needed the context of the church (one of them, anyway) and not to go the Protestant route of being my own pope and interpreting Scriptures as I saw fit, based on my limited understanding of the context and Church Tradition.

I spoke with my son.  I felt for him.  I apologized to both my children that I hadn't found Orthodoxy sooner, and that they were unable to receive the Eucharist from birth as Catholics.  My son surprised me when I asked if he'd rather prepare for his First Communion in the Catholic or Orthodox church.  He chose Catholic, even though it meant having to wait longer to start receiving Communion.

We were back to square one.  We would continue to attend both churches, and take turns between satisfying our desire for reverence and our desire to receive Communion.  But again it didn't take long to see something was amiss with this plan.

I had been going back and forth between watching a lot of YouTube videos by both Orthodox and Catholics.  I focused my attention on Catholic content once I realized that what was at the crux of our decision was the Eucharist.

I was never attracted to the Eucharist in Orthodoxy.  While I absolutely LOVE the idea of families taking turns baking the bread used during liturgy for communion, the fact that it is distributed by spoon was a major turn off for me.  There also wasn't any Eucharistic Adoration.  I know that Jesus never asked us to adore Him, or His Real Presence in the Eucharist, but He never asked us to have the specific liturgical rites either.  That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with these developments, since they organically sprang up from the life of the church.

But then I started to remember how I was first introduced to the Eucharistic Lord - within the Catholic church, at the altar railing, kneeling, receiving a host on the tongue.  I loved the reverence of the Orthodox church, but in all the times I've attended, we've only ever kneeled once as a congregation, on Pentecost I believe.  So I took to some online Orthodox groups to inquire about it.  I wanted to know if there was any reason why I couldn't receive Communion while kneeling, once I became Orthodox.

The response I got was quite shocking.  People were offended.  I was accused of trying to "romanize" their faith tradition.  Others were less harsh and simply explained the reasoning behind their not kneeling during Divine Liturgy.  Also, when asking about the dilemma about my daughter having to stop receiving Communion after having to wait until she was 7 years old (which was just one year ago) if we started the catechumen process, some didn't mince any words when they said that our Catholic Eucharist is "invalid" and she might as well not be receiving at all!  Similarly, when asking about visiting non-Orthodox churches when traveling, to maintain the family value we have of "church on Sunday", also told me that we're better off praying at home than stepping foot in a Catholic or other non-Orthodox church.

At last, the imperfections of Orthodoxy started to come out.  And not a moment too soon.  The friendly Orthdox at my local parish warned me that they were not perfect.  But I finally got to understand what that meant.  And then I was able to extend that to their faith tradition.  The Divine Liturgy at this particular Orthodox church is sublime!  But I've been to other Orthodox churches where I have a very different experience.

Back to the Eucharist and the fork in the road for us.  As I was consuming more and more Catholic content, I started listening more and more about the Traditional Latin Mass.  Now, we had already attended two and neither compared to our Orthodox experience.  But then I had to remind myself that there's an element of specific churches that plays into it.  I was willing to give the original TLM church we attended another chance.

I joined a TLM group online, where I was quickly introduced to a documentary about Vatican 2 and the TLM, and I started to remember.

I started to remember that they were describing the Mass that was still so evident in the super reverent Novus Ordo Masses in Poland (change happened much slower initially there, presumably due to the Iron Curtain that didn't come down until after we had immigrated to the US).

I started to remember that I had had a love for our Eucharistic Lord.  I believed in His Real Presence, but it had been buried under years of irreverence by parishioners and priests alike at the various innovative Novus Ordo Masses I had attended since leaving the parish where I received my First Holy Communion.

I started to remember the commonalities that I was recognizing between the Orthodox worship style and elements from my own background.

I started to remember that the Catholic church includes a lot of different expressions of faith, including the Eastern Rite, the Novus Ordo (most common), the Traditional Latin Mass, and the "Anglicanorum Coetibus" efforts.  

I started to remember that no matter which denomination I would attend, if we recited a creed, it inevitably said "I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church."  The word "Catholic" was never lost on me.  I'd think, that's funny - we're in an Episopal/Lutheran/Orthodox church, yet here we are all professing a faith in the Catholic church!

I remembered that as a Catholic, I had the honor of being able to receive Jesus in the Eucharist every single day during daily Mass, while as an Orthodox, it was only an option during Divine Liturgy, which generally happened no more than once (sometimes twice) per week.

And so I remembered what the entire center of our Christian faith is all about: Jesus Christ, and specifically his teaching, example, sacrifice, and Real Presence in the Eucharist.

I remembered that God made me a Catholic.  I remembered that Jesus said, "seek, and ye shall find".  I remembered that what I was seeking was to be found right within Catholicism, just not under my nose.

And so I began what I hope and pray will be the final stage of my spiritual journey, a homecoming to the Traditional Latin Mass.  No conversion rites necessary, no break in reception of the Eucharist, no hopping around trying to get different needs met at different churches.  No vague looking for "reverence".  Rather, "seek first the kingdom of God, and then other things will be give ye besides."  If I seek Jesus, I will find reverence.  It may look different from the Orthodox reverence, but it will be reverence nonetheless.

Today at Novus Ordo Mass, I was observing the Mass through a critical eye.  I noticed how the general feel of the Mass was based on the style of music and the charisma of the homilist.  I noticed how my experience of prayer was directly limited by the attire and behavior of my fellow parishioners, who may see Mass as an opportunity to fellowship while I am simply looking for a chance to pray and worship the Lord.  And as I looked around and thought, "nice music, nice homily, friendly people"... I also thought.... "just like any other Mainline Protestant Church." 

What does the Catholic church have that no other church has?  It has the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist (which it shares with the Orthodox church, and while some other denominations claim it, there is absolutely nothing in their style of worship that communicates this (similarly to most Novus Ordo Masses, sadly)) AND it has the unifying principle of the Papacy, Magisterium of the Church, and the Catechism.  

I may not like a lot of what comes from the Pope.  I may not agree with certain teachings of the Church.  But my goodness, do I respect and appreciate there being clear and strong boundaries in place!  If I choose to "go rogue", at least I know that's what I'm doing, and I'm doing it at my own risk.  I can gauge how far I'm straying, and decide what's too far for my own comfort level.  Of course, this isn't the teaching of the Church.  But let's be honest.  If every Catholic believed everything the Catholic church teaches, then we wouldn't have the Protestant Novus Ordo situation, the overwhelming majority of Catholics not believing in the Real Presence, the lack of modesty and chastity, the downright secularization and relativization and compartmentalization of our faith, rather than the faith being the singular North Star of our very identity as a child of God and follower of Christ.

The Church has made some terrible doozies, and so it is wise and healthy to maintain a little bit of a skepticism when discerning how applicable certain teachings really are.  If I am wrong, that is between God and me.  But I don't think the Church should back down to accommodate me.  I should have to be willing to break with the Church when going my own way.  I should not feel completely confirmed in so doing.  There needs to be a little discomfort that forces us to actually discern, rather than blindly following our passions.  Blindly following our passions is no different than blindly following our religious authorities.  Humans make mistakes.  We must be in the habit of daily discernment, and not taking the easy route of just accepting at face value anything that looks nice.

But I digress.  The important thing is that I feel myself coming full circle, and I am hopeful about the final leg of my spiritual journey, not merely "back to Catholicism", but deep into the original, traditional Catholicism that stands out as the little taste of heaven on earth that it is meant to provide in its evangelization efforts to help us fall in love with Christ.