OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 23, 2014, 01:59:03 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: pre and post vatican 2 different churches?  (Read 755 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,027



« on: November 21, 2013, 06:50:57 PM »

The post vatican 2 church is not the same as the pre
Vatican 2 church. It was completely revamped. Like a new operating system with the same platform. How do we adress that?
Logged

xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 2,713



« Reply #1 on: November 21, 2013, 07:30:31 PM »

How? Sedevacantism.
Logged

"[The Lord] shall judge between many peoples, and shall decide for strong nations far away; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4, Micah 4:3)
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,224


« Reply #2 on: November 21, 2013, 07:36:07 PM »

What changed for the better and what changed for the worse?
Logged
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #3 on: November 21, 2013, 07:45:56 PM »

What changed for the better and what changed for the worse?

The Lectionary and Breviary readings changed for the better - "hymnography" and liturgical art changed for the worse (to reflect political trends from secular society).

Allowing the vernacular in the liturgy was probably a good thing - but some translations were less than elegant, to say the least.

Ditching any ascetic discipline they had left was also a negative development. In Pater Bunge's words, they became a "sitting church".

« Last Edit: November 21, 2013, 08:00:32 PM by Romaios » Logged
brastaseptim
Protopsáltis
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 868


From BBC Louisiana to you, here's the morning news


« Reply #4 on: November 21, 2013, 07:50:06 PM »

What changed for the better and what changed for the worse?

The lectionary and Breviary readings changed for the better - "hymnography" and liturgical art changed for the worse (to reflect political trends from secular society).

On we end of the spectrum, we got Schutte, Haugen, Haas, and "On Eagles Wings"- on the other end, we got Donna Cori Gibson and "Anima Christi." Though if I have to sing "I am the Bread of Life" and "Gather us in" and "Sing a new church into being," I will snap. I like "Here I am, Lord", though- it's my grandmother's favourite hymn, and she's definitely pre-V2.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2013, 07:53:38 PM by brastaseptim » Logged

BBC news certified; The Guardian rejected; OC.net approved.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,018


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #5 on: November 21, 2013, 08:08:11 PM »

The post vatican 2 church is not the same as the pre
Vatican 2 church. It was completely revamped. Like a new operating system with the same platform. How do we adress that?

same church...
Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #6 on: November 21, 2013, 08:11:45 PM »

On we end of the spectrum, we got Schutte, Haugen, Haas, and "On Eagles Wings"- on the other end, we got Donna Cori Gibson and "Anima Christi." Though if I have to sing "I am the Bread of Life" and "Gather us in" and "Sing a new church into being," I will snap. I like "Here I am, Lord", though- it's my grandmother's favourite hymn, and she's definitely pre-V2.

I don't know which musical setting you mean, but the words of Anima Christi are attributed to Ignatius of Loyola and were quite familiar to pre-V2 Catholics.

As for the other songs/composers, I have no idea what's what - but then again I'm only somewhat familiar with the Romanian, German and Hungarian post-V2 usage.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2013, 08:27:29 PM by Romaios » Logged
brastaseptim
Protopsáltis
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 868


From BBC Louisiana to you, here's the morning news


« Reply #7 on: November 21, 2013, 08:31:24 PM »

On we end of the spectrum, we got Schutte, Haugen, Haas, and "On Eagles Wings"- on the other end, we got Donna Cori Gibson and "Anima Christi." Though if I have to sing "I am the Bread of Life" and "Gather us in" and "Sing a new church into being," I will snap. I like "Here I am, Lord", though- it's my grandmother's favourite hymn, and she's definitely pre-V2.

I don't know which musical setting you mean, but the words of Anima Christi are attributed to Ignatius of Loyola and were quite familiar to pre-V2 Catholics.

As for the other songs/composers, I have no idea what's what - but then again I'm only somewhat familiar with the Romanian, German and Hungarian post-V2 usage.

Donna Cori Gibson's setting, sung accapella or with organ. It's enough to reduce the faithful communicant to joyful tears while adoring and thanking the Lord in the Most Blessed Sacrament. I should know, It's happened to me. 
Logged

BBC news certified; The Guardian rejected; OC.net approved.
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 7,770


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #8 on: November 21, 2013, 08:33:29 PM »

The post vatican 2 church is not the same as the pre
Vatican 2 church. It was completely revamped. Like a new operating system with the same platform. How do we adress that?

When I was in the Roman Catholic Church, and we went through Vatican II with Cardinal Mahony's "Liturgical Revolution" with the scantily clad dancing ladies, dancing deacons holding the gospel book, rainbow balloons and banners, clown masses, guitarists strumming popular music, and the priest pulling a red FLYER wagon behind him, we were sure that the Evangelists and Lutherans had converted Rome to Protestantism. The Catholic Mass became a big show with the priest standing in front of the people, and the cross and tabernacle relegated to a small room out of view. Gone were the sanctity and the mystery in the sacraments (every one underwent revision), in was the new vernacular that lacked any trace of reverent language addressed to God.

When I went to my first Orthodox Divine Liturgy, I felt immediately home, and I did not look back once.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 7,770


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #9 on: November 21, 2013, 08:35:06 PM »

On we end of the spectrum, we got Schutte, Haugen, Haas, and "On Eagles Wings"- on the other end, we got Donna Cori Gibson and "Anima Christi." Though if I have to sing "I am the Bread of Life" and "Gather us in" and "Sing a new church into being," I will snap. I like "Here I am, Lord", though- it's my grandmother's favourite hymn, and she's definitely pre-V2.

I don't know which musical setting you mean, but the words of Anima Christi are attributed to Ignatius of Loyola and were quite familiar to pre-V2 Catholics.

As for the other songs/composers, I have no idea what's what - but then again I'm only somewhat familiar with the Romanian, German and Hungarian post-V2 usage.

Donna Cori Gibson's setting, sung accapella or with organ. It's enough to reduce the faithful communicant to joyful tears while adoring and thanking the Lord in the Most Blessed Sacrament. I should know, It's happened to me. 

Hey, didn't you start a thread about Vatican II music, or the lack of it?
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,55072.msg1030896/topicseen.html#msg1030896
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,190


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 21, 2013, 09:50:28 PM »

The Lectionary and Breviary readings changed for the better - "hymnography" and liturgical art changed for the worse (to reflect political trends from secular society).

I'm not convinced the revised Lectionary for Mass was an improvement over the old anymore; as I read studies, I'm beginning to think that some changes were appropriate but others were ill-advised.  I might agree that the selection of Scriptural readings in the Office improved after Vatican II, but I haven't studied the issue enough to know for sure it is not affected by the problems I see with the Mass readings.   
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,790



« Reply #11 on: November 22, 2013, 12:08:36 AM »

What changed for the better and what changed for the worse?

The Lectionary and Breviary readings changed for the better - "hymnography" and liturgical art changed for the worse (to reflect political trends from secular society).

Allowing the vernacular in the liturgy was probably a good thing - but some translations were less than elegant, to say the least.

Ditching any ascetic discipline they had left was also a negative development. In Pater Bunge's words, they became a "sitting church".



The change from the historic lectionary to the three tear lectionary was a total cluster.  The idiots who came  up with it said it would increase biblical literacy (yeah, right).  It also screwed up any sense of unity,liturgically speaking.

All the good music of the Catholic Church was set to Latin texts.  I challenge anyone who would argue that the vernacular adoptions of bad Protestant hymns compare favorably to the majesty and solemnity of Gregorian chants or the austere beauty of compositons from Victoria, di Lasso, The Gabrielis, Josquin, etc.  and no, you cannot simply translate the Latin and keep the melodies intact.  Best to keep the Latin.

Vatican II=awful.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,027



« Reply #12 on: November 22, 2013, 12:22:32 AM »

I wasn't refering to music. I meant the core of the church changed. It was all reinvented. The framework stayed so you still had.baptism.priests but the rites changed.the meanings. Everything before wasn't after vatican 2. Look.at.the baptism.. before and after.vatican 2. Look.at.all the sacraments and the rituals around them.
Logged

username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,027



« Reply #13 on: November 22, 2013, 12:23:35 AM »

Typing on my.phone is tough, I was outside in the cold for coming while and my.hand is.still frozen.
Logged

scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,790



« Reply #14 on: November 22, 2013, 03:43:21 AM »

I wasn't refering to music. I meant the core of the church changed. It was all reinvented. The framework stayed so you still had.baptism.priests but the rites changed.the meanings. Everything before wasn't after vatican 2. Look.at.the baptism.. before and after.vatican 2. Look.at.all the sacraments and the rituals around them.

The change of music accompanied the change of language.  And the change of music made the Catholic Churches into a Protestant-lite happy clappy "worship" time rather than a liturgical act.  The beauty of Latin was substituted for the inaccuracies and sloppiness of English.  Those things do weigh importantly on not only how the Church views herself, but also what it considers true worship.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,075


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #15 on: November 24, 2013, 12:04:33 AM »

The post vatican 2 church is not the same as the pre
Vatican 2 church. It was completely revamped. Like a new operating system with the same platform. How do we adress that?

same church...

As a former RC I witnessed a vast difference in the Mass after VatII.  I stayed with it until I got fed up and started looking elsewhere.
Logged
ErmyCath
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 141



« Reply #16 on: November 24, 2013, 11:56:02 PM »

Since I am traveling this week, today I went to the High Mass at St. Francis de Sales Oratory (ICRSS) in St. Louis, Missouri, USA. If you are one who thinks the RCC is the same now as it was before Vatican II, a trip to a place such as this should cure you of that perspective.

In the current RCC landscape, this place, with beautiful and timeless liturgy, co-exists with another parish I went earlier this year in Mississippi where the priest brought the teenagers up to stand around the altar with him during the Consecration and otherwise made a show of himself as if the liturgy were all about him.

My regular Sunday Mass experience when I'm not traveling is somewhere between these extremes and is quite banal, which is probably how things were for many prior to Vatican II -- without the utter lack of uniformity from parish to parish, though.

So, what has changed in the RCC is that it has become a "big tent" where communion means as little as a lip service of obedience to the pope. This is evidenced by liturgical chaos and lack of doctrinal uniformity.  Every other manifestation of change is merely an aspect of these two items. In fact, the liturgical chaos itself is a subset of the lack of doctrinal uniformity.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2013, 11:56:43 PM by ErmyCath » Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 4,025



« Reply #17 on: November 25, 2013, 01:48:59 AM »

I wasn't refering to music. I meant the core of the church changed. It was all reinvented. The framework stayed so you still had.baptism.priests but the rites changed.the meanings. Everything before wasn't after vatican 2. Look.at.the baptism.. before and after.vatican 2. Look.at.all the sacraments and the rituals around them.

I'm regularly in contact with a few conservative Catholics, so it's my understanding that to them there is a direct continuity with the pre and post-Vatican II Church. In fact, they adamantly argue against progressives that view Vatican II as a radical break or change with the past. I'm pretty sure they'd side with the "reform of the reform," so in other words the (largely pastoral, liturgical) council was fine if not great and made no essential changes, however it did have an awful distorting reception by clergy and laity which is where the perceived change occurred. It is the latter that is the problem and needs changed, and not the council itself.

And from what I've gleaned as an outsider, I think that's how I'd view the situation for them as well.
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 4,025



« Reply #18 on: November 25, 2013, 01:51:23 AM »

So, what has changed in the RCC is that it has become a "big tent"

This is something I just noticed as well, in how seemingly analogous it is with the Anglican Communion housing both Anglo-Catholics, Evangelicals, low-churchers, etc.
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,190


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #19 on: November 25, 2013, 02:28:51 AM »

I'm regularly in contact with a few conservative Catholics, so it's my understanding that to them there is a direct continuity with the pre and post-Vatican II Church. In fact, they adamantly argue against progressives that view Vatican II as a radical break or change with the past. I'm pretty sure they'd side with the "reform of the reform," so in other words the (largely pastoral, liturgical) council was fine if not great and made no essential changes...

They have to assert a direct continuity between the pre and post-Vatican II Church: it is the dogmatic presupposition required to keep the ship afloat. 

Quote
...however it did have an awful distorting reception by clergy and laity which is where the perceived change occurred. It is the latter that is the problem and needs changed, and not the council itself.

Read the documents, but not just the documents: read the history of how they were drafted.  Read the history of the liturgical reform.  This was basically the Church of Pius XII which met at Vatican II: how did they manage to distort Roman Catholicism so far away from anything he would've recognised as Roman Catholicism, and only a few years after his death, if the council itself wasn't part of the problem?  Yes, there were dissident theologians and liturgists, but there was more to it than just "a few bad apples".  How did so many bishops surrender their role of protecting the faith to "experts"?  How did "obedience" get so misconstrued that it allowed anything as long as it had papal approval?  So many questions could be asked.

I sympathise with the "reform of the reform" crowd, I think their theological presupposition is in the right spirit, but they ignore a lot to preserve that presupposition. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 4,025



« Reply #20 on: November 25, 2013, 02:50:42 AM »

They have to assert a direct continuity between the pre and post-Vatican II Church: it is the dogmatic presupposition required to keep the ship afloat.

True enough.

Quote
Read the documents, but not just the documents: read the history of how they were drafted.  Read the history of the liturgical reform.  This was basically the Church of Pius XII which met at Vatican II: how did they manage to distort Roman Catholicism so far away from anything he would've recognised as Roman Catholicism, and only a few years after his death, if the council itself wasn't part of the problem?  Yes, there were dissident theologians and liturgists, but there was more to it than just "a few bad apples".  How did so many bishops surrender their role of protecting the faith to "experts"?  How did "obedience" get so misconstrued that it allowed anything as long as it had papal approval?  So many questions could be asked.

I sympathise with the "reform of the reform" crowd, I think their theological presupposition is in the right spirit, but they ignore a lot to preserve that presupposition.

I haven't read nearly enough about it as I should. It's been my understanding that bishops in many places starting running to the fringe during the council itself before it even concluded, with some having to be reigned in. Of course, I don't know how true this is or how widespread even, since it is conservative apologetic I've heard.

But ultimately the questions you bring up are hard ones. I think that in the end they'll inclined to say that various problems became rampant throughout the church, and maybe that the council even allowed for their exacerbation, but without being the direct/initial cause of them in itself. IDK, I guess a lot of it does depend on their dogmatic assumptions.
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
brastaseptim
Protopsáltis
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 868


From BBC Louisiana to you, here's the morning news


« Reply #21 on: November 25, 2013, 10:49:16 AM »

They have to assert a direct continuity between the pre and post-Vatican II Church: it is the dogmatic presupposition required to keep the ship afloat.

True enough.

Quote
Read the documents, but not just the documents: read the history of how they were drafted.  Read the history of the liturgical reform.  This was basically the Church of Pius XII which met at Vatican II: how did they manage to distort Roman Catholicism so far away from anything he would've recognised as Roman Catholicism, and only a few years after his death, if the council itself wasn't part of the problem?  Yes, there were dissident theologians and liturgists, but there was more to it than just "a few bad apples".  How did so many bishops surrender their role of protecting the faith to "experts"?  How did "obedience" get so misconstrued that it allowed anything as long as it had papal approval?  So many questions could be asked.

I sympathise with the "reform of the reform" crowd, I think their theological presupposition is in the right spirit, but they ignore a lot to preserve that presupposition.

I haven't read nearly enough about it as I should. It's been my understanding that bishops in many places starting running to the fringe during the council itself before it even concluded, with some having to be reigned in. Of course, I don't know how true this is or how widespread even, since it is conservative apologetic I've heard.

But ultimately the questions you bring up are hard ones. I think that in the end they'll inclined to say that various problems became rampant throughout the church, and maybe that the council even allowed for their exacerbation, but without being the direct/initial cause of them in itself. IDK, I guess a lot of it does depend on their dogmatic assumptions.

The thing is, most of the younger RCs of my generation, as I've observed, are fairly devout, Traditional, orthodox Catholics, who want to 180 the post V2 turn around. These are Latin-Mass going, Holy Hour attending, rosary-praying, scapular-wearing, theological discourse writing, Trent-quoting Catholics who want to reform the reform. So expect the Post V2 liberality to die out in 20 years.
Logged

BBC news certified; The Guardian rejected; OC.net approved.
ErmyCath
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 141



« Reply #22 on: November 25, 2013, 11:37:10 AM »

They have to assert a direct continuity between the pre and post-Vatican II Church: it is the dogmatic presupposition required to keep the ship afloat.

True enough.

Quote
Read the documents, but not just the documents: read the history of how they were drafted.  Read the history of the liturgical reform.  This was basically the Church of Pius XII which met at Vatican II: how did they manage to distort Roman Catholicism so far away from anything he would've recognised as Roman Catholicism, and only a few years after his death, if the council itself wasn't part of the problem?  Yes, there were dissident theologians and liturgists, but there was more to it than just "a few bad apples".  How did so many bishops surrender their role of protecting the faith to "experts"?  How did "obedience" get so misconstrued that it allowed anything as long as it had papal approval?  So many questions could be asked.

I sympathise with the "reform of the reform" crowd, I think their theological presupposition is in the right spirit, but they ignore a lot to preserve that presupposition.

I haven't read nearly enough about it as I should. It's been my understanding that bishops in many places starting running to the fringe during the council itself before it even concluded, with some having to be reigned in. Of course, I don't know how true this is or how widespread even, since it is conservative apologetic I've heard.

But ultimately the questions you bring up are hard ones. I think that in the end they'll inclined to say that various problems became rampant throughout the church, and maybe that the council even allowed for their exacerbation, but without being the direct/initial cause of them in itself. IDK, I guess a lot of it does depend on their dogmatic assumptions.

The thing is, most of the younger RCs of my generation, as I've observed, are fairly devout, Traditional, orthodox Catholics, who want to 180 the post V2 turn around. These are Latin-Mass going, Holy Hour attending, rosary-praying, scapular-wearing, theological discourse writing, Trent-quoting Catholics who want to reform the reform. So expect the Post V2 liberality to die out in 20 years.

While I hope this is true (and it comports with my anecdotal experience to a degree as well), the hierarchical Church must lead the way. And it refuses to do so - a fact with little hope of changing any time soon.

And my experience is that for every such Traddy young Catholic, there are many times more Protestantized young Catholics who have implicitly swallowed the ecumenical nonsense wholly. The types who strum guitars and pray in the orans position during Eucharistic Adoration. Unlike their Catholic forebears, they move seemlessly between Protestant and Catholic services.  To that extent, the hierarchy perfectly encapsulates the young crowd. See also WYD...

In other words, there's a large group of people who see the Traditional Mass as a nice option, but equal with every other option, such as guitar masses and children's masses. For these people, doctrine means nothing and practicality and aesthetics mean everything.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2013, 11:39:10 AM by ErmyCath » Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
brastaseptim
Protopsáltis
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 868


From BBC Louisiana to you, here's the morning news


« Reply #23 on: November 25, 2013, 12:23:53 PM »

They have to assert a direct continuity between the pre and post-Vatican II Church: it is the dogmatic presupposition required to keep the ship afloat.

True enough.

Quote
Read the documents, but not just the documents: read the history of how they were drafted.  Read the history of the liturgical reform.  This was basically the Church of Pius XII which met at Vatican II: how did they manage to distort Roman Catholicism so far away from anything he would've recognised as Roman Catholicism, and only a few years after his death, if the council itself wasn't part of the problem?  Yes, there were dissident theologians and liturgists, but there was more to it than just "a few bad apples".  How did so many bishops surrender their role of protecting the faith to "experts"?  How did "obedience" get so misconstrued that it allowed anything as long as it had papal approval?  So many questions could be asked.

I sympathise with the "reform of the reform" crowd, I think their theological presupposition is in the right spirit, but they ignore a lot to preserve that presupposition.

I haven't read nearly enough about it as I should. It's been my understanding that bishops in many places starting running to the fringe during the council itself before it even concluded, with some having to be reigned in. Of course, I don't know how true this is or how widespread even, since it is conservative apologetic I've heard.

But ultimately the questions you bring up are hard ones. I think that in the end they'll inclined to say that various problems became rampant throughout the church, and maybe that the council even allowed for their exacerbation, but without being the direct/initial cause of them in itself. IDK, I guess a lot of it does depend on their dogmatic assumptions.

The thing is, most of the younger RCs of my generation, as I've observed, are fairly devout, Traditional, orthodox Catholics, who want to 180 the post V2 turn around. These are Latin-Mass going, Holy Hour attending, rosary-praying, scapular-wearing, theological discourse writing, Trent-quoting Catholics who want to reform the reform. So expect the Post V2 liberality to die out in 20 years.

While I hope this is true (and it comports with my anecdotal experience to a degree as well), the hierarchical Church must lead the way. And it refuses to do so - a fact with little hope of changing any time soon.

And my experience is that for every such Traddy young Catholic, there are many times more Protestantized young Catholics who have implicitly swallowed the ecumenical nonsense wholly. The types who strum guitars and pray in the orans position during Eucharistic Adoration. Unlike their Catholic forebears, they move seemlessly between Protestant and Catholic services.  To that extent, the hierarchy perfectly encapsulates the young crowd. See also WYD...

In other words, there's a large group of people who see the Traditional Mass as a nice option, but equal with every other option, such as guitar masses and children's masses. For these people, doctrine means nothing and practicality and aesthetics mean everything.

You forget that it will be that crowd of young catholic men that will one day be the hierarchs. Most bishops are in their 70s, 60s, nowadays, so within twenty years, the current hierarchy will be completely rearranged, because that generation of bishops will not be around anymore. And with the lack of vocations, I feel you can rest assured that only the most devout will even get through seminary, if only because of the celibacy rule is so countercultural that most of the Protestantised happy-clappy guitar mass types will not want to do it.
Logged

BBC news certified; The Guardian rejected; OC.net approved.
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 4,025



« Reply #24 on: November 25, 2013, 12:36:50 PM »

The thing is, most of the younger RCs of my generation, as I've observed, are fairly devout, Traditional, orthodox Catholics, who want to 180 the post V2 turn around. These are Latin-Mass going, Holy Hour attending, rosary-praying, scapular-wearing, theological discourse writing, Trent-quoting Catholics who want to reform the reform. So expect the Post V2 liberality to die out in 20 years.

As much as I hear this from people online, I've yet to see it. The town I'm from had several Catholic parishes that weren't the radical progressive sort, but they were by no means trads - there was only a sedevacantist parish that would fit that.

Where I live now has several large parishes that are rampant with the progressiveness, even having a liturgical committee that plans liturgical dance etc. The college I go to is Catholic and I'm in the religious studies department, and it is rampantly progressive among the young and old. Feminist/liberation theology, inclusive language, pro-same sex marriage (in/out of Church), and some are no doubt in favor of women priests. This includes the young, many of whom are in pastoral ministry. Of those in pastoral ministry, many are musically inclined and work with local liturgical music and are into the modern hymns, guitars and all. And many are devotionally more into taize/visio divino/art prayer/etc than anything traditional, with the exception of a few who like the Hours or Stations.

The only exceptions to this where I'm now at are the few (I.e. extreme minority) conservative/trad Catholics I mentioned. And that comes to three or so. There is, however, one FSSP parish here, which was apparently resisted for quite some time by the former bishop.

And I went to Maria Stein, a retreat center located in a historically Catholic community, which even permits feminist Episcopalians to give lectures and lead retreatees in New Age/Christian taichi stuff.

In short, while I really wish what you're saying to be true, I just think it's only partially true at most.
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
ErmyCath
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 141



« Reply #25 on: November 25, 2013, 01:40:16 PM »

They have to assert a direct continuity between the pre and post-Vatican II Church: it is the dogmatic presupposition required to keep the ship afloat.

True enough.

Quote
Read the documents, but not just the documents: read the history of how they were drafted.  Read the history of the liturgical reform.  This was basically the Church of Pius XII which met at Vatican II: how did they manage to distort Roman Catholicism so far away from anything he would've recognised as Roman Catholicism, and only a few years after his death, if the council itself wasn't part of the problem?  Yes, there were dissident theologians and liturgists, but there was more to it than just "a few bad apples".  How did so many bishops surrender their role of protecting the faith to "experts"?  How did "obedience" get so misconstrued that it allowed anything as long as it had papal approval?  So many questions could be asked.

I sympathise with the "reform of the reform" crowd, I think their theological presupposition is in the right spirit, but they ignore a lot to preserve that presupposition.

I haven't read nearly enough about it as I should. It's been my understanding that bishops in many places starting running to the fringe during the council itself before it even concluded, with some having to be reigned in. Of course, I don't know how true this is or how widespread even, since it is conservative apologetic I've heard.

But ultimately the questions you bring up are hard ones. I think that in the end they'll inclined to say that various problems became rampant throughout the church, and maybe that the council even allowed for their exacerbation, but without being the direct/initial cause of them in itself. IDK, I guess a lot of it does depend on their dogmatic assumptions.

The thing is, most of the younger RCs of my generation, as I've observed, are fairly devout, Traditional, orthodox Catholics, who want to 180 the post V2 turn around. These are Latin-Mass going, Holy Hour attending, rosary-praying, scapular-wearing, theological discourse writing, Trent-quoting Catholics who want to reform the reform. So expect the Post V2 liberality to die out in 20 years.

While I hope this is true (and it comports with my anecdotal experience to a degree as well), the hierarchical Church must lead the way. And it refuses to do so - a fact with little hope of changing any time soon.

And my experience is that for every such Traddy young Catholic, there are many times more Protestantized young Catholics who have implicitly swallowed the ecumenical nonsense wholly. The types who strum guitars and pray in the orans position during Eucharistic Adoration. Unlike their Catholic forebears, they move seemlessly between Protestant and Catholic services.  To that extent, the hierarchy perfectly encapsulates the young crowd. See also WYD...

In other words, there's a large group of people who see the Traditional Mass as a nice option, but equal with every other option, such as guitar masses and children's masses. For these people, doctrine means nothing and practicality and aesthetics mean everything.

You forget that it will be that crowd of young catholic men that will one day be the hierarchs. Most bishops are in their 70s, 60s, nowadays, so within twenty years, the current hierarchy will be completely rearranged, because that generation of bishops will not be around anymore. And with the lack of vocations, I feel you can rest assured that only the most devout will even get through seminary, if only because of the celibacy rule is so countercultural that most of the Protestantised happy-clappy guitar mass types will not want to do it.

I hope you're right. In my experience with younger clergy, though, they see the good in both the TLM and the guitar masses. So, I think they'd be content to let both co-exist.
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
brastaseptim
Protopsáltis
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 868


From BBC Louisiana to you, here's the morning news


« Reply #26 on: November 25, 2013, 02:14:30 PM »

They have to assert a direct continuity between the pre and post-Vatican II Church: it is the dogmatic presupposition required to keep the ship afloat.

True enough.

Quote
Read the documents, but not just the documents: read the history of how they were drafted.  Read the history of the liturgical reform.  This was basically the Church of Pius XII which met at Vatican II: how did they manage to distort Roman Catholicism so far away from anything he would've recognised as Roman Catholicism, and only a few years after his death, if the council itself wasn't part of the problem?  Yes, there were dissident theologians and liturgists, but there was more to it than just "a few bad apples".  How did so many bishops surrender their role of protecting the faith to "experts"?  How did "obedience" get so misconstrued that it allowed anything as long as it had papal approval?  So many questions could be asked.

I sympathise with the "reform of the reform" crowd, I think their theological presupposition is in the right spirit, but they ignore a lot to preserve that presupposition.

I haven't read nearly enough about it as I should. It's been my understanding that bishops in many places starting running to the fringe during the council itself before it even concluded, with some having to be reigned in. Of course, I don't know how true this is or how widespread even, since it is conservative apologetic I've heard.

But ultimately the questions you bring up are hard ones. I think that in the end they'll inclined to say that various problems became rampant throughout the church, and maybe that the council even allowed for their exacerbation, but without being the direct/initial cause of them in itself. IDK, I guess a lot of it does depend on their dogmatic assumptions.

The thing is, most of the younger RCs of my generation, as I've observed, are fairly devout, Traditional, orthodox Catholics, who want to 180 the post V2 turn around. These are Latin-Mass going, Holy Hour attending, rosary-praying, scapular-wearing, theological discourse writing, Trent-quoting Catholics who want to reform the reform. So expect the Post V2 liberality to die out in 20 years.

While I hope this is true (and it comports with my anecdotal experience to a degree as well), the hierarchical Church must lead the way. And it refuses to do so - a fact with little hope of changing any time soon.

And my experience is that for every such Traddy young Catholic, there are many times more Protestantized young Catholics who have implicitly swallowed the ecumenical nonsense wholly. The types who strum guitars and pray in the orans position during Eucharistic Adoration. Unlike their Catholic forebears, they move seemlessly between Protestant and Catholic services.  To that extent, the hierarchy perfectly encapsulates the young crowd. See also WYD...

In other words, there's a large group of people who see the Traditional Mass as a nice option, but equal with every other option, such as guitar masses and children's masses. For these people, doctrine means nothing and practicality and aesthetics mean everything.

You forget that it will be that crowd of young catholic men that will one day be the hierarchs. Most bishops are in their 70s, 60s, nowadays, so within twenty years, the current hierarchy will be completely rearranged, because that generation of bishops will not be around anymore. And with the lack of vocations, I feel you can rest assured that only the most devout will even get through seminary, if only because of the celibacy rule is so countercultural that most of the Protestantised happy-clappy guitar mass types will not want to do it.

I hope you're right. In my experience with younger clergy, though, they see the good in both the TLM and the guitar masses. So, I think they'd be content to let both co-exist.

I would rather they co-exist than have the TLM barely exist at all, as was the case for nearly 40 years. Though I don't have that much complaint against guitar Masses, but only when the organist is missing and there are only two (or, as often is the case, one) choir members there. Unfortunately, as the member and backup cantor of a church trio (not choir, trio) this is the most common situation. So we have to make the most of a bad situation and offer the music to God, poor as it may be, because we all know the congregation isn't going to help us offer anything better. Cynical, but true.
Logged

BBC news certified; The Guardian rejected; OC.net approved.
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 735



« Reply #27 on: November 25, 2013, 02:16:46 PM »

The seeds of the post-Vatican 2 church were planted and fertilized long before in the pre-Vatican 2 church.  The steady rise of papal authority at the expense of episcopal and synodal authority from the Middle Ages through Vatican 1 created the conditions in which a revolution from above could be devised and implemented in a short period of time.  It's the same church before and after Vatican 2.  But it's not the same church before and after the Great Schism.
Logged
brastaseptim
Protopsáltis
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 868


From BBC Louisiana to you, here's the morning news


« Reply #28 on: November 25, 2013, 02:26:06 PM »

The seeds of the post-Vatican 2 church were planted and fertilized long before in the pre-Vatican 2 church.  The steady rise of papal authority at the expense of episcopal and synodal authority from the Middle Ages through Vatican 1 created the conditions in which a revolution from above could be devised and implemented in a short period of time.  It's the same church before and after Vatican 2.  But it's not the same church before and after the Great Schism.

From all I hear from some Orthodox, it's questionable that it was even the same church before the Great Schism. I know the Eastern theologians were not particularly fans of the Western tendency towards Augustinianism.
Logged

BBC news certified; The Guardian rejected; OC.net approved.
ErmyCath
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 141



« Reply #29 on: November 25, 2013, 02:36:51 PM »

The seeds of the post-Vatican 2 church were planted and fertilized long before in the pre-Vatican 2 church.  The steady rise of papal authority at the expense of episcopal and synodal authority from the Middle Ages through Vatican 1 created the conditions in which a revolution from above could be devised and implemented in a short period of time.  It's the same church before and after Vatican 2.  But it's not the same church before and after the Great Schism.

It's my thought that you are partially correct. I happen to take your point further, though, as I see modernism as a logical consequence (albeit not a necessary consequence) of scholasticism. You're right that the consolidation of power into one person allowed for a huge overhaul when that one person either lapses into error or fails to keep a close guard over the doctrine.

I think it is clear the RCC is different before and after Vatican II.  Just as it was different at various points in its history.  This isn't necessarily a problem in RCC thought given the idea that doctrine can develop, allowing the faith to propagate in a modern way. It is a painful process, though, when it takes place in a generation so that those in living memory can remember when it was completely different -- a problem compounded by the advent of mass media.
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
Regnare
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquiring into Orthodoxy
Posts: 234



« Reply #30 on: November 25, 2013, 04:47:01 PM »

I hope you're right. In my experience with younger clergy, though, they see the good in both the TLM and the guitar masses. So, I think they'd be content to let both co-exist.
The question then becomes: is it a good thing that the Roman Catholic Church now has a generation of clergy who consider the TLM to be just as good as (i.e., no better than) a NO Mass with guitars? Even the best priests in the Church have to say it's only a matter of personal preference, as Pope Francis does, or they implicitly end up drifting SSPX-ward, at least in theology if not in practice. And if so, why keep the TLM at all, given that V2 seemed to be of the opinion that it was pretty thoroughly incompatible with the pastoral needs of the modern world?
Logged

"To believe [the Paraclete] when you wish it, and then disbelieve him when you wish it, is to believe nobody but yourself." --St. Augustine, Contra Faustum XXXII.16
ErmyCath
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 141



« Reply #31 on: November 25, 2013, 04:53:19 PM »

I hope you're right. In my experience with younger clergy, though, they see the good in both the TLM and the guitar masses. So, I think they'd be content to let both co-exist.
The question then becomes: is it a good thing that the Roman Catholic Church now has a generation of clergy who consider the TLM to be just as good as (i.e., no better than) a NO Mass with guitars? Even the best priests in the Church have to say it's only a matter of personal preference, as Pope Francis does, or they implicitly end up drifting SSPX-ward, at least in theology if not in practice. And if so, why keep the TLM at all, given that V2 seemed to be of the opinion that it was pretty thoroughly incompatible with the pastoral needs of the modern world?

It seems to me that there is little care about theology in modern Roman Catholicism.  This is the big tent mentality. I think it'll end up being a High Church/Low Church breakdown, with doctrine on a large spectrum a la Anglicanism.

Only the SSPX seems concerned about seeing that the liturgics match the doctrine and vice versa. For the Church at large, the issue is mostly aesthetics.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2013, 04:53:36 PM by ErmyCath » Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
brastaseptim
Protopsáltis
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 868


From BBC Louisiana to you, here's the morning news


« Reply #32 on: November 25, 2013, 05:00:12 PM »

I hope you're right. In my experience with younger clergy, though, they see the good in both the TLM and the guitar masses. So, I think they'd be content to let both co-exist.
The question then becomes: is it a good thing that the Roman Catholic Church now has a generation of clergy who consider the TLM to be just as good as (i.e., no better than) a NO Mass with guitars? Even the best priests in the Church have to say it's only a matter of personal preference, as Pope Francis does, or they implicitly end up drifting SSPX-ward, at least in theology if not in practice. And if so, why keep the TLM at all, given that V2 seemed to be of the opinion that it was pretty thoroughly incompatible with the pastoral needs of the modern world?

It seems to me that there is little care about theology in modern Roman Catholicism.  This is the big tent mentality. I think it'll end up being a High Church/Low Church breakdown, with doctrine on a large spectrum a la Anglicanism.

Only the SSPX seems concerned about seeing that the liturgics match the doctrine and vice versa. For the Church at large, the issue is mostly aesthetics.

Strange, I was under the impression that the issue was over doctrine and a great care for theology, considering the last time I visited the local seminary, I discovered that the students there, prospective students I was visiting with, and the teachers were all firmly orthodox and firmly traditional, even though it was an NO Mass church on campus. Also, the local parish priests are fairly traditional- granted, they were ordained recently.
Logged

BBC news certified; The Guardian rejected; OC.net approved.
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,075


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #33 on: November 25, 2013, 05:16:15 PM »

I hope you're right. In my experience with younger clergy, though, they see the good in both the TLM and the guitar masses. So, I think they'd be content to let both co-exist.
The question then becomes: is it a good thing that the Roman Catholic Church now has a generation of clergy who consider the TLM to be just as good as (i.e., no better than) a NO Mass with guitars? Even the best priests in the Church have to say it's only a matter of personal preference, as Pope Francis does, or they implicitly end up drifting SSPX-ward, at least in theology if not in practice. And if so, why keep the TLM at all, given that V2 seemed to be of the opinion that it was pretty thoroughly incompatible with the pastoral needs of the modern world?

As a former RC, I was always told as a youngster going to Latin Mass that no matter where you go in the world the Mass was ALWAYS the same and for me that was a welcoming thought.  After VatII, well, all bets were off.  Priests use some lose license in how they performed the NO Mass.  I was confused from the start.  Going to other Masses were just as confusing.  God forbid I went to a rock Mass or so-called Children's Mass.  It became more of an entertainment moment rather that a worshipful one.  Even the priests were confused about the proper Rubrics.  It was a mess for me and I just walked away from it. 
Logged
ErmyCath
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 141



« Reply #34 on: November 25, 2013, 05:48:26 PM »

I hope you're right. In my experience with younger clergy, though, they see the good in both the TLM and the guitar masses. So, I think they'd be content to let both co-exist.
The question then becomes: is it a good thing that the Roman Catholic Church now has a generation of clergy who consider the TLM to be just as good as (i.e., no better than) a NO Mass with guitars? Even the best priests in the Church have to say it's only a matter of personal preference, as Pope Francis does, or they implicitly end up drifting SSPX-ward, at least in theology if not in practice. And if so, why keep the TLM at all, given that V2 seemed to be of the opinion that it was pretty thoroughly incompatible with the pastoral needs of the modern world?

It seems to me that there is little care about theology in modern Roman Catholicism.  This is the big tent mentality. I think it'll end up being a High Church/Low Church breakdown, with doctrine on a large spectrum a la Anglicanism.

Only the SSPX seems concerned about seeing that the liturgics match the doctrine and vice versa. For the Church at large, the issue is mostly aesthetics.

Strange, I was under the impression that the issue was over doctrine and a great care for theology, considering the last time I visited the local seminary, I discovered that the students there, prospective students I was visiting with, and the teachers were all firmly orthodox and firmly traditional, even though it was an NO Mass church on campus. Also, the local parish priests are fairly traditional- granted, they were ordained recently.

I'm glad to hear that. I would guess you and I would disagree over what "firmly traditional" means, which means we likely analyze the situation differently. In other words, I am probably a lot less patient than you are and less charitable about these things!
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
brastaseptim
Protopsáltis
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 868


From BBC Louisiana to you, here's the morning news


« Reply #35 on: November 25, 2013, 05:55:49 PM »

I hope you're right. In my experience with younger clergy, though, they see the good in both the TLM and the guitar masses. So, I think they'd be content to let both co-exist.
The question then becomes: is it a good thing that the Roman Catholic Church now has a generation of clergy who consider the TLM to be just as good as (i.e., no better than) a NO Mass with guitars? Even the best priests in the Church have to say it's only a matter of personal preference, as Pope Francis does, or they implicitly end up drifting SSPX-ward, at least in theology if not in practice. And if so, why keep the TLM at all, given that V2 seemed to be of the opinion that it was pretty thoroughly incompatible with the pastoral needs of the modern world?

It seems to me that there is little care about theology in modern Roman Catholicism.  This is the big tent mentality. I think it'll end up being a High Church/Low Church breakdown, with doctrine on a large spectrum a la Anglicanism.

Only the SSPX seems concerned about seeing that the liturgics match the doctrine and vice versa. For the Church at large, the issue is mostly aesthetics.

Strange, I was under the impression that the issue was over doctrine and a great care for theology, considering the last time I visited the local seminary, I discovered that the students there, prospective students I was visiting with, and the teachers were all firmly orthodox and firmly traditional, even though it was an NO Mass church on campus. Also, the local parish priests are fairly traditional- granted, they were ordained recently.

I'm glad to hear that. I would guess you and I would disagree over what "firmly traditional" means, which means we likely analyze the situation differently. In other words, I am probably a lot less patient than you are and less charitable about these things!

I've been in RC churches of all stripes before I switched rites- and still after that, because getting to the local Byzantine parish is nearly 2 hours drive while there's a Latin parish 5 miles away. To me, firmly traditional means the priest does things by the rubrics, keeps his thumbs and forefinger together, and is extremely careful to make sure not a crumb of the Blessed Sacrament is let out of his sight or is in danger of being profaned while he's on the altar. I should know, I'm the oldest server in the parish of the local priest who does exactly that.
Logged

BBC news certified; The Guardian rejected; OC.net approved.
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #36 on: November 25, 2013, 06:00:08 PM »

keeps his thumbs and forefinger together

 Roll Eyes
Logged
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,618


Teaching on the mountain


« Reply #37 on: November 25, 2013, 06:04:03 PM »

Quote
The change of music accompanied the change of language.  And the change of music made the Catholic Churches into a Protestant-lite happy clappy "worship" time rather than a liturgical act.  The beauty of Latin was substituted for the inaccuracies and sloppiness of English.  Those things do weigh importantly on not only how the Church views herself, but also what it considers true worship.
there is a bunch of inanities in here and the accompanying triumphalism and this talk about "worship" sounds ironically protestant.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,190


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #38 on: November 25, 2013, 06:09:23 PM »

Quote
The change of music accompanied the change of language.  And the change of music made the Catholic Churches into a Protestant-lite happy clappy "worship" time rather than a liturgical act.  The beauty of Latin was substituted for the inaccuracies and sloppiness of English.  Those things do weigh importantly on not only how the Church views herself, but also what it considers true worship.
there is a bunch of inanities in here and the accompanying triumphalism and this talk about "worship" sounds ironically protestant.

What are the inanities?
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,790



« Reply #39 on: November 26, 2013, 05:12:37 AM »

Quote
The change of music accompanied the change of language.  And the change of music made the Catholic Churches into a Protestant-lite happy clappy "worship" time rather than a liturgical act.  The beauty of Latin was substituted for the inaccuracies and sloppiness of English.  Those things do weigh importantly on not only how the Church views herself, but also what it considers true worship.
there is a bunch of inanities in here and the accompanying triumphalism and this talk about "worship" sounds ironically protestant.

Would you please clarify?
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,075


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #40 on: November 26, 2013, 12:48:56 PM »

Quote
The change of music accompanied the change of language.  And the change of music made the Catholic Churches into a Protestant-lite happy clappy "worship" time rather than a liturgical act.  The beauty of Latin was substituted for the inaccuracies and sloppiness of English.  Those things do weigh importantly on not only how the Church views herself, but also what it considers true worship.
there is a bunch of inanities in here and the accompanying triumphalism and this talk about "worship" sounds ironically protestant.

What are the inanities?

I think they are the folks that live in Inanitia   Roll Eyes
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.183 seconds with 70 queries.