OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 30, 2014, 09:30:34 PM *
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 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why the RCC isn't Orthodox  (Read 10329 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« on: November 03, 2003, 07:37:10 PM »

Seeing the most recent joint statement regarding the filioque has gotten me thinking.  Suppose Rome makes a statement rejecting dual procession saying they ment per Filium all along (sort of like the Non-Chaledian game...see we were never really monophysites wink wink) which I don't see as being all that unlikely.  The basic impact of this new directive is to yank the Filioque from use in the RCC.  Then Rome comes out with some document to save face but at the same time basicly nullifies Vatican I and other Papal asperations, which does seem unlikely although not completely out of the picture.  At the end of the day nothing really major changes on the parish level, the daily lives of the average Catholic is no different.  

Thus I think all the joint statements and dialouges and such are all missing the boat.  The primary heresy of the latins is that of Barlaam.  The filioque is a touchy subject because it is not clear weather it means dual procession or per Filium and the RCC has wavered on this point!  The Papal claims are the natural result of rationalistic docrtine superceding hesychism.  So in the end both of those are symptoms of the big problem and even eliminating both of them will not bring the RCC any closer to Orthodoxy.  

The best writter IMO on this topic is Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpatkos.  His works aren't polemic in nature but they do show have unique Orthodoxy is and that is more than just a collection of doctrines to be assented to.  It is only when Orthodoxy is viewed as a collection of doctrines and not the living body of Christ and the cure of the soul that Barlaamism can be believed.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2003, 08:22:56 PM by +Â¥+¦+¦-ä+¼-ü+¦++-é » Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2003, 09:48:08 PM »

Eureka!  I have copied down this post and am sending it to JP2.  I expect tomorrow he will put back into effect the excommunication of the patriarch of Constantinople and those previously engaged at the Vatican in the work of ecumenism will be looking for other work.

I think the problem is not Barlaamism or the filioque but rather a lack of humility.  Both on the part of East and West.  It reminds me of the episode in the Gosple where the rich young man goes away sad when Jesus tells him to give up all his possessions.  I think that at times we are that rich young man.  Jesus calls us to follow him and give up our "possessions" which in some cases is our "orthodoxy" or "catholicism".  But rather than the rich young man going away sad it is Jesus who goes away sad as we hold too tightly to our ecclesiologies.

In the early undivided Church theologians were not people with M.Div's or Ph.D's but rather people who prayed.  Maybe if we turned more to prayer we might just get closer to that union Jesus prayed for in his high priestly prayer.

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Mexican
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
Posts: 489


« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2003, 11:00:19 PM »

Even if the RC gave up all its stuff, filioque, purgatory, immaculate conception, papal supremacy. Our leaders would say NO to union with them and they would see it as a "trojan horse" or a strategy of the Vatican to become the owner of the Church again.

Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2003, 11:51:06 PM »

Quote
I think the problem is not Barlaamism or the filioque but rather a lack of humility.  Both on the part of East and West.  It reminds me of the episode in the Gosple where the rich young man goes away sad when Jesus tells him to give up all his possessions.  I think that at times we are that rich young man.  Jesus calls us to follow him and give up our "possessions" which in some cases is our "orthodoxy" or "catholicism".  But rather than the rich young man going away sad it is Jesus who goes away sad as we hold too tightly to our ecclesiologies.

We need to give up our faith to follow the Lord?  That makes no sense.  Christ established a  (note the singular here) Church on earth - how can ignoring this facilatate anything based on Truth rather than humanistic goals?

Quote
In the early undivided Church theologians were not people with M.Div's or Ph.D's but rather people who prayed.  Maybe if we turned more to prayer we might just get closer to that union Jesus prayed for in his high priestly prayer.

The modern theologian that has had the greatest impact on my life had second grade education.  The heart and soul of Orthodox Theology is the Holy Mountain, and to this day has many monastics who are uneducated in the worldly sense of the word.  So you argument isn't true.  Besides the theology of Saints like Saint Gregory Palamas is timeless and is still as applicable today as when it was used to condemn the heretic Barlaam initially.  Even the theologians that are very well educated like Metr. Hierotheos base thier writtings on patristics and prayer life, not dry academics.  

The Church Chirst established is One and will always be one.  The bizarre notion that we are working to create this is foriegn to True Christianity which confesses, "I believe in ONE, holy, catholic and apostolic Church."  

Quote
Even if the RC gave up all its stuff, filioque, purgatory, immaculate conception, papal supremacy. Our leaders would say NO to union with them and they would see it as a "trojan horse" or a strategy of the Vatican to become the owner of the Church again.

This misses the entire point of what I said in my first post.  These things are simply symptoms of the heresy of Barlaam.  And it is Barlaamism that keeps the RCC from returning to Orthodoxy since many of the other issues have been resolved to an extent.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,481


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 04, 2003, 02:38:08 AM »

The heart and soul of Orthodox Theology is the Holy Mountain...

Really?  Why?
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
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #5 on: November 04, 2003, 08:53:33 AM »

Nektarios

From my study of Orthodoxy and my brief experience of actually being Orthodox I don't think the heart and soul of Orthodoxy is the Holy Mountain but rather Jesus Christ.  I know the East and West have drifted apart since 1054 but not that much.

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #6 on: November 04, 2003, 07:18:48 PM »

Quote
From my study of Orthodoxy and my brief experience of actually being Orthodox I don't think the heart and soul of Orthodoxy is the Holy Mountain but rather Jesus Christ.

You misquoted.  I said Orthodox Theology not Orthodoxy....But it really is impossibel to carry on this discussion with someone who doesn't believe the Church of Christ exists or believes that it is divided.  


Phil,

Since the theologian is one who prays and there is no place in the world more condusive to prayer...logically it follow that the Holy Mountian would produce many great theologians.  From the Holy Mountain came Palamite theology, St. Paisus and the Russian revival of monasticism, countless Saintly elders who have served as spiritual fathers to lay people and monasteries all across the Orthodox world.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,481


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 04, 2003, 07:59:05 PM »

Since the theologian is one who prays and there is no place in the world more condusive to prayer...logically it follow that the Holy Mountian would produce many great theologians.  From the Holy Mountain came Palamite theology, St. Paisus and the Russian revival of monasticism, countless Saintly elders who have served as spiritual fathers to lay people and monasteries all across the Orthodox world.  

Dear Nektarios,

I don't doubt that the theologian is one who prays, and that the Holy Mountain has produced many great theologians.  What I reject is that "The heart and soul of Orthodox Theology is the Holy Mountain...".  I think that's an overstatement.
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
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #8 on: November 04, 2003, 08:12:25 PM »

Nektarios

I misquoted you. True.  Though I don't think anyone would have a problem with saying the heart and soul of Orthodoxy or it's theology is Jesus Christ.  

What makes you think I don't think the Church of Christ exists??   I don't think we know each other so I don't think you can pretend to know my ecclesiology.

By the way the Church of Christ does exist it's called the Holy Roman Catholic Church whose visible head here on earth in the Roman Pontiff.

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #9 on: November 04, 2003, 08:20:15 PM »

Seeing the most recent joint statement regarding the filioque has gotten me thinking.  Suppose Rome makes a statement rejecting dual procession saying they ment per Filium all along (sort of like the Non-Chaledian game...see we were never really monophysites wink wink) which I don't see as being all that unlikely.  The basic impact of this new directive is to yank the Filioque from use in the RCC.  Then Rome comes out with some document to save face but at the same time basicly nullifies Vatican I and other Papal asperations, which does seem unlikely although not completely out of the picture.  At the end of the day nothing really major changes on the parish level, the daily lives of the average Catholic is no different.  

Thus I think all the joint statements and dialouges and such are all missing the boat.  The primary heresy of the latins is that of Barlaam.  The filioque is a touchy subject because it is not clear weather it means dual procession or per Filium and the RCC has wavered on this point!  The Papal claims are the natural result of rationalistic docrtine superceding hesychism.  So in the end both of those are symptoms of the big problem and even eliminating both of them will not bring the RCC any closer to Orthodoxy.  

The best writter IMO on this topic is Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpatkos.  His works aren't polemic in nature but they do show have unique Orthodoxy is and that is more than just a collection of doctrines to be assented to.  It is only when Orthodoxy is viewed as a collection of doctrines and not the living body of Christ and the cure of the soul that Barlaamism can be believed.  

Hey...I am new here but I thought I'd throw in my opinion.

I totally agree with you..it seems as if most Roman Catholics would ahve no problem throwing the Filioque out. As a Roman Catholic I can most certainly say that Roman Catholics are more concerned about hold hands during the Our Father prayer, altar girls, the Old mass vs. the new mass, ect. than the filioque. I have met many Roman Catholics, including RCC priests, who believe the filioque was a mistake and should be thrown out for the sake of unity. But we have a problem here, Rome just can't throw it out over night and expect the Orthodox to come running back. Rome has declared the filioque offical Church dogma, meaning the Pope can take it out of the Creed but to take it out of the Chruch teaching he must declare it a mistake and declare that the Roman Catholic ecumenical councils of the 13th centuries were in error and in fact not guided by the Holy Spirit, which I doubt he or any other Pope would ever do!

Most Roman Catholics think if the Eastern Orthodox bishops and clergy understand Rome will respect their traditions and that rome will trash the filioque, they will drop everything and come into communion with the Pope. However from my study of Orthodoxy (I am converting to Orthodoxy) union can only be re-established when Rome repents of her heresies and comes back to the true apostolic faith.

Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,481


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 04, 2003, 08:30:33 PM »

By the way the Church of Christ does exist it's called the Holy Roman Catholic Church whose visible head here on earth in the Roman Pontiff.

Needless to say, this is not the position of the Orthodox Church.  The Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ, from which Rome separated herself.  

Carpo-Rusyn, I've received messages from people who think that your statement is an example of proselytism.  On the surface, I do not see it as such, but since you also made at least one statement in the past that sounded a lot like proselytism, be advised that the administrators are considering this issue, and the larger question of proselytism in general, and are in the last stages of finalising a policy on this.  I'm not going to censor this since we are not done with our work yet, but remember that while you are free to express what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about itself, please try to make clearer in the future that this is all it is so that it doesn't come across as proselytism among Orthodox on an Orthodox board, which is clearly against our regulations.  Thank you.  
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
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #11 on: November 04, 2003, 08:41:21 PM »

Carpo- Rusyn...

I respect your opinions but I must disagree with you.

"By the way the Church of Christ does exist it's called the Holy Roman Catholic Church whose visible head here on earth in the Roman Pontiff."

This statement is clearly not the teaching of the Orthodox Church, and probably not the beliefs of many who post here, but I understan where you are coming from, I used to and to some extent believe as you do. But I must say in all respect that there is truly one Church out there, a Chruch that holds firm to the faith of teh Apostles and the Church fathers, a Church that is lead in truth by the Holy Spirit, a Church who's head is Jesus Christ: THE ORTHODOX CHURCH.

God bless.

Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #12 on: November 04, 2003, 08:42:41 PM »

ps. please excuse my spelling errors....I'm a horrible typer :$
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Justinianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255



« Reply #13 on: November 04, 2003, 09:18:05 PM »

I know the East and West have drifted apart since 1054 but not that much.

Carpo-Rusyn

That is an incredible statement.  I would say the theological differences are considerable.  Filioque, indulgences, purgatory, immaculate conception, increased earthly authority of the Roman Pontiff, Vatican I, Vatican II, the Novus Ordo "mass."

I would say the Ukrainian Catholics are closer to Orthodoxy, but that is all at the pleasure of Rome.
Logged

"If we truly think of Christ as our source of holiness, we shall refrain from anything wicked or impure in thought or act and thus show ourselves to be worthy bearers of his name.  For the quality of holiness is shown not by what we say but by what w
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #14 on: November 04, 2003, 09:39:57 PM »

Ben,
I fully expected you to disagree with me and I in turn respect your opinions.

Mor Ephrem,
I was most certainly not trying to gain converts to Rome.  I was just representing what the RCC believes.  I am awed that you've gotten messages that some think I am proselytizing.  I never thought I was a veritable St. Paul of the keyboard.

I was heatedly reacting to a comment by Nekatarios in which he implied that I didn't believe the Church of Christ exists that I found to be offensive.  This is the free for all section of the forum, I intrepreted free for all as just that.  My apologies.

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #15 on: November 04, 2003, 09:56:18 PM »

[Carpo-Rusyn, I've received messages from people who think that your statement is an example of proselytism. ]

I disagree.  It's his opinion right, wrong, or indifferent.  And he should have a right to say it on this board.

Though I whole heartly disagree with him, the issue should be debated rather than him censored. Isn't that why we are here?  But what do I know?

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #16 on: November 04, 2003, 10:09:03 PM »

Thank you Orthodoc.

And again I wasn't prosletyizing.  For all the people worried about my ability to convert others through a few posts...I thank you.  My homiletics prof never thought I'd amount to anything.

Carpo_Rusyn
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,481


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 04, 2003, 10:27:58 PM »

I disagree.  It's his opinion right, wrong, or indifferent.  And he should have a right to say it on this board.

Though I whole heartly disagree with him, the issue should be debated rather than him censored. Isn't that why we are here?  But what do I know?

Dear Orthodoc,

I noted in my post that I didn't feel on the surface that what he said was proselytism.  However, it was an issue at least once in the recent past when there was confusion over something he said.  I did not censor his remarks; they remain as they were originally written.  I don't think I even warned him in any *disciplinary* sense.  It was simply a reminder that proselytising is not allowed, and that the administrators are in the process of finalising an official policy on it that we will publish and impose, and so it would be good if he could make what he is saying more clear in the future.  If he is expressing his personal belief, that is fine (and yes, he is entitled to his belief; I am not insisting that everyone here believe the same things).  If he is expressing the belief of the RCC, that is also fine.  But for the time being, I'd appreciate it if it was made more clear in the posts themselves.
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
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #18 on: November 04, 2003, 10:56:18 PM »

OK we have to consider several things:

1) This is the free for all
2) Some people are attacking the RCC by stating things that may not be accurate
3) CR is trying to answer misconceptions without proselytizing--I have spoken to him about this and that's not his intent.  If he makes a statement like "the Church of Christ is the RCC" he could of course and should of course clarify that but let's cut him a bit of slack here.

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #19 on: November 04, 2003, 11:32:26 PM »

What's with your new avatar, the "icon" of "St." Dustin anastasios, anastasios?   Huh
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 04, 2003, 11:39:03 PM »

Rest assured, I did NOT do that!!
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
SamB
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 784

Crates of araq for sale! *hic*


« Reply #21 on: November 04, 2003, 11:44:29 PM »

Yikes, Dustin.

No, I don't think that will do.  I'm afraid some of Bobby's old tricks do manage to cross some serious lines.

In IC XC
Samer
Logged
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #22 on: November 05, 2003, 01:37:58 AM »


Mor Ephrem:

I was replying to the comments you received from others regarding accusations he was proseltying.  Not your own personal comments on the matter.  I agree with what you write.

So let me clarify what I meant.  I don't believe he was proseltyzing but  making statements that he believes and upholds.

I'm not sure what was contained in any other of his post so I will leave the monitoring up to you and trust your judgement in the matter.

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,481


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 05, 2003, 02:11:40 AM »

Thanks, Orthodoc.  I'm sorry for any confusion!
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
LatinTrad
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


www.unavoce.org www.christendom.edu


« Reply #24 on: November 05, 2003, 07:00:34 PM »

Over at Byzcath we actually got a relatively sophisticated discussion of the Filioque going.

A few points to keep in mind:

1) The dogma referred to by the Filioque is the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son as from a single source and by a single spiration.

2) Even if (hypothetically) we were to start saying the Creed-sans-Filioque this dogma would not be dropped.  It was solemnly defined by the Ecumenical Council of Florence Wink Wink in the 1430's.

3) In the Summa Theologiae, Q. 36 a 2-4, St. Thomas Aquinas (interestingly enough) deals first with "Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son," and then with "Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son," and answers affirmatively to both questions!  Thus, the "per Filium" is actually an explanation of the manner in which the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

4) The semanitc issue cannot be overlooked.  The Catholic Church never inserted an "ek tou hyiou" after the "ekpeuromenon" in the Greek version of the Creed.  It has been suggested that this was because the Latin verb "procedit" allows for the per Filium understanding, while the Greek participle does not.  For what it's worth.

Blessings to all my potential proselytes! Wink Shocked

(Hey Dustin don't hyperventilate Cool)

LatinTrad
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #25 on: November 05, 2003, 07:33:54 PM »


Blessings to all my potential proselytes! Wink Shocked


LatinTrad

Dream on!

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
bripat22
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 182


Slava Tebie, Boze nas! Slava Tebie


« Reply #26 on: November 05, 2003, 07:36:17 PM »


.

Blessings to all my potential proselytes! Wink Shocked

(Hey Dustin don't hyperventilate Cool)

LatinTrad


 you gotta watch this rampant Latinizer!!!!!!!!!! Grin


   "O Lord, Save Thy People and Bless Thine Inheritance, Grant Victories to the ORthodox Christians over their Adversaries and by Virtue of Thy Cross, Preserve Thy Habitation!"

     "O Righteous Father Alexis, our Heavenly Intercessor and Teacher!  O Bright Adornment of the Church of Christ!
     Entreat the MAster of All, to strengthen the Orthodox Faith in America, to grant Peace to the World and to our Souls, Great Mercy!"
Logged

For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like!-

                            Maggie Smith "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie"
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #27 on: November 05, 2003, 07:47:03 PM »

Latin Trad

I thought the Pope had assigned me to prosletyizing this forum.  Maybe I missed a meeting and got reassigned.

ADMG

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,744



« Reply #28 on: November 05, 2003, 07:55:00 PM »

LT are you evangelizing for the Old Roman Rite here ?

Let me get the odds when I'm in Vegas this weekend and I'll get back to you.

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #29 on: November 05, 2003, 08:52:13 PM »

LT,

The Orthodox anathematized the idea that the Son proceeds even from a single spiration at the Council of Blachernae in 1285.

Source: Crisis in Byzantium: The Filioque Controversy in the Patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #30 on: November 05, 2003, 09:31:03 PM »

Since we are on the issue of the Filioque and since the council of Blachernae was mentioned I thought I would quote the Tomus of the council of Blachernae:

"We also render void their dangerous doctrine concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit. We have been taught from God, the word himself, that the all-Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father; and we confess that it has its existence from the Father, and that it prides itself-exactly as the Son Himself does- in the fact that the same [Father] is essentally the cause of its being. And we know and believe that the Son is from the Father, being enriched in having the Father as His cause and natural principle, an in being consubstanial an of one nature with the Spirit, which is from the Father. Even so, He is not, either separately or with the Father, the cause of the Spirit; for the all-Holy Spirit's exsistence is NOT "through the Son" and "and from the Son" as they who hasten toward their destruction and seperation from God understand and teach."

This is of course not the entire tomus of the council but I feel this part best wraps up the Orthodox opinion on the Filioque.

Many will say that the council of Blachernae misunderstood the filioque and that the filioque just means the Son is invloved in the spiration but that the spirit actually proceeds from the Father. Praise God is this were true but it is not. The Roman Catholic council of Florence clearly declared the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as one source.

GBU!
« Last Edit: November 05, 2003, 09:34:39 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #31 on: November 05, 2003, 10:42:11 PM »

The Council of Florence also declared a few other controversial things - that the souls of the unbaptized would go straight to eternal punishment in hell (this was also understood to include unbaptized infants following the teaching of Bl. Augustine, and the definition of the Council of Carthage of 418 A.D.) The Feeneyites are probably the only ones who still hold this view.

Florence declared:

"In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence....also that the explanationof the words "and from the Son" was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need....Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. "

In contrast, after the Filioque was condemned during the 6th Session of the Council of Constantinople in 879-880 (in the presence of the Papal legates) Pope John VIII made himself clear in his correspondence with St. Photius [Epistle No. 8] that "we preserved it as we originally received it, without adding to or taking anything from it. To set you at ease thus, upon this subject, which has been a cause of scandal to the Church, we again declare to you that not only do we thus recite it but even condemn those who in their folly have had the audacity to act otherwise from the beginning, as violators of the Divine Word, and falsifiers of the doctrine of Christ, of the Apostles, and of the Fathers, who have transmitted the Creed to us through the Councils; we declare that their portion is that of Judas, because they have acted like him, since, if it be not the body of Christ itself which they put to death, it is, at all events, the faithful of God who are his members, whom they tear by schism, giving them up, as well as themselves, to eternal death, as also did that base Apostle. Nevertheless, I think that your Holiness, so full of wisdom, is aware of the difficulty of making our bishops share this opinion, and of changing at once so important a practice which has taken root for so many years. We therefore believe it is best not to force any one to abandon that addition to the Creed, but we must act with moderation and prudence, little by little, exhorting them to renounce that blasphemy. Thus, then, those who accuse us of sharing this opinion do not speak the truth."

« Last Edit: November 05, 2003, 10:43:12 PM by Byzantino » Logged
Justinianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255



« Reply #32 on: November 05, 2003, 10:51:26 PM »


2) Even if (hypothetically) we were to start saying the Creed-sans-Filioque this dogma would not be dropped.  It was solemnly defined by the Ecumenical Council of Florence Wink Wink in the 1430's.

LatinTrad

The Arians held a council back in the 4th Century and called it ecumenical.  By this logic in point #2, we would need to consider even what the Arains said in their "ecumenical council".   Shocked  Councils outside the Orthodox Church can not be considered, even if the participants called it "ecumenical" Smiley
Logged

"If we truly think of Christ as our source of holiness, we shall refrain from anything wicked or impure in thought or act and thus show ourselves to be worthy bearers of his name.  For the quality of holiness is shown not by what we say but by what w
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #33 on: November 05, 2003, 11:18:12 PM »

Justianus

I don't get you.  The Arians were considered by both East and West as heretics therefore outside what was then an undivided Church therefore their council couldn't be ecumenical.  Though I guess EO's consider RC's as heretics so therefore our councils don't count as ecumenical.  Right?  

But then again the Patriarch of New Rome was at the Council of Florence and he signed off on everything.  So where does that leave the issue.  I know St Mark of Ephesus ran screaming from the council but the Patriarch went along with things which is a pity as Constantinople didn't get the expected military help they wanted.

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Mexican
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
Posts: 489


« Reply #34 on: November 05, 2003, 11:29:41 PM »

In my modest opinion, I always believed Oriental Orthodox and the Latin Church to be Apostolic Churches, remnants of the Universal Undivided Church, who shared at some extent the Orthodox faith, in spite of the terminological differences and political problems between those Churches. This continue to be true among the Non-Chalcedonians.

But now I see that the John Paul II-Vatican II Church departs more and more from this Catholic Orthodox faith. I was reading this article written by a traditional Roman priest comparing this Church with Plant Pluto, which will be out of the Solar system "soon". This is the modern Roman Church. This is why I'm so respectful of traditional Roman Catholicism.

And we must accept that even ROCOR Bishops and theologians have respect for Pope St. Pius X and many of his predecessors, who in spite of their extreme ambition of supremacy and power, were enough conscious of our differences and had enough moral courage to defend that outside the Church there is no salvation (as they mentioned this in their documents regarding Ecumenism, stating that protestantism was also attacking and infiltrating Roman catholics!).

Even when Orthodoxy seems some kind of divided, the liturgy, the mysteries have preserved all their holliness and ancient character and there are many Bishops who will never let strange ideas or reforms to appear.
Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #35 on: November 05, 2003, 11:32:28 PM »

Carpy, the Orthodox Church doesn't recognize even the Council of Florence as "Ecumenical," as you well know.  The Orthodox bishops were forced to repudiate everything they had "signed off on" at Florence upon their return home ("Better the Turkish turban than the Papal tiara," as the saying goes).  The Eastern laos, i.e., the People of God, never accepted the ecumenicity of Florence.  The Orthodox do not recognize any of the Councils of the West as "Ecumenical" or binding on the Orthodox since the Western Schism of 1054 AD from the Orthodox.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #36 on: November 05, 2003, 11:40:23 PM »

Dear Hypo

You mean none of them were ecumenical!!??  I don't know how I'm going to break it to JP2!!!  But hey we invited you guys to both Vatican 1 and 2 maybe even to Trent (though I'm not sure about this one...did we invite you or the Prots).  You even showed up to Vatican2!  It still doesn't count?  

Oh well.  

Carpy
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #37 on: November 05, 2003, 11:49:03 PM »

Carp,

You have such a warped and strange view of the history of the Church I really don't know where to begin....
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #38 on: November 05, 2003, 11:51:49 PM »

Mexican

I want to make it clear I'm not trying to convert you.  But what makes you say that the RCC is "departing more and more from the Catholic Orthodox faith"?

As far as no salvation outside the Church...Boniface VII has sure caused a lot of problems with this.  Like a good little papist I'll have to check my catechism and get back to you.

Just to clarify though it's not JP2's church or Vatican 2's church.  The 2nd Vatican Council was our most recent council and (at least in RC ecclesiology) the Church is Jesus Christ's JP2 is just minding the store.

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #39 on: November 05, 2003, 11:52:49 PM »

Protestants and Eastern Orthodox were invited to send "observers" to Vatican II as a courtesy gesture, C-R.  That's all whichever Orthodox representing their Churches at Vatican II were: OBSERVERS.   I think you already know this.  Perhaps you are confusing the Protestant observers at Vatican II with "Council Fathers"?  Grin

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #40 on: November 05, 2003, 11:56:34 PM »

Nektarios

You'll have to forgive me my church history has been warped by my papist upbringing.  Perhaps you can re-educate me.

CR
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #41 on: November 05, 2003, 11:59:05 PM »

Hypo

Some of the Council Fathers acted like they were the Prot observers. We probably would've done better listening to some of the observers.  

UH OH!  I hope the Holy Office doesn't read this post I could be drummed out of the RCC

CR
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #42 on: November 06, 2003, 12:11:17 AM »

Mexican,

Just an FYI I found this in one of the Vatican 2 documents

    "For they who without their own fault do not
know of the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek God with sincere
heart, and try, under the influence of grace, to carry out His will in
practice, known to them through the dictate of conscience, can attain
eternal salvation."

This is from Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church.  I can probably find more if you are interested.  

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #43 on: November 06, 2003, 12:30:21 AM »

Some of the Council Fathers acted like they were the Prot observers. We probably would've done better listening to some of the observers.  

UH OH!  I hope the Holy Office doesn't read this post I could be drummed out of the RCC

LOL!

C-R, to be fair, there were a few (very few) Catholic Council Fathers at Vatican II who had the respect of the Orthodox and who spoke for the Orthodox observers.  The one that was most prominent and comes immediately to mind was the late Melkite Greek-Catholic Patriarch of Antioch, Maximos IV Cardinal Hakim.  I can't think of any others at the moment.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #44 on: November 06, 2003, 12:45:37 AM »

"For they who without their own fault do not
know of the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek God with sincere
heart, and try, under the influence of grace, to carry out His will in
practice, known to them through the dictate of conscience, can attain
eternal salvation."


But CR, is the above statement reconcilable with the following, from the Council of Florence?


"The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire "which was prepared for the devil, and his angels," (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."


Wouldn't you think that, if the Council of Florence was legitimately assembled in the Holy Spirit as it claims, a qualification or clause would've been given along the same lines as the above statement from Vatican II? After all, Councils are the mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit. Pope Leo III basically said that the 'Filioque' clause was deliberately not included in the Creed on the basis of divine inspiration. The Florentine definition certainly seems to exclude the concession of allowing the 'invincibly ignorant' a chance at salvation.  

« Last Edit: November 06, 2003, 12:57:59 AM by Byzantino » Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #45 on: November 06, 2003, 01:20:26 AM »

Wow I watch a movie for 3 hours and come back to the fireworks!

Great discussion, everyone! Let's keep it focused on the issues, though--I am seeing the beginnings of "drift" ;-)

Administratively yours,

anastasios ;-)
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,744



« Reply #46 on: November 06, 2003, 01:24:38 AM »

Is'nt it peachy to debate in front of the good old PC with a good cup of your farvorite beverage and stimulate those under used slightly damaged brain cells ?

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #47 on: November 06, 2003, 06:12:25 AM »

Byzantino

I have to go back and check that quote from Florence.


Hypo

What about that other council father John XXIII?  I've heard he was well regarded by the East for all that he a bit of a papist.

CR
Logged
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #48 on: November 06, 2003, 07:52:52 AM »

Pope Bl. John XXIII is the paragon of Papacy.  If only he had lived longer.
Logged
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #49 on: November 06, 2003, 08:26:29 AM »

I think the average life expectancy, once someone becomes Pope, is something like three years.

I'll have to check this again sometime.

John
Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #50 on: November 06, 2003, 12:38:53 PM »

Hypo

What about that other council father John XXIII?  I've heard he was well regarded by the East for all that he a bit of a papist.

CR

C-R, first of all, is it really necessary for you to continue to use the deprecatory term "papist" in reference to RC's?  You don't see me using it--if I did, you'd be all over me about it.

At any rate, Pope John XXIII was an affable figure and liked by all, but, affable as he was, he was not the spokesman for the Eastern Orthodox observers at Vatican II in the same manner as Cardinal Hakim, the Melkite Greek-Catholic Patriarch, although John did acknowledge the official observers' presence (including the Protestant observers).

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
LatinTrad
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


www.unavoce.org www.christendom.edu


« Reply #51 on: November 06, 2003, 02:06:22 PM »

I don't have time to write a post because I'm at work, so I'll just respond to a couple of Byzantino's points.

You are misunderstanding Florence on two points.  First of all, the unbaptized infants--Florence affirms the constant teaching that without baptism one cannot achieve salvation.  It does not say that unbaptized infants suffer eternal punishment.  Moreover, the tradition of the Church holds that salvation is possible--although by no means certain or probable--for those who are baptized in desire (in voto).  Feeneyites reject the latter possibility.

Secondly, regarding the "heretics and schismatics" et al:  That quote does not contradict Lumen Gentium--although the Church is a completely visible institution those who are invincibly ignorant (i.e. only materially, not formally schismatic) are united to her.  Re-read the quote from Florence carefully.

It is very frustrating because I wish I had time to respond to everything, but . . .


LatinTrad
Logged
Justinianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255



« Reply #52 on: November 06, 2003, 02:18:12 PM »

Justianus

I don't get you.  The Arians were considered by both East and West as heretics therefore outside what was then an undivided Church therefore their council couldn't be ecumenical.  Though I guess EO's consider RC's as heretics so therefore our councils don't count as ecumenical.  Right?  

But then again the Patriarch of New Rome was at the Council of Florence and he signed off on everything.  So where does that leave the issue.  I know St Mark of Ephesus ran screaming from the council but the Patriarch went along with things which is a pity as Constantinople didn't get the expected military help they wanted.

Carpo-Rusyn

Sorry, the point I was trying to make was in my last sentence:

 "Councils outside the Orthodox Church can not be considered, even if the participants called it "ecumenical"

Florence is not considered ecumenical by the Orthodox, because it was rejected by the orthodox Church.  So bringing up Florence has no meaning to the Orthodox.

Some Orthodox consider Roman Catholics as heretics, while some do not.  As for me personnaly, I will remain silent for now on that question.

Logged

"If we truly think of Christ as our source of holiness, we shall refrain from anything wicked or impure in thought or act and thus show ourselves to be worthy bearers of his name.  For the quality of holiness is shown not by what we say but by what w
Justinianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255



« Reply #53 on: November 06, 2003, 02:27:11 PM »

You are misunderstanding Florence on two points.  
LatinTrad

Why is Florence being brought up so often?  It is not an ecumenical council recognized by the Orthodox Church.  If we are going to discuss councils, we have to review those prior to 1054.  Discussing so called "ecumenical councils" held by the Roman Church are not relevant.  Smiley
Logged

"If we truly think of Christ as our source of holiness, we shall refrain from anything wicked or impure in thought or act and thus show ourselves to be worthy bearers of his name.  For the quality of holiness is shown not by what we say but by what w
LatinTrad
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


www.unavoce.org www.christendom.edu


« Reply #54 on: November 06, 2003, 04:55:46 PM »

I brought up Florence again in order to set the record straight, and because it was being discussed by others.

Even if you reject Florence, it should have some meaning to you--namely, to clarify the position of the Holy Catholic Church.

LatinTrad

Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #55 on: November 06, 2003, 05:38:44 PM »

Hypo-Orthodox

You can feel free to call me a papist anytime.  You're right about Card. Hakim.

As far as the council of Florence...I forget how it got in.

I think the bottom line to all this is that the RCC isn't Orthodox.  Did we ever say we were?  You're EO we're RC maybe we'll unite someday but that's up to God.  We can all (or at least some of us) can pray for that.  But if we're not Orthodox why hasn't someone setup an Orthodox bishop of Rome?  

CR
Logged
LatinTrad
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


www.unavoce.org www.christendom.edu


« Reply #56 on: November 06, 2003, 05:41:37 PM »

Carpo, we ARE Orthodox!!

Orthodox means "correct opinion."


LatinTrad

-----------------------------------------

" . . . et pro omnibus orthodoxis, atque catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultoribus."  --The Roman Canon
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #57 on: November 06, 2003, 05:55:09 PM »

Latin Trad

I'm a little fried from work but doesn't orthodox mean right glory?  I do agree and feel appropriately orthodox as an RC.

CR
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #58 on: November 06, 2003, 06:16:52 PM »

orthodox= upright (or erect or upstanding) glory

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Justinianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255



« Reply #59 on: November 06, 2003, 06:26:01 PM »

I brought up Florence again in order to set the record straight, and because it was being discussed by others.

Even if you reject Florence, it should have some meaning to you--namely, to clarify the position of the Holy Catholic Church.

LatinTrad



Ok.  


 On another note, I appreciate your use of Latin.  I also admire the language and use it often in reading the Vulgate, the Church Fathers, and the great Roman classics.  It is too bad, the Holy Catholic Church embraced Protestantism and threw out the Tridentine Mass and added the guitars and folk singing.  I still listen to Gregorian Chants and am a great fan of Palestrina.  Even if the Papacy wanted to eliminate the Latin, the Tridentine Mass could have been translated to the vernacular instead of being replaced with the Novus Ordo. The Tridentine shows far more reverance to our Savior.
Logged

"If we truly think of Christ as our source of holiness, we shall refrain from anything wicked or impure in thought or act and thus show ourselves to be worthy bearers of his name.  For the quality of holiness is shown not by what we say but by what w
Justinianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255



« Reply #60 on: November 06, 2003, 06:34:44 PM »

Latin Trad

I'm a little fried from work but doesn't orthodox mean right glory?  I do agree and feel appropriately orthodox as an RC.

CR

I feel appropriately catholic as an EO.  Grin
Logged

"If we truly think of Christ as our source of holiness, we shall refrain from anything wicked or impure in thought or act and thus show ourselves to be worthy bearers of his name.  For the quality of holiness is shown not by what we say but by what w
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #61 on: November 06, 2003, 06:47:18 PM »

I feel appropriately catholic as an EO.  Grin

Touche!

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #62 on: November 06, 2003, 07:07:23 PM »

Justinianus

We didn't really embrace Protestantism or throw out the Tridentine mass.  The NO can be celebrated in Latin or the vernacular.  The Tridentine mass can be celebrated by an priest with permission of the ordinary who we hold to be a successor of the apostles.  As far as guitars and folk singing well....I agree some NO liturgies are painful but the NO can be quite well done.  Check out EWTN if you have cable they do the NO well.  I've been to both NO and Tridentine liturgies and I prefer the NO myself.  It's kind of tough to find aparish that does a good liturgy but whether the liturgy is done NO or TO in Latin or the vernacular whether to the accompaniment of guitars or a well trained schola the point is that Christ throught the words of the priest comes into our midst again.

Carpo-Rusyn

PS  You might have heard this one......What's the difference between a liturgist and a terrorist?

You can negotiate with a terrorist.
Logged
Justinianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255



« Reply #63 on: November 06, 2003, 07:39:53 PM »

Yes, I have seen the Mass on EWTN.  I agree that it is done better than most.  Unfortunately, the Novus Ordo does vary from place to place and the attitude of the priest celebrating it.  Back when I was a Roman Catholic, I saw this especially. Since embracing eastern Christianity first as a Eastern Rite Catholic and later as an Orthodox, I have seen greater consistency and much more reverance.

Logged

"If we truly think of Christ as our source of holiness, we shall refrain from anything wicked or impure in thought or act and thus show ourselves to be worthy bearers of his name.  For the quality of holiness is shown not by what we say but by what w
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #64 on: November 06, 2003, 08:26:42 PM »

Hi LT Smiley

You said:

[First of all, the unbaptized infants--Florence affirms the constant teaching that without baptism one cannot achieve salvation.  It does not say that unbaptized infants suffer eternal punishment.]

I'm having difficulty reconciling your interpretation with the text because it does seem to implicitly condemn infants who die without baptism:

"But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone."

According to the understanding of original sin in the medieval-era RCC, unbaptized infants still have original sin, no? Pope Pius V also issued strong exhortations against delaying baptism for infants on that very basis, in the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

"The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death."

Contextually it's a teaching in line with the Council of Carthage's (418 A.D.) decree on this matter:

"Canon 3. It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said, 'In my Father's house there are many mansions': that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there might be some middle place or some place anywhere where blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the Lord says: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God,' what Catholic would doubt that he will be the partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ? For he who lacks the right will without doubt run into the left."

So as of yet i'm unconvinced by your arguments.

God bless! Smiley

P.S. What kind of work do you do?

« Last Edit: November 06, 2003, 08:29:56 PM by Byzantino » Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #65 on: November 06, 2003, 09:07:00 PM »

Justinianus

I agree celebration of the NO varies depending upon the celebrant.  When I went from RC to EO I noticed the greater degree of reverence in EO priests in celebrating liturgy.  Now that I've returned to RC the sometime (and I have to emphasize the sometime) lack of reverence is disturbing.

CR
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #66 on: November 06, 2003, 09:40:27 PM »

I am Catholic....and a devout traditionalist....I am on my way to Orthodoxy so this means very little to me now, but I could never attend a NO mass, they are truly un-Catholic in my opinion, however I do believe they are valid.

Below I have included a few comon responses you will hear from Roman Catholic Latin Mass Traditionalists when asked why they refuse to attend the NO:

Because the New Mass is not an unequivocal Profession of Catholic faith (which the Traditional Mass is), it is ambiguous and Protestant. Therefore, since we pray as we believe, it follows that we cannot pray with the New Mass in Protestant fashion and still believe as Catholics!

Because the changes were not just slight ones but actually "deal with a fundamental renovation...a total change...a new creation" (Msgr. A. Bugnini, co-author of the New Mass).

Because the New Mass leads us to think "that truths...can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic Faith is bound forever."

Because the New Mass represents "a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent" which, in fixing the "canons," provided an "insurmountable barrier to any heresy against the integrity of the Mystery."  

Because in times of confusion such as now, we are guided by the words of Our Lord: "By their fruits you shall know them." Fruits of the New Mass are: 30% decrease in Sunday Mass in U.S. (NY Times 5/24/75), 43% decrease in France (Cardinal Marty), 50% decrease in Holland (NY Times 1/5/76).  

Because in less than seven years after the introduction of the New Mass, priests in the world decreased from 413,438 to 243,307 -- almost 50% (Holy See Statistics).

Because the New Mass confuses the REAL Presence of Christ in the Eucharist with His MYSTICAL Presence among us (proximating Protestant doctrine).

Because the New Mass blurs what ought to be a sharp difference between the HIERARCHIC Priesthood and the common priesthood of the people (as does Protestantism).

Because the New Mass favors the heretical theory that it is THE FAITH of the people and not THE WORDS OF THE PRIEST which makes Christ present in the Eucharist.  

Because the New Mass does away with the Confiteor of the priest, makes it collective with the people, thus promoting Luther's refusal to accept the Catholic teaching that the priest is judge, witness and intercessor with God.

Because the New Mass gives us to understand that the people concelebrate with the priest -- which is against Catholic theology!

Because six Protestant ministers collaborated in making up the New Mass (Drs. George, Jasper, Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith and Thurian).

Because just as Luther did away with the Offertory -- since it very clearly expressed the sacrificial, propitiatory character of the Mass -- so also the New Mass did away with it, reducing it to a simple Preparation of the Gifts.

Because enough Catholic theology has been removed that Protestants can, while keeping their antipathy for the true Roman Catholic Church, use the text of the New Mass without difficulty. Protestant minister Thurian said that a fruit of the New Mass "will perhaps be that non-Catholic communities will be able to celebrate the Lord's Supper using the same prayers as the Catholic Church." (La Croix 4/30/69).

Because the narrative manner of the Consecration in the New Mass infers that it is only a memorial and not a true sacrifice (Protestant thesis).  

Because the changes such as: table instead of altar, facing people instead of tabernacle, Communion in the hand, etc., emphasize Protestant doctrines (e.g. Mass is only a meal, priest is only apresident of the assembly, etc.).

Because Protestants themselves have said "the new Catholic Eucharistic Prayers have abandoned the false perspective of sacrifice offered to God." (La Croix 12/10/69).

Because the New Mass was made in accordance with the Protestant definition of the Mass: "The Lord's Supper or Mass is a sacred synaxis or assembly of the people of God which gathers together under the presidence of the priest to celebrate the memorial of the Lord" (Par. 7 Introd. to the New Missal, defining the New Mass, 4/6/69).

Because beautiful, familiar Catholic hymns which have inspired people for centuries have been thrown out and replaced with new hymns strongly Protestant in sentiment, further deepening the already distinct impression that one is no longer attending a Catholic function.    

Because Holy Mother Church canonized numerous English martyrs who were killed because they refused to participate at a Mass such as the New Mass!

Because Protestants who once converted to Catholicism are scandalized to see that the New Mass is the same as the one they attended as Protestants. One of them, Julian Green, asks, "Why did we convert?"

Because the traditional Mass has forged many saints. "Innumerable saints have been fed abundantly with the proper piety towards God by it..." (Pope Paul VI, Const. Apost. Missale Romanum)    

Because the New Mass has eliminated such things as: genuflections (only three remain), purifications of the priest's fingers in the chalice, preservation from all profane contact of the priest's fingers after Consecration, sacred altar stone and relics, three altar cloths (reduced to one), all of which "only serve to emphasize how outrageously faith in the dogma of the Real Presence is implicitly repudiated."*  

Because along with the New Mass goes also a new catechism, a new morality, new prayers, new ideas, a new calendar -- in one word, a New Church, a complete revolution from the old. "The liturgical reform...do not be deceived, this is where the revolution begins." (Msgr. Dwyer, Archbishop of Birmingham, spokesman of the Episcopal Synod.)  

Because the New Mass embodies numerous errors condemned dogmatically at the Council of Trent (Mass totally in vernacular, words of Consecration spoken aloud, etc. See Condemnation of Jansenist Synod of Pistoia), and errors condemned by Pope Pius XII (e.g. altar in form of a table. See Mediator Dei.)


Because the altar and tabernacle are now separated, thus marking a division between Christ in His-priest-and-Sacrifice-on-the-altar, from Christ in His Real Presence in the tabernacle, "two things that of their very nature must remain together." (Pope Pius XII)

Because the New Mass no longer constitutes a vertical worship from man to God, but instead a horizontal worship between man and man.

Because the New Mass, although appearing to conform to the dispositions of Vatican Council II, in reality opposes its instructions, since the Council declared its desire to conserve and promote the traditional rite.

Because the traditional Latin Mass of Pope St. Pius V has never been legally abrogated and therefore remains a true rite of the Catholic Church by which Catholics may fulfill their Sunday obligation.

Because Pope St. Pius V granted a perpetual indult, valid "for always," to celebrate the traditional Mass freely, licitly, without scruple of conscience, punishment, sentence or censure" (Papal Bull "Quo Primum").

Because Pope Paul VI, when promulgating the New Mass, himself declared, "The rite...by itself is NOT a dogmatic definition..." (11/19/69)

But as I said...the NO and the Tridentine Masses have little importance to me since I am on my way to Orthodoxy, I thought I'd just post this to give an idea of why exactly Latin Mass Catholics, such as myself, do not attend the NO.

Thanks and God bless

« Last Edit: November 06, 2003, 09:41:18 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #67 on: November 06, 2003, 09:48:27 PM »

Please all who read my last post realize I only posted it to explain why we Traditional Catholics don't attend the Novus Ordo Mass. I did not post it to attack Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo Mass or in some way to show that I am still attached to the Tridentine Latin Mass and am not ready to enter Orthodoxy. As I said the matter of which mass to celebrate in the RCC matters little to me, I am on my way to Orthodoxy, and the Lirturgy of St. John Chrysostom takes my breath away, let me know when Orthodoxy wants to introduce the Novus Ordo Mass , then I'll care ;-) hehe

God bless!
« Last Edit: November 06, 2003, 09:53:22 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,744



« Reply #68 on: November 06, 2003, 10:02:25 PM »

Ben ,

I don't think the "Old School" RC'S will be offended, can't speak for those NO'S.

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #69 on: November 06, 2003, 10:11:21 PM »

Ben
If it doesn't matter to you any longer than there's really no sense in responding. I would say that some of the things you wrote are not really accurate and don't represent RC doctrine or liturgical theology.  I could recommend some good books on the subject. But it doesn't matter to you so why get into it.

Carpo-Rusyn


Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #70 on: November 06, 2003, 10:22:56 PM »

Carpo-Rusyn....

I posted that list from my old SSPX chapel bulliton, with the permition of my old priest, I don't agree with all that is on that list, however it represents the views of Traditional Catholics very well, I say this from the prespective of being involved in the Traditional Catholic movement.

God bless.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2003, 10:23:53 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #71 on: November 06, 2003, 10:26:48 PM »

This thread is a good example of new breed of conservitive Latin.  Re-writting RCC history as they go (i.e. Trent's and Florence's DOGMATIC decrees on the Filioque and unbaptized infants) for a new toned down version.  Same story when purgatory or indulgences are brought up...

This and the people that cling to the illusion of there at one time being some majestic undivided Church that we need to rebuild make honest discussion very hard...
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #72 on: November 06, 2003, 10:27:45 PM »

Ben

Sorry I can't let this go by.


You wrote:Because Holy Mother Church canonized numerous English martyrs who were killed because they refused to participate at a Mass such as the New Mass!

The English martyrs were martyred because they wouldn't submit to the royal supremacy.  They wouldn't conform to the Cof E.  They didn't see the Anglican communion service as a mass.  They were canonized by Holy Mother Chruch at an NO liturgy in Rome.

You wrote: Because Protestants who once converted to Catholicism are scandalized to see that the New Mass is the same as the one they attended as Protestants. One of them, Julian Green, asks, "Why did we convert?"

You cite one person.  If you have cable I would suggest you turn on EWTN each Monday night and you will see many Prots who converted and love the NO liturgy because it is the liturgy of Christ's Church.

You wrote: Because the traditional Mass has forged many saints. "Innumerable saints have been fed abundantly with the proper piety towards God by it..." (Pope Paul VI, Const. Apost. Missale Romanum)  

So the Church stopped producing saints after the liturgy changed?


I'm not trying to convince you to stay RCC or engage in a personal attack but come on.  Sometimes I think that the same people who today who object to the NO would've been objecting to the missal of Pius V.  I could see them saying "What?! We have to give up our liturgy according to the Sarum use or according to the Gallican use?"

Carpo-Rusyn  
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #73 on: November 06, 2003, 10:29:37 PM »

Carpo-Rusyn...

Please understand I didn't post that list to bash the new mass....if you attend the Novus Ordo Mass, I respect your choice. :-)
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #74 on: November 06, 2003, 10:33:08 PM »

Ben

I know you weren't bashing the NO.  I just can't believe some of the wrong info that is still floating around

Nektarios

What would you suggest to open honest dialogue

CR
Logged
Boswell
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 74

Bi, poly, trans and ex-Orthodox


« Reply #75 on: November 06, 2003, 10:41:15 PM »

From my perspective, many prominent former Prots who are now on the EWTN  circuit are former Evangelicals and such, not Anglo-Catholics or those who really care about traditional liturgy. And, quite frankly, that's the NO's problem-too many people have gotten used to mediocrity, even when its done well (extremely rare).

Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #76 on: November 06, 2003, 10:48:15 PM »

Boswell

I don't know about that.  What about Fr George Rutler, former Anglo-Catholic rector of Good Shepherd, Rosemont.  Also Tom Howard who came into the RCC via ANglo-Catholicism.  Also there are quite a few Anglican-Use parishes that have been recieved by Rome.  There might even be more after the NH thing.  Also I don't think saying that Evangelicals aren't interested in traditional liturgy is fair.  Scott Hahn, a prominent former Evangelical wrote quite a nice book on the liturgy.  Also remember former Evangelical Fr Peter Gilquist who was part of a mass infusion of Evangelicals into the Antiochan archdiocese

CR
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #77 on: November 06, 2003, 11:23:16 PM »

Carpo-rusyn....

I am glad you understand I was not bashing the NO.

What exactly is floating around?

God bless!:-)
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #78 on: November 06, 2003, 11:57:58 PM »

Carpo Rusyn..

Remeber that list of "because...."s was not written by me. I said that I got it from my old SSPX chapel's bulliton and posted it with the permission from my old SSPX priest to show what traditional Catholics believe or think about the new mass. As I said I don't agree with the whole list, just most of it.

Just wanted to clarify.

God bless.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2003, 11:59:11 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,530


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #79 on: November 07, 2003, 12:48:19 AM »

The NO stinks - it was a mistake. And RCs can believe that, even while holding that in spite of everything it's valid.
Logged

Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #80 on: November 07, 2003, 01:13:59 AM »

I generally agreed with Serge that the NO should not have come into existence, but I limit my criticism really to two complaints about the NO: lack of incense and facing the people.  Other than that, the local NO Mass I sometimes attend with my wife is quite reverent and Godward--on All Souls' Day it was 1.30 hours!  I am sure there are other issues that bother Tridentine Catholics but I was never a Latin-Rite Catholic so I don't really get into the further points of the debates.

anastasios
« Last Edit: November 07, 2003, 01:14:36 AM by anastasios » Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #81 on: November 07, 2003, 01:46:51 AM »

Serge.....

I agree is does stink..but because it is valid I respect those who attend and serve it.

The NO is truly a protestant mass in my opinion. But I am not a expert on the issue. My biggest objections to the NO are as follows:

- Priest facing the people rather than symbolicaly towards God

- The lack of reverance for the eucharist. For example lay men and women can distribute communion, the people can recieve communion in the hand, people are no longer allowed to kneel when recieving communion, the tabernacle is seperated from the sanctuary and often shoved off to the side or even into a seperate room, priests often, I have noticed ,chew the host...etc.

- Traditional hyms are chucked out the window for modern style (rock /country/ contempary Christian) songs.

- Many powerful and inspiring prayers have been omitted or made optional.

These are just a few things that I find wrong with the NO....I just thank God Orthodoxy has stuck with a wonderful, deep, rich, and awsome litrugy!

God bless.

-
« Last Edit: November 07, 2003, 01:48:43 AM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #82 on: November 07, 2003, 01:54:56 AM »

Ben,

This one really struck a chord:

Because in times of confusion such as now, we are guided by the words of Our Lord: "By their fruits you shall know them." Fruits of the New Mass are: 30% decrease in Sunday Mass in U.S. (NY Times 5/24/75), 43% decrease in France (Cardinal Marty), 50% decrease in Holland (NY Times 1/5/76).  
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #83 on: November 07, 2003, 06:18:56 AM »

Anastasios

There is talk that a new document from the Vatican to be released soon will approve facing God again.  As far as the incense.....we have incense at the NO I go to everytime there is a major feast, not as much as is used in an EO liturgy though.

I think that sometimes people think that asethetics trumps validity.

CR
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,377



« Reply #84 on: November 07, 2003, 06:34:32 PM »

Anastasios

There is talk that a new document from the Vatican to be released soon will approve facing God again.  As far as the incense.....we have incense at the NO I go to everytime there is a major feast, not as much as is used in an EO liturgy though.

I think that sometimes people think that asethetics trumps validity.

I don't have a Novus Ordo rituale-- do the rubrics actually specify which way the priest faces in these terms? The BCP rubrics do not; they specify that some acts are to done facing the people and others facing the table, but they don't dictate that these are the same direction.

As far as aesthetics versus validity, this discussion tends to presuppose the former trumping the latter because the aesthetics of the N-O mass are being used to denounce its validity. Conversely, particularly in the USA validity has trumped aesthetics in the RC church, to the latter's detriment.
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #85 on: November 07, 2003, 06:45:45 PM »

Keble

It's been awhile since I went through the General Instructions on the Roman Missal (GIRM)  but I think it's sort of similar to what you describe for the BCP.  There has also been a new edition of the GIRM released within the past year or two which I haven't had time to look at.

I agree with your point on aesthetics.  But you know the mass has been offered on the hoods of jeeps or in the trenches in wartime.  The mass has been offered in squalid prison cells with no vestments with the bread and wine in the palm of the priest's hand.  Shouldn't we look beyond the externals to the greater reality that is present.

Carpo-Rusyn

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
SamB
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 784

Crates of araq for sale! *hic*


« Reply #86 on: November 07, 2003, 07:11:05 PM »

The N.O.'s primary and most overlooked problem as I see it, isn't its objective worth in comparison with other Missae, although it fails on that point in all cases, but the manner of its creation.  One who understands tradition properly realises that any liturgy created in the fashion the N.O. was, even were it to be objectively superior to the liturgy it replaces, would still have come to exist by improper and undesirable means by architects who could only have been cocky beyond belief.

In IC XC
Samer
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #87 on: November 07, 2003, 07:28:50 PM »

SamB

The NO was the product of a ecumenical council and approved by the Vicar of Christ it doesn't get anymore proper than that.  I think the pope and other council fathers had a pretty good grasp of tradition.  Sometimes I think some people (not you Sam) think that at Vatican2 the Holy Spirit was busy somewhere else and the council fathers were in league with Satan or drunk on chianti. Let's have a little faith in the promises Christ made.


You mention other missae, which were you referring to? Just curious.

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
SamB
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 784

Crates of araq for sale! *hic*


« Reply #88 on: November 07, 2003, 11:48:20 PM »

The NO was the product of a ecumenical council and approved by the Vicar of Christ it doesn't get anymore proper than that.

Not so.  Vatican II never mandated the creation of a new Mass, and this can never be the intention of any legitimate or sane movement for liturgical reform, such as that which preceded the Council and sought to make apparently needed corrections.  As for legal procedures, they can not be the sole benchmark by which to guage the appropriateness of an unprecedented act of this sort.  The N.O. was a horrendous mistake in prudential judgement and, yes, a breach of traditional norms and understandings concerning liturgical formation.

Quote
I think the pope and other council fathers had a pretty good grasp of tradition.
 

One of the Fathers was Melchite Patriarch Maximus IV who warned against tinkering unnecessarily with the Liturgy.  His opinions on the idea of drawing up a new Mass would have been, needless to say, violently clear.

Quote
Sometimes I think some people (not you Sam) think that at Vatican2 the Holy Spirit was busy somewhere else and the council fathers were in league with Satan or drunk on chianti. Let's have a little faith in the promises Christ made.

Vatican II made very good on an essential point: the Catholic Church's attitudes and relations towards the East.  Other than in this golden nugget, the Council paved the way for the religious implosion in the Western Church.

Quote
You mention other missae, which were you referring to? Just curious.

The Tridentine Mass and undoubtedly all other liturgies in general.  

In IC XC
Samer
« Last Edit: November 07, 2003, 11:59:17 PM by SamB » Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #89 on: November 08, 2003, 12:12:17 AM »

Sam

[The Tridentine Mass and undoubtedly all other liturgies in general]

Which other liturgies?  There are many other rites within the RCC.

[One of the Fathers was Melchite Patriarch Maximus IV who warned against tinkering unnecessarily with the Liturgy.  His opinions on the idea of drawing up a new Mass would have been, needless to say, violently clear]

The Melkite patriarch commenting on the Roman liturgy?! I'll have to look that one up.  A new mass wasn't really drawn up it was just get rid of the accretions that had crept in over the years and restoring the Roman rite in its simplicity.  The other thing is that even if one of the council fathers had made his will known in matters liturgical it was just one opinion the council father who was the pope exercised the final say.

[The N.O. was a horrendous mistake in prudential judgement and, yes, a breach of traditional norms and understandings concerning liturgical formation.]

Could you cite some of the breached norms?  

[Vatican II made very good on an essential point: the Catholic Church's attitudes and relations towards the East.  Other than in this golden nugget, the Council paved the way for the religious implosion in the Western Church.]

There's areligious implosion in the Western Church?  So how come there are more RCs (and the numbers are growing) than EOs.  If there was an implosion certainly the numbers should be dropping off.  And what is a "religious implosion"?


Carpo-Rusyn

Logged
SamB
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 784

Crates of araq for sale! *hic*


« Reply #90 on: November 08, 2003, 05:33:48 AM »

Sam

[The Tridentine Mass and undoubtedly all other liturgies in general]

Which other liturgies?  There are many other rites within the RCC.

I am saying the N.O. does not measure up to any liturgy in Christendom, whether Western or Eastern.

Quote
The Melkite patriarch commenting on the Roman liturgy?!

This has nothing to do with the Roman liturgy.  This has to do with liturgy, period, which is not a plaything or toy for committees or, yes, even the Pope, to fiddle with, and which demands the scrupulous care and protection it requires as a product of centuries that has accumulated the wisdom and careful additions of generations past.

As for the Patriarch, he had much to say to the West, including on the encouragement of the vernacular.

Quote
A new mass wasn't really drawn up it was just get rid of the accretions that had crept in over the years and restoring the Roman rite in its simplicity.
 

That's the claim, but is not the truth.  The Roman Rite of today is essentially a new one despite the basic similiarities in structure with the old.  The old one has undergone an extensive overhaul and any credible person can attest to the N.O.'s significant departure from the old Rite as to qualify as something new altogether.  As for restoring something to its past simplicity (usually imagined), this is but an overused marketing slogan of reforming revolutionaries, which translates to measures as jettisonning the Offertory and inserting optional Canons.

Quote
The other thing is that even if one of the council fathers had made his will known in matters liturgical it was just one opinion the council father who was the pope exercised the final say.

Neither the Pope nor the Council prompted the Roman Church to carry out this liturgical project.  And as for Pope Paul later directing this fiasco--dare I say it?--the Pope was dead wrong, as Popes can very well be.

Quote
Could you cite some of the breached norms?

The case is merely one of recognising the elephant in the sitting room.  What the committee in charge of the new Missal put into effect was anything but organic change or growth; it was a dictat imposed from above that foisted a ready-made product of drastic change on the faithful that was the fruit of a five-year composition.

To an Eastern Christian, this is very apparent.  Imagining a similiar sequence of events taking place in our Churches is a disturbing thought experiment that approaches the surreal when we imagine some people failing to recognise on sight the unorthodox nature of such an enterprise as the one Western liturgists engaged in, should it make its way to our side of the fence.  

As for me personally, to acknowledge the introduction of the N.O. in your Church as something proper is to do likewise in the case of my own Church, something I would not dare be caught dead desiring for my own.

Quote
There's areligious implosion in the Western Church?  So how come there are more RCs (and the numbers are growing) than EOs.  If there was an implosion certainly the numbers should be dropping off.  And what is a "religious implosion"?

There is a catastrophe of faith in the Western Church.  Come to "Catholic" Quebec, where the number of Catholics there should satisfy you, but where less than 5% go to Mass, and goodness knows how many less hold fully orthodox beliefs.

In closing, this thread should not be dragged via a tangent into an argumentative discussion concerning the N.O. and T.L.M. as this is not the purpose of said thread in the first place.

In IC XC
Samer
« Last Edit: November 08, 2003, 05:36:05 AM by SamB » Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #91 on: November 08, 2003, 08:36:58 AM »

Sam

I agree the thread seems to have gone off on a tangent on liturgy.

[This has nothing to do with the Roman liturgy.  This has to do with liturgy, period, which is not a plaything or toy for committees or, yes, even the Pope, to fiddle with, and which demands the scrupulous care and protection it requires as a product of centuries that has accumulated the wisdom and careful additions of generations past.]

Sam the liturgy is a product of the Church it was not handed down from on high.  If you are right in this then the Council of Trent shouldn't have monkeyed with the Roman rite in the 16th century.  The TLM is only 400 yrs old.

[As for the Patriarch, he had much to say to the West, including on the encouragement of the vernacular.]

Vernacular was already in use prior to V2.

[The old one has undergone an extensive overhaul and any credible person can attest to the N.O.'s significant departure from the old Rite as to qualify as something new altogether.]

I'm still waiting for a credible person to point out to me the departure from the old rite.

[Neither the Pope nor the Council prompted the Roman Church to carry out this liturgical project.]

Then who did?  I've read accounts of the council proceedings.  I don't remember anyone else in the basilica.

I just find it odd that so many people who are not even RC can go on at such length about the horrible NO.  It's a bit like going in to someone else's house and telling them you don't like their table settings.  I really love the liturgy of the EO (James', Basil's, or John's) and the liturgy of the RC not because of the vestments or incense but because of the Reality they represent, the Mystical Supper, the Wedding Feast of the Lamb, the Representation of Calvary.

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,377



« Reply #92 on: November 08, 2003, 09:25:51 AM »

I agree with your point on aesthetics.  But you know the mass has been offered on the hoods of jeeps or in the trenches in wartime.  The mass has been offered in squalid prison cells with no vestments with the bread and wine in the palm of the priest's hand.  Shouldn't we look beyond the externals to the greater reality that is present.

Plenty of Episcopal Eucharists have been offered under the same circumstances, and in a sense the differences or similarities between the rites hardly matter at all in the cases you've cited. Those are cases where "validity" takes over in the extreme, because the important thing is that the eucharist is offered at all.

But men in battle who come to the eucharist are men who are desperate for the comforts of religion, and they do not come to it every Sunday, but rather whenever they can, which often is rarely. Other than keeping the rite from being laughable in war, the form of the rite is largely irrelevant to that circumstance.

But it's not irrelevant in the parish. Here one has control of the surroundings, and the place is specially designed for worship, and thus the aesthetic matters a great deal. At this point the emphasis on validity betrays, because it authorizes one to cater to every goofy experiment that comes along; or conversely, it leads one to never reflect that what one has "always" done has been done very badly.

Conversely, what I've seen in over twenty years of watching the "rites" issue is that a lot of the complaining about "validity" is simply aesthetic considerations being raised beyond their natural importance. Obviously a rite that "encourages" people to do things badly (or makes it very difficult to do them well) is is a rite that needs revision. But these aren't questions of validity. One can denounce N-O as a bad rite without questioning its validity.
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #93 on: November 08, 2003, 10:58:18 AM »

Keble

I suppose you have a point that you can acknowledge the validity of the NO while critizing how it is celebrated.  Some RC parishes do the NO quite well just I've been to some ECUSA parishes that do agood job with the BCP Rite 2.

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 All   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 0.235 seconds with 121 queries.