OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 17, 2014, 05:46:50 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 4 5 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Catholics, what is your opinion of this?  (Read 12839 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« on: February 21, 2011, 05:06:14 PM »

Praise dance at "The Rock" Catholic Church Saint Louis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aLLsJa9xYY&feature=related

Does Rome see this as a valid expression of worship? If not, what are they doing about it? This is not the only example of this I have found on youtube.
Logged
Tony
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 202


« Reply #1 on: February 21, 2011, 05:11:27 PM »

Is this during a Mass?

Praise dance at "The Rock" Catholic Church Saint Louis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aLLsJa9xYY&feature=related

Does Rome see this as a valid expression of worship? If not, what are they doing about it? This is not the only example of this I have found on youtube.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #2 on: February 21, 2011, 05:36:27 PM »

^Not sure about that one, but I'm pretty sure this one is:

Liturgical puppets:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh_nqtp3VrU&feature=related
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 05:40:32 PM by Ortho_cat » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,404


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #3 on: February 21, 2011, 07:39:30 PM »

Praise dance at "The Rock" Catholic Church Saint Louis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aLLsJa9xYY&feature=related

Does Rome see this as a valid expression of worship? If not, what are they doing about it? This is not the only example of this I have found on youtube.
A couple of things. First, it's definitely not ok. Second, it's the Bishop's responsibility to deal with this, as the Bishop is the head liturgist of his diocese, not the Pope. Third, some one must report this to the authorities in Rome if the Bishop has done nothing, and hopefully this was done. Fifth, we don't know whether or not the Bishop has done anything about this. Sixth, If it was reported to Rome, it would probably go to the congregation for Divine Worship before getting to the Pope and they or may not have done something. Seventh, if it made it all the way to the Pope (not likely) then he may or may not have done something about it and we simply don't know. Eighth, we know from the Pope's writings that he is against such things. How can I Know if "Rome" did anything or not?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,749



« Reply #4 on: February 21, 2011, 07:41:31 PM »

What do I think of this herectical junk ? My phaser is not on stun...
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 07:42:19 PM by Jakub » 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.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #5 on: February 21, 2011, 07:54:39 PM »

Praise dance at "The Rock" Catholic Church Saint Louis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aLLsJa9xYY&feature=related

Does Rome see this as a valid expression of worship? If not, what are they doing about it? This is not the only example of this I have found on youtube.
A couple of things. First, it's definitely not ok. Second, it's the Bishop's responsibility to deal with this, as the Bishop is the head liturgist of his diocese, not the Pope. Third, some one must report this to the authorities in Rome if the Bishop has done nothing, and hopefully this was done. Fifth, we don't know whether or not the Bishop has done anything about this. Sixth, If it was reported to Rome, it would probably go to the congregation for Divine Worship before getting to the Pope and they or may not have done something. Seventh, if it made it all the way to the Pope (not likely) then he may or may not have done something about it and we simply don't know. Eighth, we know from the Pope's writings that he is against such things. How can I Know if "Rome" did anything or not?
We can drop in for mass and see if it is still going on.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #6 on: February 21, 2011, 09:32:18 PM »

Well, I'm not so much concerned about this particular Church, but it does seem that issue of liturgical abuse is not an isolated problem . Basically, I was wondering what (if any) statements Rome has made officially condeming these kinds of liturgical abuses, and if they are making efforts to deter or crack down on them in the future.

Here is an example (from a concerned Catholic) which shows more examples of widespread liturgical abuse:

Liturgical Chaos and abuse (part 1):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQPkYwIOCRM

Logged
Tikhon.of.Colorado
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,363



« Reply #7 on: February 21, 2011, 09:53:29 PM »

and to think, a few weeks ago I missed the Roman Catholic Church.  I'm all cured  Wink
Logged

"It is true that I am not always faithful, but I never lose courage, I leave myself in the Arms of Our Lord." - St. Thérèse of Lisieux
LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 13,614



WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 21, 2011, 10:07:26 PM »


Thank, God!    Wink
Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria
wynd
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 502


Transfiguration


« Reply #9 on: February 21, 2011, 10:14:01 PM »

^Not sure about that one, but I'm pretty sure this one is:

Liturgical puppets:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh_nqtp3VrU&feature=related

In fairness to the RCC, I think this one was conducted by a known dissident group that was excommunicated.

Edit: Vatican affirms excommunication of Call to Action members in Lincoln
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 10:15:25 PM by wynd » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,404


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #10 on: February 22, 2011, 10:50:39 AM »

Praise dance at "The Rock" Catholic Church Saint Louis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aLLsJa9xYY&feature=related

Does Rome see this as a valid expression of worship? If not, what are they doing about it? This is not the only example of this I have found on youtube.
A couple of things. First, it's definitely not ok. Second, it's the Bishop's responsibility to deal with this, as the Bishop is the head liturgist of his diocese, not the Pope. Third, some one must report this to the authorities in Rome if the Bishop has done nothing, and hopefully this was done. Fifth, we don't know whether or not the Bishop has done anything about this. Sixth, If it was reported to Rome, it would probably go to the congregation for Divine Worship before getting to the Pope and they or may not have done something. Seventh, if it made it all the way to the Pope (not likely) then he may or may not have done something about it and we simply don't know. Eighth, we know from the Pope's writings that he is against such things. How can I Know if "Rome" did anything or not?
We can drop in for mass and see if it is still going on.
Ok, and even if it is, that doesn't mean that it hasn't been addressed. It could mean that the priest is still being disobedient. That being said, I have been Catholic my entire life, and I have never seen this kind of behavior in a mass. I have never seen a clown mass, I have never seen a halloween mass. All of these abberations that you revel in pointing out, are simply not common. I know you would like them to be because you are an incarnation-denying heretic, and hate God's holy Catholic Church, but the reality is that the sweeping majority of Catholic masses are not like what you are railing against here.
 "ncarnation-denying heretic"??  Papist, you know better.  15-day warning dot.  Appeal to Fr. George if you'd like.  -Schultz.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,404


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #11 on: February 22, 2011, 10:54:39 AM »

Well, I'm not so much concerned about this particular Church, but it does seem that issue of liturgical abuse is not an isolated problem . Basically, I was wondering what (if any) statements Rome has made officially condeming these kinds of liturgical abuses, and if they are making efforts to deter or crack down on them in the future.

Here is an example (from a concerned Catholic) which shows more examples of widespread liturgical abuse:

Liturgical Chaos and abuse (part 1):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQPkYwIOCRM


There are indeed liturgical abuses, but the extreme forms are not as nearly as common as some would like to think. As I said above, I have been Catholic for my entire life (nearly thirty years) and I have never seen any of the extreme forms of liturgical abuse. That being said, I think that the Church avoids taking a heavy handed approach because of the damage it could cause. Rather, the Church is slowly ordaining more and more orthodox Chatolic priests to replace the old "Spirit of Vatican II" group that is either retired or nearing retirement. As we see such bishops disappear, things seem to improve. In fact, I have seen things in my diocese vastly improve over the past ten years. Though there is still much work to be done, we are headed in the right direction. I think this whole hippie phase will be seen as a blip on the screen when all is said and done.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
UniversalistGuy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Posts: 90


« Reply #12 on: February 22, 2011, 11:55:35 AM »

What exactly is the abuse?
Logged
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 520



WWW
« Reply #13 on: February 22, 2011, 11:57:13 AM »

On Liturgical Dance
Logged

Irish_Melkite
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton MA
Posts: 98


« Reply #14 on: February 22, 2011, 01:26:12 PM »

I grew up in a liberal diocese (diocese of Rockford IL) and while many Catholic parishes were "re-inventing" the Mass every time the pastor read a magazine article on "liturgical" things, I had to hold my nose.  I myself have never seen a clown Mass, nor a "puppet" Mass, and I have seen (in California) "Liturgical" dance (to which I got up and left), this type of stuff is rare. 

However, I got sick of altar girls (only one diocese in the USA has banned altar girls to this day, Bishop Fabrian Bruskewitz of Lincoln NE), and guitar Masses and priests doing little more than attempt to entertain their congregations and I now go to a very conservative and traditional Melkite parish in the Washington DC area. 
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #15 on: February 22, 2011, 02:09:27 PM »

and to think, a few weeks ago I missed the Roman Catholic Church.  I'm all cured  Wink
Yeah, because this kind of stuff happens so often.  Roll Eyes

I will echo what Papist has already said in that I have never seen the liturgical abuses that are allegedly so common in the Catholic Church (at least according to the internet). Of course, if you need to bash us in order to validate your own faith, by all means.....
Logged
UniversalistGuy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Posts: 90


« Reply #16 on: February 22, 2011, 02:27:08 PM »

What exactly is the abuse?


I followed the link and very early on came to this:

There has not been an express ruling from the Holy See against so-called "liturgical dance…"

So if the Pope hasn’t seen fit to rule against this thing called liturgical dance what exactly is the abuse?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,404


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #17 on: February 22, 2011, 02:28:36 PM »

What exactly is the abuse?


I followed the link and very early on came to this:

There has not been an express ruling from the Holy See against so-called "liturgical dance…"

So if the Pope hasn’t seen fit to rule against this thing called liturgical dance what exactly is the abuse?
The Rubrics don't call for it, so it is an abuse.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
UniversalistGuy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Posts: 90


« Reply #18 on: February 22, 2011, 03:04:15 PM »

What are Rubrics?
Logged
Tikhon.of.Colorado
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,363



« Reply #19 on: February 22, 2011, 03:05:28 PM »

and to think, a few weeks ago I missed the Roman Catholic Church.  I'm all cured  Wink
Yeah, because this kind of stuff happens so often.  Roll Eyes

I will echo what Papist has already said in that I have never seen the liturgical abuses that are allegedly so common in the Catholic Church (at least according to the internet). Of course, if you need to bash us in order to validate your own faith, by all means.....

in all seriousness, I did not mean to bash you.  Smiley 
Logged

"It is true that I am not always faithful, but I never lose courage, I leave myself in the Arms of Our Lord." - St. Thérèse of Lisieux
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Posts: 7,132


"My god is greater."


« Reply #20 on: February 22, 2011, 03:08:18 PM »

What are Rubrics?

The instructions printed for the Mass, which priests are supposed to follow. To Papist, I'd say they're a dead letter if no one bothers enforcing them.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
UniversalistGuy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Posts: 90


« Reply #21 on: February 22, 2011, 03:31:25 PM »

What are Rubrics?

The instructions printed for the Mass, which priests are supposed to follow. To Papist, I'd say they're a dead letter if no one bothers enforcing them.

Thanks for responding.  I guess I'm alone here in not knowing what Rubrics are.

How is anybody to know whether these Rubrics are being followed or not?  Where are they located?  Who is allowed to have sight of them?  Can they be "interpreted" as so many things are?  And if a priest doesn't follow them or somebody in the congregation doesn't like the priest's interpretation of them, isn't the priest more likely to be in the right?  Priests spend years in seminaries before they serve in parishes, right?
Logged
Tikhon.of.Colorado
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,363



« Reply #22 on: February 22, 2011, 03:35:27 PM »

What are Rubrics?

The instructions printed for the Mass, which priests are supposed to follow. To Papist, I'd say they're a dead letter if no one bothers enforcing them.

Thanks for responding.  I guess I'm alone here in not knowing what Rubrics are.

How is anybody to know whether these Rubrics are being followed or not?  Where are they located?  Who is allowed to have sight of them?  Can they be "interpreted" as so many things are?  And if a priest doesn't follow them or somebody in the congregation doesn't like the priest's interpretation of them, isn't the priest more likely to be in the right?  Priests spend years in seminaries before they serve in parishes, right?
I believe the "rubrics" are in the priest's service book.  they are printed in Roman missals.  I'm sure you can find them at the vatican's website; www.vatican.va  it is the responsibility of the bishop to see whether they are being followed.  often, though, it's the congregation complaining to the bishop about the priest.  yes, priests go to seminaries where they learn to follow the rubrics. 
Logged

"It is true that I am not always faithful, but I never lose courage, I leave myself in the Arms of Our Lord." - St. Thérèse of Lisieux
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #23 on: February 22, 2011, 03:37:50 PM »

More mundane abuses include the following:

1) use of "extra-ordinary" ministers of (i.e. non-priests and deacons) to distribute communion. The rules are that all available priests at that mass should distribute communion, but often enough, one or more of them will sit back while the laity does the distribution.
2) use of unsuitable instruments, including drums (!?) or anything electric. A kind of half-way point between Orthodox practice (voice only) and the current Catholic one, would be to reduce all non-human instruments to one, mainly as accompaniment or for tuning purposes. The disappearance of Gregorian chant is a post-conciliar abuse.
3) celebrating versus populum.
4) altar girls - tolerated or approved at the highest levels
5) Saturday "vespers" masses (introduced after WWII, intended originally as a temporary measure)

I can't say I'm all that fond of the underlying theology of many of the RCC traditionalists (Anselmian satisfaction theology to explain the sacrifice of the mass), but the focus on the liturgy is the correct one.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2011, 03:38:43 PM by John Larocque » Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #24 on: February 22, 2011, 03:53:23 PM »

What are Rubrics?

The instructions printed for the Mass, which priests are supposed to follow. To Papist, I'd say they're a dead letter if no one bothers enforcing them.

Thanks for responding.  I guess I'm alone here in not knowing what Rubrics are.

How is anybody to know whether these Rubrics are being followed or not?  Where are they located?  Who is allowed to have sight of them?  Can they be "interpreted" as so many things are?  And if a priest doesn't follow them or somebody in the congregation doesn't like the priest's interpretation of them, isn't the priest more likely to be in the right?  Priests spend years in seminaries before they serve in parishes, right?

Correct me if I'm wrong, Catholics, but this would be an example of rubrics for the Roman Catholic liturgy: http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.shtml
Logged
Tikhon.of.Colorado
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,363



« Reply #25 on: February 22, 2011, 03:55:50 PM »

More mundane abuses include the following:

1) use of "extra-ordinary" ministers of (i.e. non-priests and deacons) to distribute communion. The rules are that all available priests at that mass should distribute communion, but often enough, one or more of them will sit back while the laity does the distribution.
2) use of unsuitable instruments, including drums (!?) or anything electric. A kind of half-way point between Orthodox practice (voice only) and the current Catholic one, would be to reduce all non-human instruments to one, mainly as accompaniment or for tuning purposes. The disappearance of Gregorian chant is a post-conciliar abuse.
3) celebrating versus populum.
4) altar girls - tolerated or approved at the highest levels
5) Saturday "vespers" masses (introduced after WWII, intended originally as a temporary measure)

I can't say I'm all that fond of the underlying theology of many of the RCC traditionalists (Anselmian satisfaction theology to explain the sacrifice of the mass), but the focus on the liturgy is the correct one.

yes, I've seen all of these in the RC Church I used to frequent.  I was so suprised to see an "altar girl" in the same vestments as a boy would wear.    my grandmother says that the RC mass lost alot of it's beauty after Vatican II.  there is one church I went to where they had a guy come in and strum a guitar during the hymns.  
Logged

"It is true that I am not always faithful, but I never lose courage, I leave myself in the Arms of Our Lord." - St. Thérèse of Lisieux
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,404


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #26 on: February 22, 2011, 04:10:57 PM »

What are Rubrics?

The instructions printed for the Mass, which priests are supposed to follow. To Papist, I'd say they're a dead letter if no one bothers enforcing them.
Most priests follow them. And most bishops enfore them, though no bishop can be everywhere at once.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,404


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #27 on: February 22, 2011, 04:19:32 PM »

More mundane abuses include the following:

1) use of "extra-ordinary" ministers of (i.e. non-priests and deacons) to distribute communion. The rules are that all available priests at that mass should distribute communion, but often enough, one or more of them will sit back while the laity does the distribution.
Even at the most liberal parishes in my diocese, the Priest and Deacon are always involed in the distribution of communion. In fact, I don't think I have ever seen a priest sit back while communion is being distributed.

2) use of unsuitable instruments, including drums (!?) or anything electric. A kind of half-way point between Orthodox practice (voice only) and the current Catholic one, would be to reduce all non-human instruments to one, mainly as accompaniment or for tuning purposes. The disappearance of Gregorian chant is a post-conciliar abuse.
I am not sure that drums and guitars are technically proscribed, but, I do agree with you that sacred music is more fitting and should be the prescribed form of music.

3) celebrating versus populum.
Yes and no. The council never suggested that celebration should be versus populum, but is it an abuse? If it is, then its a nearly universal one. I do agree that ad orientem is the desired mode of celebration.

4) altar girls - tolerated or approved at the highest levels
Not sure that there are currently any rules that prohibit this in the new mass. Though, not having them is more in line with tradition. Does anyone know if there is Catholic canon against female altar servers?

5) Saturday "vespers" masses (introduced after WWII, intended originally as a temporary measure)
I don't think that this is technically an "abuse" under the Novus Ordo, though I will say that it's certainly not preferable.

I can't say I'm all that fond of the underlying theology of many of the RCC traditionalists (Anselmian satisfaction theology to explain the sacrifice of the mass), but the focus on the liturgy is the correct one.
Well, most don't really understand Anselm. Smiley
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #28 on: February 22, 2011, 05:00:09 PM »

There are nearly half a million priests and 1.2 billion Catholics. The Holy See can only do so much.

As Papist said, the local bishop is responsible for the liturgy in his diocese. If he doesn't do anything about grave abuses, then it is on his head when he faces the Lord. I will pray that he does his pastoral duty and worry about my own parish.

There has been an epochal upheaval in Western society and culture over the last few decades, and this tsunami has swamped the Catholic Church. It will take time to recover from the resultant deformations, probably another generation. But it is happening.

Of course, EO who remember the catastrophe of Iconoclasm cannot throw stones. Crises in the Church are nothing new.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #29 on: February 22, 2011, 05:00:10 PM »

Logged
UniversalistGuy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Posts: 90


« Reply #30 on: February 22, 2011, 05:19:13 PM »

What are Rubrics?

The instructions printed for the Mass, which priests are supposed to follow. To Papist, I'd say they're a dead letter if no one bothers enforcing them.

Thanks for responding.  I guess I'm alone here in not knowing what Rubrics are.

How is anybody to know whether these Rubrics are being followed or not?  Where are they located?  Who is allowed to have sight of them?  Can they be "interpreted" as so many things are?  And if a priest doesn't follow them or somebody in the congregation doesn't like the priest's interpretation of them, isn't the priest more likely to be in the right?  Priests spend years in seminaries before they serve in parishes, right?
I believe the "rubrics" are in the priest's service book.  they are printed in Roman missals.  I'm sure you can find them at the vatican's website; www.vatican.va  it is the responsibility of the bishop to see whether they are being followed.  often, though, it's the congregation complaining to the bishop about the priest.  yes, priests go to seminaries where they learn to follow the rubrics. 

Thanks.  I went to the website but I haven’t found them yet.  Mind you, now I’ve been challenged to do some digging I’m not sure if I’m really that interested.  I’m not drawn to some of the modern manifestations of worship.  My own inclination is for an atmosphere of quiet reverence but I certainly welcome melody and harmony.  However, I recognize that not everybody is the same so I don’t necessarily regard the forms of worship that I don’t like as “abuses.”  Catholics are free to use the word “abuse” whenever they see fit, I guess.  If information and commentary on the Internet is a realistic guide the abuses in Catholic worship have Catholics getting really mad at each other.  And given those harsh disagreements about the Mass inside the Catholic Church I think it’s ironic to see Catholic apologists still trying to promote the idea of lex orandi, lex credendi.
Logged
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 520



WWW
« Reply #31 on: February 22, 2011, 06:38:46 PM »

The present state of liturgical celebration in the large majority of (Latin) Catholic Churches in the U.S. is abysmal.  Everything went wrong after Vatican II:  the adoption of the versus populum, the abandonment of ritual and the acceptance of a culture of informality, the building of new churches designed as auditoriums, the elimination of altar rails and the abolition of kneeling for communion, the creation of a song-leader who stands at the microphone in the front of the church, the embrace of charismatic-style music (think St Louis Jesuits and Marty Haugen).  Catholic bishops and liturgists thought they could re-create the ancient liturgical forms to appeal to the populist sensibilities of modern people.  Instead they only succeeded in destroying the Mass. 

Liturgical dance and clown Masses are not the problem.  They are widely acknowledged as abuses, and one does not run into them very often.  What is not so widely acknowledged are the abuses listed above.  What is not so widely acknowledged is the spirit of iconoclasm that has permeated the parishes and seminaries of the Catholic Church.  Pope Benedict understands the problem, but I am dubious whether he or any Pope can effectively restore what has been systematically destroyed over the past five decades.  Certainly the bishops have displayed little inclination to effect significant reform.  Rubrics can be enforced (and that would certainly be an improvement!), but how does one legislate beauty?   How does one overturn the liturgical and cultural expectations that now shape, drive, and fund the parochial Sunday Mass?   

       

Logged

James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 753



« Reply #32 on: February 22, 2011, 06:50:08 PM »

Q.  What is the difference between a liturgical reformer and a terrorist?

A.  You can negotiate with a terrorist.
Logged
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #33 on: February 22, 2011, 07:37:08 PM »

Quote
I can't say I'm all that fond of the underlying theology of many of the RCC traditionalists (Anselmian satisfaction theology to explain the sacrifice of the mass), but the focus on the liturgy is the correct one.

Well, most don't really understand Anselm. Smiley

The SSPX theologians complain that the Paschal Mystery downplays the crucifiction in favour of the resurrection.

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2002_September/Pius_XII.htm

Quote
But the new "Paschal Mystery theology" demands giving the Christ's resurrection at least "as much" salvific value as the death on the Cross and also the rivilege arising from it. This "New Soteriology" i.e., doctrine of salvation) is thick into the Liturgical Movement. Romano Guardini, one of its "fathers" and to whom Cardinal Ratzinger likes to refer, wrote in his II Signore (pp.435-436): "Total clarity on the concept of redemption comes uniquely from the Resurrection."

Elsewhere he wrote:

If anyone asks: "What is redemption; what is it to have redeemed, and to have been redeemed?" the answer ought to be: "It is the Resurrection."

Thus, the Passion and the Death on the Cross are minimalized and annihilated in the glory of the Christ's Resurrection (although the risen hands and feet carry wounds and the heart is opened by a lance). Good Friday is eclipsed by Resurrection Sunday, the glorious reward being substituted for the sorrowful meriting. The "New Soteriology" hides from souls the understanding that no one conforms to the Risen Christ who does not will first to conform (and allow themselves to be conformed) to the Crucified Christ.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/unmskng.htm

Quote
A study of the new theology of the "Paschal Mystery" however, reveals the basis for the three-point shift of emphasis mentioned in Part One.

I) The new theology explains the diminution, not to say suppression, of the notion of propitiation in the new missal.
II) The new theology of "mysteries" accounts for the innovation regarding the notion of Christ's presence in the Mass. That is, the emphasis of Christ's presence in "His Word and in His people" rather than His unique Sacramental presence in the Holy Eucharist.
III) An understanding of the 'sense' which this new theology gives to the word 'memorial,' which explains the abandoning of the sacrificial rite in favor of the memorial meal.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,404


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #34 on: February 22, 2011, 07:39:55 PM »

Quote
I can't say I'm all that fond of the underlying theology of many of the RCC traditionalists (Anselmian satisfaction theology to explain the sacrifice of the mass), but the focus on the liturgy is the correct one.

Well, most don't really understand Anselm. Smiley

The SSPX theologians complain that the Paschal Mystery downplays the crucifiction in favour of the resurrection.

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2002_September/Pius_XII.htm

Quote
But the new "Paschal Mystery theology" demands giving the Christ's resurrection at least "as much" salvific value as the death on the Cross and also the rivilege arising from it. This "New Soteriology" i.e., doctrine of salvation) is thick into the Liturgical Movement. Romano Guardini, one of its "fathers" and to whom Cardinal Ratzinger likes to refer, wrote in his II Signore (pp.435-436): "Total clarity on the concept of redemption comes uniquely from the Resurrection."

Elsewhere he wrote:

If anyone asks: "What is redemption; what is it to have redeemed, and to have been redeemed?" the answer ought to be: "It is the Resurrection."

Thus, the Passion and the Death on the Cross are minimalized and annihilated in the glory of the Christ's Resurrection (although the risen hands and feet carry wounds and the heart is opened by a lance). Good Friday is eclipsed by Resurrection Sunday, the glorious reward being substituted for the sorrowful meriting. The "New Soteriology" hides from souls the understanding that no one conforms to the Risen Christ who does not will first to conform (and allow themselves to be conformed) to the Crucified Christ.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/unmskng.htm

Quote
A study of the new theology of the "Paschal Mystery" however, reveals the basis for the three-point shift of emphasis mentioned in Part One.

I) The new theology explains the diminution, not to say suppression, of the notion of propitiation in the new missal.
II) The new theology of "mysteries" accounts for the innovation regarding the notion of Christ's presence in the Mass. That is, the emphasis of Christ's presence in "His Word and in His people" rather than His unique Sacramental presence in the Holy Eucharist.
III) An understanding of the 'sense' which this new theology gives to the word 'memorial,' which explains the abandoning of the sacrificial rite in favor of the memorial meal.

Are you citing the SSPX as reliable information on Catholicism? LOL
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #35 on: February 22, 2011, 07:45:22 PM »

Didn't SSPX join back in the fold with the rest of the RCC?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,404


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #36 on: February 22, 2011, 07:49:16 PM »

Didn't SSPX join back in the fold with the rest of the RCC?
Sorta kinda but not really. The excommunication has been lifted, but that are still in an irregular status, not having full communion.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #37 on: February 22, 2011, 08:38:07 PM »

5) Saturday "vespers" masses (introduced after WWII, intended originally as a temporary measure)

Taking into account that evening is the beginning of the liturgical day, I find a saturday evening liturgy to be far less offensive than the sunday evening liturgies that I've heard of some RC churches doing. While I don't think that (prior) evening liturgies should be out of the question, I do think they should be the exception and not regularly done.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #38 on: February 23, 2011, 02:14:23 PM »


You want rubrics? Here are the norms governing the celebration of the new Mass of Paul VI:

General Instruction on the Roman Missal (GIRM)
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/GIRM.HTM&ved=0CBsQFjAD&usg=AFQjCNFQ1XXHKTPdeYZyCLFzvVY92zDRfQ

Here are relevant liturgical constitutions governing the celebration of the new Mass:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrosanctum_Concilium

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis_en.html



Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #39 on: February 23, 2011, 02:14:23 PM »

They are like ROCOR was 10 years ago.
Logged
UniversalistGuy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Posts: 90


« Reply #40 on: February 23, 2011, 02:44:52 PM »


Thank you.  I managed three out of four.  The first link – the General Instruction on the Roman Missal (GIRM) – I couldn’t get to work.
Logged
Monk Vasyl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: UOC of USA
Posts: 623


Monk Vasyl
WWW
« Reply #41 on: February 23, 2011, 03:13:45 PM »

What are Rubrics?

The instructions printed for the Mass, which priests are supposed to follow. To Papist, I'd say they're a dead letter if no one bothers enforcing them.

Thanks for responding.  I guess I'm alone here in not knowing what Rubrics are.

How is anybody to know whether these Rubrics are being followed or not?  Where are they located?  Who is allowed to have sight of them?  Can they be "interpreted" as so many things are?  And if a priest doesn't follow them or somebody in the congregation doesn't like the priest's interpretation of them, isn't the priest more likely to be in the right?  Priests spend years in seminaries before they serve in parishes, right?
I believe the "rubrics" are in the priest's service book.  they are printed in Roman missals.  I'm sure you can find them at the vatican's website; www.vatican.va  it is the responsibility of the bishop to see whether they are being followed.  often, though, it's the congregation complaining to the bishop about the priest.  yes, priests go to seminaries where they learn to follow the rubrics. 


The Paulist Center, in Boston, was the worse for liturgical abuse. I was "allowed" to work on my Master's in Liturgical Studies at Notre Dame.  But, our guardian (Franciscans) told me I was going to a too liberal school, in his opinion.  Well, one of the so-called liberal priests told us if we wanted to experiment with the Liturgy we should use what was given in the Sacramentary.  In other words only do what the Church prescribes.  When I got back from my 1st summer semester, I could not get the priests to do what was called for.  Each one did as he felt.  That was one of the major things that sent me running to the Orthodox Church.  When I was forced to take a leave-of-absence, I left by walking to the car, and not turning back I wiped the dust from my sandals.  And then immediately sought out the Orthodox Church and within a year was chrismated.  So in a way, thank God for the abuses I saw in the Franciscans...its because of them I'm Orthodox.
Logged

The unworthy hierodeacon, Vasyl
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #42 on: February 23, 2011, 04:28:34 PM »

Yesterday when I posted those links, I did it on my phone. The first link is broken.

Here is another link for the General Instruction of the Roman Missal:

http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.shtml
Logged
UniversalistGuy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Posts: 90


« Reply #43 on: February 23, 2011, 04:55:39 PM »

Yesterday when I posted those links, I did it on my phone. The first link is broken.

Here is another link for the General Instruction of the Roman Missal:

http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.shtml

Thank you much.  You're most kind.
Logged
UniversalistGuy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Posts: 90


« Reply #44 on: February 23, 2011, 05:06:42 PM »

What are Rubrics?

The instructions printed for the Mass, which priests are supposed to follow. To Papist, I'd say they're a dead letter if no one bothers enforcing them.

Thanks for responding.  I guess I'm alone here in not knowing what Rubrics are.

How is anybody to know whether these Rubrics are being followed or not?  Where are they located?  Who is allowed to have sight of them?  Can they be "interpreted" as so many things are?  And if a priest doesn't follow them or somebody in the congregation doesn't like the priest's interpretation of them, isn't the priest more likely to be in the right?  Priests spend years in seminaries before they serve in parishes, right?
I believe the "rubrics" are in the priest's service book.  they are printed in Roman missals.  I'm sure you can find them at the vatican's website; www.vatican.va  it is the responsibility of the bishop to see whether they are being followed.  often, though, it's the congregation complaining to the bishop about the priest.  yes, priests go to seminaries where they learn to follow the rubrics. 


The Paulist Center, in Boston, was the worse for liturgical abuse. I was "allowed" to work on my Master's in Liturgical Studies at Notre Dame.  But, our guardian (Franciscans) told me I was going to a too liberal school, in his opinion.  Well, one of the so-called liberal priests told us if we wanted to experiment with the Liturgy we should use what was given in the Sacramentary.  In other words only do what the Church prescribes.  When I got back from my 1st summer semester, I could not get the priests to do what was called for.  Each one did as he felt.  That was one of the major things that sent me running to the Orthodox Church.  When I was forced to take a leave-of-absence, I left by walking to the car, and not turning back I wiped the dust from my sandals.  And then immediately sought out the Orthodox Church and within a year was chrismated.  So in a way, thank God for the abuses I saw in the Franciscans...its because of them I'm Orthodox.

So if I understand you correctly, you’re stating that you converted from Catholicism to Orthodoxy and the impetus for you doing so was that the Catholic priests you encountered displayed a spirit of rebellion against the Catholic Church.

Have I rightly described what happened?
Logged
Monk Vasyl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: UOC of USA
Posts: 623


Monk Vasyl
WWW
« Reply #45 on: February 23, 2011, 05:29:34 PM »

So if I understand you correctly, you’re stating that you converted from Catholicism to Orthodoxy and the impetus for you doing so was that the Catholic priests you encountered displayed a spirit of rebellion against the Catholic Church.

Have I rightly described what happened?  UniversalistGuy


That was a strong part in my push to Orthodoxy, but also when I was studying for the priesthood at St. John's Seminary, in Boston, in one of our classes they came out and said that one could not change the Creed without an Ecumencial Council.  When I asked him why we did, he had no answer.
Logged

The unworthy hierodeacon, Vasyl
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #46 on: February 23, 2011, 05:31:35 PM »

There are nearly half a million priests and 1.2 billion Catholics. The Holy See can only do so much.
Then it shouldn't claim it can do more.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
UniversalistGuy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Posts: 90


« Reply #47 on: February 23, 2011, 07:57:55 PM »

There are nearly half a million priests and 1.2 billion Catholics. The Holy See can only do so much.
Then it shouldn't claim it can do more.

I understand there are some 350 million Orthodox Christians, which is no small number.  Does the Orthodox Church also have difficulties with rebellious priests or is this solely a Catholic problem?
Logged
wynd
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 502


Transfiguration


« Reply #48 on: February 23, 2011, 07:58:34 PM »

Then it shouldn't claim it can do more.

What's the point of having universal ordinary jurisdiction if it's not used when it's needed?
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Posts: 7,132


"My god is greater."


« Reply #49 on: February 23, 2011, 08:10:12 PM »

There are nearly half a million priests and 1.2 billion Catholics. The Holy See can only do so much.
Then it shouldn't claim it can do more.

I understand there are some 350 million Orthodox Christians, which is no small number.  Does the Orthodox Church also have difficulties with rebellious priests or is this solely a Catholic problem?

Of course we have such problems, but they are not nearly so overt, systemic, and widespread as with the Roman Catholics. The problem is, you can't really call the priests rebellious if the bishops are indifferent to or complicit in their behaviour.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2011, 08:11:14 PM by Iconodule » Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Posts: 7,132


"My god is greater."


« Reply #50 on: February 23, 2011, 08:12:07 PM »

Then it shouldn't claim it can do more.

What's the point of having universal ordinary jurisdiction if it's not used when it's needed?

Exactly. These aren't just isolated abuses, but symptoms of a systemic problem.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
UniversalistGuy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Posts: 90


« Reply #51 on: February 23, 2011, 08:12:27 PM »

Then it shouldn't claim it can do more.

What's the point of having universal ordinary jurisdiction if it's not used when it's needed?

What does universal ordinary jurisdiction entail?
Logged
wynd
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 502


Transfiguration


« Reply #52 on: February 23, 2011, 10:23:04 PM »

What does universal ordinary jurisdiction entail?

Jurisdictional rights and prerogatives of the pope
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #53 on: February 24, 2011, 12:39:45 AM »

Then it shouldn't claim it can do more.

What's the point of having universal ordinary jurisdiction if it's not used when it's needed?

What does universal ordinary jurisdiction entail?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #54 on: February 24, 2011, 12:46:30 AM »

There are nearly half a million priests and 1.2 billion Catholics. The Holy See can only do so much.
Then it shouldn't claim it can do more.

I understand there are some 350 million Orthodox Christians, which is no small number.  Does the Orthodox Church also have difficulties with rebellious priests?
Not for long we don't.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #55 on: February 24, 2011, 12:51:07 AM »

just looking at the first one
Quote
(1) As the supreme teacher of the Church, whose it is to prescribe what is to be believed by all the faithful, and to take measures for the preservation and the propagation of the faith, the following are the rights which pertain to the pope:

it is his to set forth creeds, and to determine when and by whom an explicit profession of faith shall be made (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. 24, cc. 1 and 12);
the facts of the Second Ecumenical Council setting its seal on the Creed of the Catholic Faith must be an embarrassment to explain away for the Vatican. Or a problem to assert what the CE asserts with a straight face.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,588


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #56 on: February 24, 2011, 12:54:57 AM »

There are nearly half a million priests and 1.2 billion Catholics. The Holy See can only do so much.
Then it shouldn't claim it can do more.

I understand there are some 350 million Orthodox Christians, which is no small number.  Does the Orthodox Church also have difficulties with rebellious priests?
Not for long we don't.

Yup. Never underestimate that bulwark which is the babushka brigade (or yiayies, etc). Mess with these ladies at your peril.
Logged
Frank J
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Russian Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 16


« Reply #57 on: February 24, 2011, 01:25:16 AM »

Hello

I use to RC and that the reason for my leaving... Hey "Spirit of Vatican II"..... Roll Eyes
Logged
UniversalistGuy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Posts: 90


« Reply #58 on: February 24, 2011, 09:06:40 AM »

The Catholic Church has a pope and every Catholic apologist I come across, whether amateur or professional, uses the papacy as a foundational argument for the truth of Catholicism yet it appears that the Catholic Church is in a big mess.  What’s the use of having an infallible papacy if Catholic priests do whatever they want regardless of what the Catholic Church tells them to do?  What’s the use of having an infallible papacy if Catholic bishops let Catholic priests lead Catholic faithful astray?  What’s the use of having an infallible papacy if the incumbent finds himself stuck in the same position as the old woman who lived in a shoe and had so many children she didn’t know what to do?  It has to be tough on ordinary Catholics seeking after God to see their faith community heavily burdened with inept leadership and enmeshed in chaos and confusion.
Logged
UniversalistGuy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Posts: 90


« Reply #59 on: February 24, 2011, 09:10:22 AM »

Then it shouldn't claim it can do more.

What's the point of having universal ordinary jurisdiction if it's not used when it's needed?

What does universal ordinary jurisdiction entail?


A picture is worth a thousand words.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #60 on: February 24, 2011, 09:36:38 AM »

Then it shouldn't claim it can do more.

What's the point of having universal ordinary jurisdiction if it's not used when it's needed?

What does universal ordinary jurisdiction entail?


A picture is worth a thousand words.

This picture is one of Isa's favorites. It is from the early 16th century by Lucas Cranach der Ältere, a German painter and engraver. Cranach was popular among the German princes (Lutheran) and many Protestant reformation leaders, including being a close friend of Martin Luther. This print is intended to be derogatory against Roman Catholicism and the Papacy exemplifying the Protestant position as well as maintaining the Pope as the anti-Christ.

On the tradition of kissing, e.g kissing hands, icons, cloaks, feet... , etc., there is a support article from New Advent.
Quote
Kissing of the feet

The veneration shown in the kissing of a person's hand or the hem of his garment is accentuated in the kissing of the feet. This is probably implied by the phrase of Isaias (49:23): "Kings...shall lick up the dust of Thy feet." Under the influence, no doubt, of the ceremonial of king-worship, as manifested in the cultus of the Roman emperors, this particular mark of veneration came to prevail at an early date among the usages of the papal court (see Lattey, "Ancient King-Worship", Lond., 1909 C. T. S. pamhlet). We read of it in the first "Ordo Romanus" belonging to the seventh century, but even earlier than this the "Liber Pontificalis" attests that the Emperor Justin paid this mark of respect to Pope John I (523-26), as later on Justinian II also did to Pope Constantine. At the election of Leo IV (847) the custom of so kissing the pope's foot was spoken of as an ancient one. It is not, therefore, wonderful that a practice supported by so early a tradition should still be observed. It is observed liturgically in a solemn papal Mass by the Latin and Greek subdeacons, and quasi-liturgically in the "adoration" of the pope by the cardinals after his election. It is also the normal salutation which papal etiquette prescribes for those of the faithful who are presented to the pope in a private audience. In his "De altaris mysterio" (VI, 6) Innocent III explains that this ceremony indicates "the very great reverence due to the Supreme Pontiff as the Vicar of Him whose feet" were kissed by the woman who was a sinner.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
UniversalistGuy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Posts: 90


« Reply #61 on: February 24, 2011, 10:23:21 AM »

Then it shouldn't claim it can do more.

What's the point of having universal ordinary jurisdiction if it's not used when it's needed?

What does universal ordinary jurisdiction entail?


A picture is worth a thousand words.

This picture is one of Isa's favorites. It is from the early 16th century by Lucas Cranach der Ältere, a German painter and engraver. Cranach was popular among the German princes (Lutheran) and many Protestant reformation leaders, including being a close friend of Martin Luther. This print is intended to be derogatory against Roman Catholicism and the Papacy exemplifying the Protestant position as well as maintaining the Pope as the anti-Christ.

It’s extremely clever because the notion that it is derogatory has to be inferred since it is apparently no more than a visual reminder of what actually happens in real life.
Logged
UniversalistGuy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Posts: 90


« Reply #62 on: February 24, 2011, 10:29:58 AM »

On the tradition of kissing, e.g kissing hands, icons, cloaks, feet... , etc., there is a support article from New Advent.
Quote
Kissing of the feet

The veneration shown in the kissing of a person's hand or the hem of his garment is accentuated in the kissing of the feet. This is probably implied by the phrase of Isaias (49:23): "Kings...shall lick up the dust of Thy feet." Under the influence, no doubt, of the ceremonial of king-worship, as manifested in the cultus of the Roman emperors, this particular mark of veneration came to prevail at an early date among the usages of the papal court (see Lattey, "Ancient King-Worship", Lond., 1909 C. T. S. pamhlet). We read of it in the first "Ordo Romanus" belonging to the seventh century, but even earlier than this the "Liber Pontificalis" attests that the Emperor Justin paid this mark of respect to Pope John I (523-26), as later on Justinian II also did to Pope Constantine. At the election of Leo IV (847) the custom of so kissing the pope's foot was spoken of as an ancient one. It is not, therefore, wonderful that a practice supported by so early a tradition should still be observed. It is observed liturgically in a solemn papal Mass by the Latin and Greek subdeacons, and quasi-liturgically in the "adoration" of the pope by the cardinals after his election. It is also the normal salutation which papal etiquette prescribes for those of the faithful who are presented to the pope in a private audience. In his "De altaris mysterio" (VI, 6) Innocent III explains that this ceremony indicates "the very great reverence due to the Supreme Pontiff as the Vicar of Him whose feet" were kissed by the woman who was a sinner.

By way of contrast, a story involving the first pope:

Quote
Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist.  After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples' feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.  He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, "Lord, are you going to wash my feet?"  Jesus replied, "You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand."  "No," said Peter, "you shall never wash my feet." Jesus answered, "Unless I wash you, you have no part with me."  "Then, Lord," Simon Peter replied, "not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!"  Jesus answered, "A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you."  For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean.  When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. "Do you understand what I have done for you?" he asked them.  "You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am.  Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet.  I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.  I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.  Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #63 on: February 24, 2011, 10:39:18 AM »

Then it shouldn't claim it can do more.

What's the point of having universal ordinary jurisdiction if it's not used when it's needed?

What does universal ordinary jurisdiction entail?


A picture is worth a thousand words.

This picture is one of Isa's favorites. It is from the early 16th century by Lucas Cranach der Ältere, a German painter and engraver. Cranach was popular among the German princes (Lutheran) and many Protestant reformation leaders, including being a close friend of Martin Luther. This print is intended to be derogatory against Roman Catholicism and the Papacy exemplifying the Protestant position as well as maintaining the Pope as the anti-Christ.

It’s extremely clever because the notion that it is derogatory has to be inferred since it is apparently no more than a visual reminder of what actually happens in real life.

Not true. The posture of the "Pope" is arrogant, the congregation look like skeletons (appear dead), the bishops in the back are grinning and whispering, etc. The piece (titled "Antichrist") was produced and is obviously satirical propaganda to produce an emotional reaction against the act.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #64 on: February 24, 2011, 10:42:21 AM »

On the tradition of kissing, e.g kissing hands, icons, cloaks, feet... , etc., there is a support article from New Advent.
Quote
Kissing of the feet

The veneration shown in the kissing of a person's hand or the hem of his garment is accentuated in the kissing of the feet. This is probably implied by the phrase of Isaias (49:23): "Kings...shall lick up the dust of Thy feet." Under the influence, no doubt, of the ceremonial of king-worship, as manifested in the cultus of the Roman emperors, this particular mark of veneration came to prevail at an early date among the usages of the papal court (see Lattey, "Ancient King-Worship", Lond., 1909 C. T. S. pamhlet). We read of it in the first "Ordo Romanus" belonging to the seventh century, but even earlier than this the "Liber Pontificalis" attests that the Emperor Justin paid this mark of respect to Pope John I (523-26), as later on Justinian II also did to Pope Constantine. At the election of Leo IV (847) the custom of so kissing the pope's foot was spoken of as an ancient one. It is not, therefore, wonderful that a practice supported by so early a tradition should still be observed. It is observed liturgically in a solemn papal Mass by the Latin and Greek subdeacons, and quasi-liturgically in the "adoration" of the pope by the cardinals after his election. It is also the normal salutation which papal etiquette prescribes for those of the faithful who are presented to the pope in a private audience. In his "De altaris mysterio" (VI, 6) Innocent III explains that this ceremony indicates "the very great reverence due to the Supreme Pontiff as the Vicar of Him whose feet" were kissed by the woman who was a sinner.

By way of contrast, a story involving the first pope:

Quote
Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist.  After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples' feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.  He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, "Lord, are you going to wash my feet?"  Jesus replied, "You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand."  "No," said Peter, "you shall never wash my feet." Jesus answered, "Unless I wash you, you have no part with me."  "Then, Lord," Simon Peter replied, "not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!"  Jesus answered, "A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you."  For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean.  When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. "Do you understand what I have done for you?" he asked them.  "You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am.  Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet.  I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.  I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.  Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.


How is this contrast? Do you not show Jesus respect? When you pray do you, at the minimum, not also bow your head? The eastern churches include, themselves, kissing, prostrations and other acts of submission to priests, bishops, icons, and relics. The only conclusion that can be made is, acts of submission to the Pope is wrong, not because you're being submissive, but because it's Roman Catholic, and Roman Catholics are evil.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,404


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #65 on: February 24, 2011, 11:22:50 AM »

Then it shouldn't claim it can do more.

What's the point of having universal ordinary jurisdiction if it's not used when it's needed?

What does universal ordinary jurisdiction entail?

This is Izzy's favorite picture. He drags it out when ever he wants to bash Catholics. For some reason, it appears that he has higher regard for the Pope than most traditionalist Catholics.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,404


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #66 on: February 24, 2011, 11:24:59 AM »

Then it shouldn't claim it can do more.

What's the point of having universal ordinary jurisdiction if it's not used when it's needed?

What does universal ordinary jurisdiction entail?


A picture is worth a thousand words.
Only for intellectual adolescents.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2011, 11:25:15 AM by Papist » Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,404


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #67 on: February 24, 2011, 11:26:47 AM »

On the tradition of kissing, e.g kissing hands, icons, cloaks, feet... , etc., there is a support article from New Advent.
Quote
Kissing of the feet

The veneration shown in the kissing of a person's hand or the hem of his garment is accentuated in the kissing of the feet. This is probably implied by the phrase of Isaias (49:23): "Kings...shall lick up the dust of Thy feet." Under the influence, no doubt, of the ceremonial of king-worship, as manifested in the cultus of the Roman emperors, this particular mark of veneration came to prevail at an early date among the usages of the papal court (see Lattey, "Ancient King-Worship", Lond., 1909 C. T. S. pamhlet). We read of it in the first "Ordo Romanus" belonging to the seventh century, but even earlier than this the "Liber Pontificalis" attests that the Emperor Justin paid this mark of respect to Pope John I (523-26), as later on Justinian II also did to Pope Constantine. At the election of Leo IV (847) the custom of so kissing the pope's foot was spoken of as an ancient one. It is not, therefore, wonderful that a practice supported by so early a tradition should still be observed. It is observed liturgically in a solemn papal Mass by the Latin and Greek subdeacons, and quasi-liturgically in the "adoration" of the pope by the cardinals after his election. It is also the normal salutation which papal etiquette prescribes for those of the faithful who are presented to the pope in a private audience. In his "De altaris mysterio" (VI, 6) Innocent III explains that this ceremony indicates "the very great reverence due to the Supreme Pontiff as the Vicar of Him whose feet" were kissed by the woman who was a sinner.

By way of contrast, a story involving the first pope:

Quote
Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist.  After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples' feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.  He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, "Lord, are you going to wash my feet?"  Jesus replied, "You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand."  "No," said Peter, "you shall never wash my feet." Jesus answered, "Unless I wash you, you have no part with me."  "Then, Lord," Simon Peter replied, "not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!"  Jesus answered, "A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you."  For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean.  When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. "Do you understand what I have done for you?" he asked them.  "You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am.  Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet.  I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.  I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.  Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.


How is this contrast? Do you not show Jesus respect? When you pray do you, at the minimum, not also bow your head? The eastern churches include, themselves, kissing, prostrations and other acts of submission to priests, bishops, icons, and relics. The only conclusion that can be made is, acts of submission to the Pope is wrong, not because you're being submissive, but because it's Roman Catholic, and Roman Catholics are evil.

The foundational doctrine of Eastern Orthodoxy. They have more in common with protestants than they would like to admit.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
UniversalistGuy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Posts: 90


« Reply #68 on: February 24, 2011, 11:54:10 AM »

Then it shouldn't claim it can do more.

What's the point of having universal ordinary jurisdiction if it's not used when it's needed?

What does universal ordinary jurisdiction entail?


A picture is worth a thousand words.

This picture is one of Isa's favorites. It is from the early 16th century by Lucas Cranach der Ältere, a German painter and engraver. Cranach was popular among the German princes (Lutheran) and many Protestant reformation leaders, including being a close friend of Martin Luther. This print is intended to be derogatory against Roman Catholicism and the Papacy exemplifying the Protestant position as well as maintaining the Pope as the anti-Christ.

It’s extremely clever because the notion that it is derogatory has to be inferred since it is apparently no more than a visual reminder of what actually happens in real life.

Not true. The posture of the "Pope" is arrogant, the congregation look like skeletons (appear dead), the bishops in the back are grinning and whispering, etc. The piece (titled "Antichrist") was produced and is obviously satirical propaganda to produce an emotional reaction against the act.

I see. I wasn’t aware that it was titled “Antichrist” and I didn’t observe those things that you’ve pointed out.  I accept, then, that it is satirical and that as such it constitutes a dig at the Catholic Church.  I guess in light of this new information it’s appropriate to withdraw my comment that it’s clever and suggest instead that it’s powerful.
Logged
UniversalistGuy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Posts: 90


« Reply #69 on: February 24, 2011, 12:02:14 PM »

Then it shouldn't claim it can do more.

What's the point of having universal ordinary jurisdiction if it's not used when it's needed?

What does universal ordinary jurisdiction entail?

This is Izzy's favorite picture. He drags it out when ever he wants to bash Catholics. For some reason, it appears that he has higher regard for the Pope than most traditionalist Catholics.

As best I can recall, I've never seen it before so I'd like to thank him for introducing it.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,404


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #70 on: February 24, 2011, 12:13:24 PM »

Then it shouldn't claim it can do more.

What's the point of having universal ordinary jurisdiction if it's not used when it's needed?

What does universal ordinary jurisdiction entail?

This is Izzy's favorite picture. He drags it out when ever he wants to bash Catholics. For some reason, it appears that he has higher regard for the Pope than most traditionalist Catholics.

As best I can recall, I've never seen it before so I'd like to thank him for introducing it.
I guess if you are into that sort of thing... I'm not hear to judge.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,404


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #71 on: February 24, 2011, 12:13:57 PM »

Then it shouldn't claim it can do more.

What's the point of having universal ordinary jurisdiction if it's not used when it's needed?

What does universal ordinary jurisdiction entail?


A picture is worth a thousand words.

This picture is one of Isa's favorites. It is from the early 16th century by Lucas Cranach der Ältere, a German painter and engraver. Cranach was popular among the German princes (Lutheran) and many Protestant reformation leaders, including being a close friend of Martin Luther. This print is intended to be derogatory against Roman Catholicism and the Papacy exemplifying the Protestant position as well as maintaining the Pope as the anti-Christ.

It’s extremely clever because the notion that it is derogatory has to be inferred since it is apparently no more than a visual reminder of what actually happens in real life.

Not true. The posture of the "Pope" is arrogant, the congregation look like skeletons (appear dead), the bishops in the back are grinning and whispering, etc. The piece (titled "Antichrist") was produced and is obviously satirical propaganda to produce an emotional reaction against the act.

I see. I wasn’t aware that it was titled “Antichrist” and I didn’t observe those things that you’ve pointed out.  I accept, then, that it is satirical and that as such it constitutes a dig at the Catholic Church.  I guess in light of this new information it’s appropriate to withdraw my comment that it’s clever and suggest instead that it’s powerful.
Your background is unitarian?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
UniversalistGuy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Posts: 90


« Reply #72 on: February 24, 2011, 12:23:10 PM »

On the tradition of kissing, e.g kissing hands, icons, cloaks, feet... , etc., there is a support article from New Advent.

Quote
Kissing of the feet

The veneration shown in the kissing of a person's hand or the hem of his garment is accentuated in the kissing of the feet. This is probably implied by the phrase of Isaias (49:23): "Kings...shall lick up the dust of Thy feet." Under the influence, no doubt, of the ceremonial of king-worship, as manifested in the cultus of the Roman emperors, this particular mark of veneration came to prevail at an early date among the usages of the papal court (see Lattey, "Ancient King-Worship", Lond., 1909 C. T. S. pamhlet). We read of it in the first "Ordo Romanus" belonging to the seventh century, but even earlier than this the "Liber Pontificalis" attests that the Emperor Justin paid this mark of respect to Pope John I (523-26), as later on Justinian II also did to Pope Constantine. At the election of Leo IV (847) the custom of so kissing the pope's foot was spoken of as an ancient one. It is not, therefore, wonderful that a practice supported by so early a tradition should still be observed. It is observed liturgically in a solemn papal Mass by the Latin and Greek subdeacons, and quasi-liturgically in the "adoration" of the pope by the cardinals after his election. It is also the normal salutation which papal etiquette prescribes for those of the faithful who are presented to the pope in a private audience. In his "De altaris mysterio" (VI, 6) Innocent III explains that this ceremony indicates "the very great reverence due to the Supreme Pontiff as the Vicar of Him whose feet" were kissed by the woman who was a sinner.

By way of contrast, a story involving the first pope:

Quote
Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist.  After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples' feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.  He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, "Lord, are you going to wash my feet?"  Jesus replied, "You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand."  "No," said Peter, "you shall never wash my feet." Jesus answered, "Unless I wash you, you have no part with me."  "Then, Lord," Simon Peter replied, "not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!"  Jesus answered, "A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you."  For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean.  When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. "Do you understand what I have done for you?" he asked them.  "You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am.  Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet.  I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.  I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.  Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.


How is this contrast?

I think it’s quite a vivid one.  Perhaps you should just continue thinking about it until you see it.

Do you not show Jesus respect?

Yes.

When you pray do you, at the minimum, not also bow your head?

Yes.

The eastern churches include, themselves, kissing, prostrations and other acts of submission to priests, bishops, icons, and relics.

But they don’t kiss the pope’s feet, right?

The only conclusion that can be made is, acts of submission to the Pope is wrong, not because you're being submissive, but because it's Roman Catholic, and Roman Catholics are evil.

But wouldn’t an act of submission to the pope i.e. kissing his feet be wrong for an Orthodox Christian or indeed for any Non–Catholic?
Logged
UniversalistGuy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Posts: 90


« Reply #73 on: February 24, 2011, 12:26:29 PM »

Then it shouldn't claim it can do more.

What's the point of having universal ordinary jurisdiction if it's not used when it's needed?

What does universal ordinary jurisdiction entail?


A picture is worth a thousand words.

This picture is one of Isa's favorites. It is from the early 16th century by Lucas Cranach der Ältere, a German painter and engraver. Cranach was popular among the German princes (Lutheran) and many Protestant reformation leaders, including being a close friend of Martin Luther. This print is intended to be derogatory against Roman Catholicism and the Papacy exemplifying the Protestant position as well as maintaining the Pope as the anti-Christ.

It’s extremely clever because the notion that it is derogatory has to be inferred since it is apparently no more than a visual reminder of what actually happens in real life.

Not true. The posture of the "Pope" is arrogant, the congregation look like skeletons (appear dead), the bishops in the back are grinning and whispering, etc. The piece (titled "Antichrist") was produced and is obviously satirical propaganda to produce an emotional reaction against the act.

I see. I wasn’t aware that it was titled “Antichrist” and I didn’t observe those things that you’ve pointed out.  I accept, then, that it is satirical and that as such it constitutes a dig at the Catholic Church.  I guess in light of this new information it’s appropriate to withdraw my comment that it’s clever and suggest instead that it’s powerful.
Your background is unitarian?

No, Evangelical.
Logged
wynd
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 502


Transfiguration


« Reply #74 on: February 24, 2011, 12:51:36 PM »

The Catholic Church has a pope and every Catholic apologist I come across, whether amateur or professional, uses the papacy as a foundational argument for the truth of Catholicism yet it appears that the Catholic Church is in a big mess.  What’s the use of having an infallible papacy if Catholic priests do whatever they want regardless of what the Catholic Church tells them to do?  What’s the use of having an infallible papacy if Catholic bishops let Catholic priests lead Catholic faithful astray?  What’s the use of having an infallible papacy if the incumbent finds himself stuck in the same position as the old woman who lived in a shoe and had so many children she didn’t know what to do?  It has to be tough on ordinary Catholics seeking after God to see their faith community heavily burdened with inept leadership and enmeshed in chaos and confusion.

This is exactly what I meant.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,404


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #75 on: February 24, 2011, 01:12:18 PM »

Then it shouldn't claim it can do more.

What's the point of having universal ordinary jurisdiction if it's not used when it's needed?

What does universal ordinary jurisdiction entail?


A picture is worth a thousand words.

This picture is one of Isa's favorites. It is from the early 16th century by Lucas Cranach der Ältere, a German painter and engraver. Cranach was popular among the German princes (Lutheran) and many Protestant reformation leaders, including being a close friend of Martin Luther. This print is intended to be derogatory against Roman Catholicism and the Papacy exemplifying the Protestant position as well as maintaining the Pope as the anti-Christ.

It’s extremely clever because the notion that it is derogatory has to be inferred since it is apparently no more than a visual reminder of what actually happens in real life.

Not true. The posture of the "Pope" is arrogant, the congregation look like skeletons (appear dead), the bishops in the back are grinning and whispering, etc. The piece (titled "Antichrist") was produced and is obviously satirical propaganda to produce an emotional reaction against the act.

I see. I wasn’t aware that it was titled “Antichrist” and I didn’t observe those things that you’ve pointed out.  I accept, then, that it is satirical and that as such it constitutes a dig at the Catholic Church.  I guess in light of this new information it’s appropriate to withdraw my comment that it’s clever and suggest instead that it’s powerful.
Your background is unitarian?

No, Evangelical.
Makes perfect sense. Protestantism is not a religion or faith in and of itself. It is a religion in opposition: opposition to the Catholic Church, and especially, oppostion to the Catholic Pope. No wonder you enjoy this picture so much.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,404


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #76 on: February 24, 2011, 01:14:29 PM »


But they don’t kiss the pope’s feet, right?

Neither do I nor do any Catholics I know. Though, I wouldn't be surprised if an Eastern Orthodox Christian, at some point in the past, kissed the feet of the "Divine All-Holy and Ecumenical" Patriach of Constantinople, given the reverence that they show for priests and bishops. "Blessed are the feet of him who brings good news".
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,942


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #77 on: February 24, 2011, 01:39:30 PM »

On the tradition of kissing, e.g kissing hands, icons, cloaks, feet... , etc., there is a support article from New Advent.
Quote
Kissing of the feet

The veneration shown in the kissing of a person's hand or the hem of his garment is accentuated in the kissing of the feet. This is probably implied by the phrase of Isaias (49:23): "Kings...shall lick up the dust of Thy feet." Under the influence, no doubt, of the ceremonial of king-worship, as manifested in the cultus of the Roman emperors, this particular mark of veneration came to prevail at an early date among the usages of the papal court (see Lattey, "Ancient King-Worship", Lond., 1909 C. T. S. pamhlet). We read of it in the first "Ordo Romanus" belonging to the seventh century, but even earlier than this the "Liber Pontificalis" attests that the Emperor Justin paid this mark of respect to Pope John I (523-26), as later on Justinian II also did to Pope Constantine. At the election of Leo IV (847) the custom of so kissing the pope's foot was spoken of as an ancient one. It is not, therefore, wonderful that a practice supported by so early a tradition should still be observed. It is observed liturgically in a solemn papal Mass by the Latin and Greek subdeacons, and quasi-liturgically in the "adoration" of the pope by the cardinals after his election. It is also the normal salutation which papal etiquette prescribes for those of the faithful who are presented to the pope in a private audience. In his "De altaris mysterio" (VI, 6) Innocent III explains that this ceremony indicates "the very great reverence due to the Supreme Pontiff as the Vicar of Him whose feet" were kissed by the woman who was a sinner.

By way of contrast, a story involving the first pope:

Quote
Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist.  After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples' feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.  He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, "Lord, are you going to wash my feet?"  Jesus replied, "You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand."  "No," said Peter, "you shall never wash my feet." Jesus answered, "Unless I wash you, you have no part with me."  "Then, Lord," Simon Peter replied, "not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!"  Jesus answered, "A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you."  For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean.  When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. "Do you understand what I have done for you?" he asked them.  "You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am.  Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet.  I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.  I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.  Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.


How is this contrast? Do you not show Jesus respect? When you pray do you, at the minimum, not also bow your head? The eastern churches include, themselves, kissing, prostrations and other acts of submission to priests, bishops, icons, and relics. The only conclusion that can be made is, acts of submission to the Pope is wrong, not because you're being submissive, but because it's Roman Catholic, and Roman Catholics are evil.

The foundational doctrine of Eastern Orthodoxy. They have more in common with protestants than they would like to admit.

Bah. All of you, step back, count to ten and give us a break. If both sides here are really honest, they should reflect on the insulting, hurtful inanity of much which is being written here.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2011, 01:40:36 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
UniversalistGuy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Posts: 90


« Reply #78 on: February 24, 2011, 01:49:39 PM »

Bah. All of you, step back, count to ten and give us a break. If both sides here are really honest, they should reflect on the insulting, hurtful inanity of much which is being written here.

I'm very sorry.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #79 on: February 24, 2011, 03:16:44 PM »

Getting back to the topic, I hope you EO finally stop clinging to your myth of the scary all-powerful pope. Benedict is the Supreme Pontiff indeed, but the pope is one man. There is a lot of disobedience at this moment in history, but that doesn't invalidate the papacy, no more than disobedience to bishops invalidates the episcopacy. Supreme Pontiff means "bridge-builder." Imagine the Catholic Church during the current Western cultural tsunami WITHOUT the papacy---it would be schisms all over the place, total disaster. So I say, THANK GOD for the Holy See. THANK GOD that the Holy See is preserving the Faith even when many local priests or bishops adulterate it. Peter speaks through Leo who speaks through Benedict.

Consider all the problems in your EO churches and "alternative" churches (Old Calendarists, vagantes, etc.)---do these problems invalidate your ecclesiology? I didn't think so.

The problem is sin, not the papacy.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,942


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #80 on: February 24, 2011, 04:09:09 PM »

Getting back to the topic, I hope you EO finally stop clinging to your myth of the scary all-powerful pope. Benedict is the Supreme Pontiff indeed, but the pope is one man. There is a lot of disobedience at this moment in history, but that doesn't invalidate the papacy, no more than disobedience to bishops invalidates the episcopacy. Supreme Pontiff means "bridge-builder." Imagine the Catholic Church during the current Western cultural tsunami WITHOUT the papacy---it would be schisms all over the place, total disaster. So I say, THANK GOD for the Holy See. THANK GOD that the Holy See is preserving the Faith even when many local priests or bishops adulterate it. Peter speaks through Leo who speaks through Benedict.

Consider all the problems in your EO churches and "alternative" churches (Old Calendarists, vagantes, etc.)---do these problems invalidate your ecclesiology? I didn't think so.

The problem is sin, not the papacy.

While I can not endorse your celebration of the historical institution of the papacy, I will agree that the strength of personality and purpose exhibited by certain modern popes has had a positive and a bonding effect on the Catholic Church in the face of her modern problems. The problem is sin, not any one man, office or institution.

Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #81 on: February 24, 2011, 06:16:45 PM »

Getting back to the topic, I hope you EO finally stop clinging to your myth of the scary all-powerful pope. Benedict is the Supreme Pontiff indeed, but the pope is one man. There is a lot of disobedience at this moment in history, but that doesn't invalidate the papacy, no more than disobedience to bishops invalidates the episcopacy. Supreme Pontiff means "bridge-builder." Imagine the Catholic Church during the current Western cultural tsunami WITHOUT the papacy---it would be schisms all over the place, total disaster. So I say, THANK GOD for the Holy See. THANK GOD that the Holy See is preserving the Faith even when many local priests or bishops adulterate it. Peter speaks through Leo who speaks through Benedict.

Consider all the problems in your EO churches and "alternative" churches (Old Calendarists, vagantes, etc.)---do these problems invalidate your ecclesiology? I didn't think so.

The problem is sin, not the papacy.

But the pope has so much power, i mean, look how much Pope JPII changed! Putting so much power in the hands of one man is just scary, and infallibility makes him even more scarier.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2011, 06:18:43 PM by Ortho_cat » Logged
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #82 on: February 24, 2011, 06:31:31 PM »

Quote
But the pope has so much power, i mean, look how much Pope JPII changed! Putting so much power in the hands of one man is just scary, and infallibility makes him even more scarier.
Agreed.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #83 on: February 24, 2011, 06:33:55 PM »

Getting back to the topic, I hope you EO finally stop clinging to your myth of the scary all-powerful pope. Benedict is the Supreme Pontiff indeed, but the pope is one man. There is a lot of disobedience at this moment in history, but that doesn't invalidate the papacy, no more than disobedience to bishops invalidates the episcopacy. Supreme Pontiff means "bridge-builder." Imagine the Catholic Church during the current Western cultural tsunami WITHOUT the papacy---it would be schisms all over the place, total disaster. So I say, THANK GOD for the Holy See. THANK GOD that the Holy See is preserving the Faith even when many local priests or bishops adulterate it. Peter speaks through Leo who speaks through Benedict.

Consider all the problems in your EO churches and "alternative" churches (Old Calendarists, vagantes, etc.)---do these problems invalidate your ecclesiology? I didn't think so.

The problem is sin, not the papacy.

But the pope has so much power, i mean, look how much Pope JPII changed! Putting so much power in the hands of one man is just scary, and infallibility makes him even more scarier.

Logged


I'm going to need this.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #84 on: February 24, 2011, 06:52:17 PM »

^ok, that's scary, but on a different level!  laugh
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,588


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #85 on: February 24, 2011, 06:58:34 PM »

C'mon! It shows the man could laugh at himself - a GOOD THING!
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #86 on: February 24, 2011, 07:01:58 PM »

I would be interested to know the context surrounding that picture, if anyone knows...
Logged
JimCBrooklyn
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow Patriarchate-Diocese of Saint Petersburg/ROCOR-Diocese of Eastern America and New York
Posts: 569


Если бога нет, то все позволено


« Reply #87 on: February 24, 2011, 07:07:23 PM »

More mundane abuses include the following:

1) use of "extra-ordinary" ministers of (i.e. non-priests and deacons) to distribute communion. The rules are that all available priests at that mass should distribute communion, but often enough, one or more of them will sit back while the laity does the distribution.


This was one of the first red herrings for me as a Catholic. I felt encouraged to become one of these "extraordinary ministers", and indeed I did; it took one, 45 minute class and there I was giving out the Eucharist. I felt odd about it, and researched it some, and couldn't really continue to hang with it.

The idea in our parish was to help everyone get to communion faster, but at what cost? I go to liturgy here now and it takes a while for everyone to be done (let alone the service itself at a Russian Cathedral), but all is well. And for the record, I have most certainly been present at masses where EM's served and some priests present did not.

And please, don't take this as spiteful anti-catholicism; I have a lot of love for the RC church, having spent a lot of time there, and having essentially grown up, in a spiritual sense, there. I have a lot of love for each of the last two popes, even if I am uncertain at best about their office. In no way is my arrival into Orthodoxy about anti-catholicism. It is about truth.

Logged

It is not the task of Christianity to provide easy answers to every question, but to make us progressively aware of a mystery. God is not so much the object of our knowledge as the cause of our wonder.
-Metropolitan Kallistos Ware
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,046


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #88 on: February 24, 2011, 11:08:49 PM »

In 1975, while celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Common Declaration at the Sistine Chapel, Metropolitan
Meliton of Chalcedon the representative of the current Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios I, announced the Pan-Orthodox
decision to establish a special Inter-Orthodox Theological Commission to prepare for a theological dialogue with the
Roman Church as well as the establishment in the Ecumenical Patriarchate of a Special Synodal Commission for
the Theological Dialogue with Rome. After giving his own remarks in response to this, Paul VI spontaneously went to the Metropolitan, knelt down and kissed his feet! Those attending were utterly astonished.  Meliton was later quoted as saying: “Only a saint could have done that.” Paul VI knew the history and the power of that gesture.

http://www.richmonddiocese.org/ecumenical/Orthodox_CatholicDialogPart1.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/Rome-Constantinople-Metropolitan-Meliton-Chalcedon/dp/1933275111
« Last Edit: February 24, 2011, 11:16:50 PM by Deacon Lance » Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
WUnland
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditional Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Japan / Bayern
Posts: 44


« Reply #89 on: February 25, 2011, 02:07:04 AM »

Back to the original topic,

I am a Latin Rite Catholic.  Quite frankly the types of silliness shown in the YouTube videos is EXACTLY why I am on THIS site.

My Church caught the 1960's new age bug and with Vatican II tried to get "modern" and become attractive in a new "hip and "inclusive" way.  Spiritualism was deemed to be expressible in many ways not only in the ancient ceremonies of times past.  I remember the jaw dropping amazement as a 7th grade kid when the nuns showed up without habits strumming guitars at Mass for the first time.  They wanted to be hippies, remember it was the 60's.

This freewheeling, let the people express themselves, they're all talking to God in their own way type of liberalism became the norm in the US.  That resulted in the abominations seen in the videos.  MOST parishes don't go that far, but they all "innovate".  They seem to feel they need to to keep their "audience".  That is why the traditionalists flee the NO Masses.  Now you throw the "neochatecumenal way" into the mix and the Mass has become unrecognizable when compared to the official "rules" of the Church.

As others have said the Pope is not the king.  Each Bishop is responsible for his priest's following the "rules".  But many of the Bishops started this whole touchy feely movement because they think it is better to have any members than no members.  They believe they will loose parishioners if they try to "force" any "rules" on people's expression of "faith".

  Add to that the "gay mafia" which infected the priesthood in the 70's, which eventually led to the child abuse scandals.  The devout immigrant families that had supplied priests to the Church for decades didn't want their sons getting messed up with it all and the seminaries died.  Now when I return to California for a visit all the priests I see are Filipino, Mexican, or Vietnamese.

It is easy to demand that the Pope take charge and do something, but to be honest I believe that the US Bishops would tell him to pound sand, just as many European bishops already have.  I think the belief that the Pope has some great power over the dioceses is sadly mistaken.  The Pope needs the Bishops, they really don't need him.  They collect the money, they control the properties, they ordain the priests etc.  The Pope can say NO, but as with the SSPX and others, the Bishops may just leave.  MANY believe the US Church will eventually do just that.

Sorry for the rant, but I think it unfair to lump all faithful Catholics into the circus clowns seen in the videos.  There are many of us that wish it wasn't so.  As I have said in other posts I try VERY hard to remain faithful to my Church, BUT it is becoming difficult to not see the problems with it's "liberal" disposition. At present I am in Japan which is fairly conservative, so no clown Masses, not yet anyway.

It is important to remember that the Church as an institution is not bad, but there are certainly some powerful personalities IN the Church that are either truly BAD, or just cowards unwilling to endure any hardship should they actually defend the faith.

Many think that they are great "philosophers" which are just smarter than everyone else and are moving the Church where it really should be.  Others are just trying to be liked by EVERYONE because they think that is what Jesus was all about.  It's all heresy of course, but I honestly believe in their own arrogance, they don't see it.

Regards,
William Unland
Logged
WUnland
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditional Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Japan / Bayern
Posts: 44


« Reply #90 on: February 25, 2011, 05:27:43 AM »

Oh, I forgot to add,

I am commenting ONLY on the US Church from which the OP's video references originated.  The Latin Church is in the VERY difficult position of having to try to fit the needs of 100' s of different cultures, perhaps 1000's. Liturgical dancing may in fact be a GOOD and PIOUS expression in an African culture or South Pacific Nation.  I cannot say it would never fit within the liturgy ANYWHERE, but in the USA it is vulgar.

Same goes with guitars. They may actually fit in some Spanish or South American country but in the USA, in an Anglo parish, they are vulgar.

I know it is easy to laugh at the direction some in my Church have swerved but please consider: The Orthodox Patriarchies have remained basically mono-cultural.  Sure there are members in limited numbers from other than the majority ethnicity, but for the most part each Orthodox branch is made up of people from the same culture.  That has preserved tradition and is NOT a bad thing to my mind.  However, should the Orthodox Churches ever really reach out to the rest of the world in a meaningful way they may find themselves with members who want to veer off in weird directions too.  Would the Orthodox tell their New Guinea converts they could not dance?

Perhaps this perspective needs to be considered when looking at Latin rite abuses as well. The liturgy here in Japan, when translated into English is just watered down dribble to me, but I understand that the people here have no word in their language for "sin", nor any concept of "salvation" or even "resurrection", so the Church has tried to put forth the Gospel and liturgy as they think it easiest for the people to understand.  Every country's Roman rite Bishopric does the same.  Luckily the Orthodox, with small exception, doesn't have to contend with this.  

I am adding this because some liturgy that might be an abuse in the USA may not be in Japan or Nigeria.  In the USA the abuse grows from arrogance and selfishness, as well as a rich celebrity/entertainment worshiping culture that demands to be entertained.  In other places in the world what some would call abuses are actually cultural accommodation.  The message must meet those it is intended for.

The Apostles understood this, that is why we have four, not one Gospel.  One is written in a Jewish perspective, one a Greek, another a Gentile Convert.  The secularists  love to point out the seeming contradictions.  But they are not contradictory when considering who wrote them and for whom.  Just a different approach to the same message.

SO.  I think we all need to take care when laughing at funny videos posted by breakaway sedecavantists (sic)and deriding the Latin Church in whole. YES.  The US Church has strayed in many places, but what the videos show is as others have mentioned not as wide spread as some might believe. And some weirdness is a byproduct of trying to reach everyone in the world, and every little odd community therein.

I apologize for the length of these posts, but since liturgical abuse is what has pointed me towards your faith, I have strong opinion on the subject.

Bill Unland
« Last Edit: February 25, 2011, 05:31:15 AM by WUnland » Logged
JimCBrooklyn
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow Patriarchate-Diocese of Saint Petersburg/ROCOR-Diocese of Eastern America and New York
Posts: 569


Если бога нет, то все позволено


« Reply #91 on: February 25, 2011, 06:43:12 AM »

WU,
I think these are totally fair points, and that is why to me, the singing and dancing was less alarming than some of the other "abuses".

As for the singing and dancing, I think it's dumb, for lack of a better word, and it's catering to a segment of worshipers, and to a set of desires, that should not be catered to. There are 2 points about this issue that really stuck out to me, and played a major part in my starting to head East:

1)To me, like I said in my earlier post, things like "Extraordinary Ministers", and the overall liturgical reforms of Vatican II, which did come from Rome, are totally untenable practices. When I joined the RC Church years ago, as a teenager, things like this didn't occur to me, coming from an entirely atheistic/ancestrally American Protestant background. I had no reason to question the modern practices of the church, but I also had the luxury of coming into the church in my first year in college, while living in a very, very small town in upstate NY, in a very small parish that just so happened to have a Latin Mass, and a totally no-nonsense Novus Ordo Mass, in a very old, traditional-looking church. When I transferred to school in Boston, and experienced places like the Paulist Center, or even just run of the mill parishes, and then returned home to Brooklyn, and saw things that went on in churches in NYC, I was fairly shocked, and the more I researched it, the less sense it made to me that any of these reforms were ever allowed. Obviously, the directive to sing John Denver songs about God while a Harvard Professor of Feminist Studies reads the Epistle does not come from Rome, but the Novus Ordo did, and I had a lot of trouble with this.

2) Even though I acknowledge that all that other nonsense does not come from Rome, I would echo what some of the earlier posters said, which is that when a church makes such claims about its head as the RC church does about the pope (much as I happen to admire Benedict XVI, and John Paul II, memory eternal), and such claims about the efficacy of said approach, things like we are seeing should not be allowed. That is to say, of course, in any church comprised of mere mortals there wills be chaos, the type of which was seen with Iconoclasts and all the other First Millennium heresies, with liturgical abuse, with sexual abuse, etc., but when a church puts so much authority and faith in its leader, it should follow that if its claims were true, there would not be such chaos. Case in point, the Russian Tsar: though the Orthodox Church never officially designated it (which is hugely important),  plenty of Russians thought of him as almost God on Earth. I can recall seeing an icon illustrating God's kingdoms in heaven and on earth, each with the Tsar at center. This idea has almost completely disappeared, because the things that occurred under his rule show us quite clearly that the Tsar did not possess these special qualities that were often attributed to him.
Logged

It is not the task of Christianity to provide easy answers to every question, but to make us progressively aware of a mystery. God is not so much the object of our knowledge as the cause of our wonder.
-Metropolitan Kallistos Ware
WUnland
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditional Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Japan / Bayern
Posts: 44


« Reply #92 on: February 25, 2011, 08:27:45 AM »

Dear Jim,

We are in total agreement about the extraordinary minister, alter girls, yada yada yada that came from INTERPRETATION of the "SPIRIT of Vat II" by the US and European Churches.  EMHC's were to be used ONLY where the priests couldn't reasonably handle the crowd, but we both know it is way past that limitation.  I went to a Carmelite elementary school with full on habit nuns and brothers with kneeling all day a not unusual "drill".  Consequently the new "innovations" drive me nuts. That's why I'm here.  My Church is loosing it's mind in many dioceses.  But really what do you expect when 60% of priests don't really believe in the real presence in the US.  Why not make it a show.  Priests just want to be liked too.

I was catechized well, and without wanting to start a discussion about same do not find objection to the basic dogma of my Church, which I honestly believe is not really so different that the Orthodox.  Practice is indeed different, as is liturgy, but that's another story.

As far as the "central command" argument about the Pope, I have never really seen him as a real "authority".  He stopped having an army and cutting off heretical bishops heads long ago.  Seems rather like the queen of England to me.  The old boy Cardinal club writes something up, that he signs, and it goes out.  But usually it involves totally inconsequential stuff that has NO affect on my faith or practice whatsoever.  I think that he knows that he hasn't the "real" power to enforce anything so he goes about trying to hold the whole shebang together by tip toeing around things while rarely giving a real answer. Personally I have NO problem with the first among equals Orthodox approach to the whole "authority" thing.  I can see the point where one "leader" would be needed to "break ties" over how many angels fit on a pin head type discussions, but I have never seen the Pope's authority to be much more than administrative.

My Orthodox friends and particularly Protestants jump all over the "infallibility" thing, but that is only applicable to EX CATHEDRA dogmatic issues and has been applied, what 2 times in the last 100 years.  NOBODY in the Church believes that everything a Pope says or does is infallible, people outside just think that we do.

The Church isn't a business with the Pope as CEO, its more like a club with a central head.  Each chapter has it's own president and runs it's own affairs, but the head is there to attempt to keep the peace between the various presidents. About the only thing he can do is remove a Bishop, but that requires some direct disobedience, so it is done rarely.

I am NOT a cannon law expert, nor an expert on Church history or theology, just a retired cop, regular trying to be a good Catholic guy.  Maybe my views are way off of what reality it, but it's how I see my Church. The liturgical abuses affect me so I don't like them.  When I am in the US I go to a pre-62 Latin service at a small Polish community center.  I can't stand the NO Church nearby (wine poured from a water pitcher into chalices on the alter by some woman in a cassock?Huh).  Here in Japan I have no choice.

Bill Unland
« Last Edit: February 25, 2011, 08:32:31 AM by WUnland » Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,942


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #93 on: February 25, 2011, 11:28:42 AM »

Back to the original topic,

I am a Latin Rite Catholic.  Quite frankly the types of silliness shown in the YouTube videos is EXACTLY why I am on THIS site.

My Church caught the 1960's new age bug and with Vatican II tried to get "modern" and become attractive in a new "hip and "inclusive" way.  Spiritualism was deemed to be expressible in many ways not only in the ancient ceremonies of times past.  I remember the jaw dropping amazement as a 7th grade kid when the nuns showed up without habits strumming guitars at Mass for the first time.  They wanted to be hippies, remember it was the 60's.

This freewheeling, let the people express themselves, they're all talking to God in their own way type of liberalism became the norm in the US.  That resulted in the abominations seen in the videos.  MOST parishes don't go that far, but they all "innovate".  They seem to feel they need to to keep their "audience".  That is why the traditionalists flee the NO Masses.  Now you throw the "neochatecumenal way" into the mix and the Mass has become unrecognizable when compared to the official "rules" of the Church.

As others have said the Pope is not the king.  Each Bishop is responsible for his priest's following the "rules".  But many of the Bishops started this whole touchy feely movement because they think it is better to have any members than no members.  They believe they will loose parishioners if they try to "force" any "rules" on people's expression of "faith".

  Add to that the "gay mafia" which infected the priesthood in the 70's, which eventually led to the child abuse scandals.  The devout immigrant families that had supplied priests to the Church for decades didn't want their sons getting messed up with it all and the seminaries died.  Now when I return to California for a visit all the priests I see are Filipino, Mexican, or Vietnamese.

It is easy to demand that the Pope take charge and do something, but to be honest I believe that the US Bishops would tell him to pound sand, just as many European bishops already have.  I think the belief that the Pope has some great power over the dioceses is sadly mistaken.  The Pope needs the Bishops, they really don't need him.  They collect the money, they control the properties, they ordain the priests etc.  The Pope can say NO, but as with the SSPX and others, the Bishops may just leave.  MANY believe the US Church will eventually do just that.

Sorry for the rant, but I think it unfair to lump all faithful Catholics into the circus clowns seen in the videos.  There are many of us that wish it wasn't so.  As I have said in other posts I try VERY hard to remain faithful to my Church, BUT it is becoming difficult to not see the problems with it's "liberal" disposition. At present I am in Japan which is fairly conservative, so no clown Masses, not yet anyway.

It is important to remember that the Church as an institution is not bad, but there are certainly some powerful personalities IN the Church that are either truly BAD, or just cowards unwilling to endure any hardship should they actually defend the faith.

Many think that they are great "philosophers" which are just smarter than everyone else and are moving the Church where it really should be.  Others are just trying to be liked by EVERYONE because they think that is what Jesus was all about.  It's all heresy of course, but I honestly believe in their own arrogance, they don't see it.

Regards,
William Unland

Thank you William for posting IMO the most heartfelt, honest and meaningful defense of the Roman Catholic Church that has been posted on this Forum during the two years I have been a member. Not all Orthodox take the fierce, anti-Roman view that many are willing to anonymously put on the internet.

While we Orthodox may have deep and equally heartfelt concerns about the Roman Church and retain our own staunch opposition to certain of her beliefs, we do not all mock her or revel in pope-bashing.

I believe that while there are certainly some who feel they are doing the Roman Catholic Church a service by posting the angry type of drivel that the OP refers to, we Orthodox should recognize that we have our own set of misguided 'cheerleaders' who reciprocate in kind.

There are valid doctrinal and historical reasons why our Churches and our laity fear dialogue and harbor long held misconceptions about each other and their respective beliefs. We can not ignore that reality, but that reality should not stop us from honestly staking out common moral ground where we clearly agree as we confront the secular post-Christian world and working towards reconciliation if that be the will of God.

In Christ,

David
Logged
wynd
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 502


Transfiguration


« Reply #94 on: February 26, 2011, 06:45:49 PM »

My Orthodox friends and particularly Protestants jump all over the "infallibility" thing, but that is only applicable to EX CATHEDRA dogmatic issues and has been applied, what 2 times in the last 100 years.  NOBODY in the Church believes that everything a Pope says or does is infallible, people outside just think that we do.

The thing is, in addition to papal infallibility (dealing with dogma) there is also papal universal jurisdiction (dealing with everything else). Just because the pope chooses not to intervene in any given situation doesn't mean he doesn't have that right according to RC canon law.
Logged
JimCBrooklyn
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow Patriarchate-Diocese of Saint Petersburg/ROCOR-Diocese of Eastern America and New York
Posts: 569


Если бога нет, то все позволено


« Reply #95 on: February 26, 2011, 07:00:16 PM »

My Orthodox friends and particularly Protestants jump all over the "infallibility" thing, but that is only applicable to EX CATHEDRA dogmatic issues and has been applied, what 2 times in the last 100 years.  NOBODY in the Church believes that everything a Pope says or does is infallible, people outside just think that we do.

The thing is, in addition to papal infallibility (dealing with dogma) there is also papal universal jurisdiction (dealing with everything else). Just because the pope chooses not to intervene in any given situation doesn't mean he doesn't have that right according to RC canon law.

Right. When I talk about my qualms with papal authority, infallibility is just a piece of it. I fully understand, and have understood for quite some time, what the RC definition of infallibility is, though contextualizing "ex cathedra" is tough... The issue of universal jurisdiction, combined with the potential for the infallible statement, creates a whole new level of authority.
Logged

It is not the task of Christianity to provide easy answers to every question, but to make us progressively aware of a mystery. God is not so much the object of our knowledge as the cause of our wonder.
-Metropolitan Kallistos Ware
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #96 on: February 26, 2011, 08:34:02 PM »

My Orthodox friends and particularly Protestants jump all over the "infallibility" thing, but that is only applicable to EX CATHEDRA dogmatic issues and has been applied, what 2 times in the last 100 years.  NOBODY in the Church believes that everything a Pope says or does is infallible, people outside just think that we do.

The thing is, in addition to papal infallibility (dealing with dogma) there is also papal universal jurisdiction (dealing with everything else). Just because the pope chooses not to intervene in any given situation doesn't mean he doesn't have that right according to RC canon law.

There is such a critter in the Catholic Church as due process.  There are certain things that the Holy Father can do outside of due process, like call a council, or call a bishop to come to him and talk to him whether the bishop wants to go or not...but once you get past those couple of things he can do on his own, he is just as bound by due process as anyone else.

So the concern that there's some sort of limitless power to do harm on the part of the Holy Father is just not realistic...
Logged

WUnland
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditional Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Japan / Bayern
Posts: 44


« Reply #97 on: February 26, 2011, 11:38:21 PM »

Hello,

Please let me assure all that it was NOT my intention to go off on a papal authority direction with my post, I was limiting that discussion to an inquiry as to why the Pope had not stopped the liturgical abuses that were the original subject of this thread.  I would never presume to argue against the long held Orthodox distrust of papal authority.  I am neither qualified, nor actually inclined to do so since I am not in any meaningful way in disagreement with the Orthodox position.  For taking the thread off course I apologize.

My point was exactly the same as the post above, basically that the Pope has no "real" power.  He is a Bishop with some administrative authority, but clearly the other Bishops do not follow his "suggestions" with much consistency as evidenced by the bizarre liturgies, the "gay" masses and so forth.

As I stated before, I am in complete agreement with the "first among equals" concept held by the Orthodox Church regarding the Pope. My somewhat disjointed previous post was an attempt to point out that I believed that such a position is his reality in my Church right now.  First amongst the Bishops, but NOT holding any power over them except to fire them.

It seems he is like the chairman of a board of directors; elected from a group of equals to maintain order. Not much more.  For the Pope to speak Ex Cathedra, IE; with authority, he needs the backing and approval of the magisterium, the college of cardinals.  He can't just make dogmatic decisions on his own.  That is my understanding anyway.  I don't see it to be much different than the decisions made during Orthodox councils or general assemblies of the Patriarchies.  The Pope is just the figurehead that signs the final decisions, and takes the responsibility for in history. The Apostles were all equals, with Peter as the guy responsible for getting all the others to come to concensus.  I think the Pope's position is not much different in my Church now.

Regards,
William Unland
« Last Edit: February 26, 2011, 11:42:53 PM by WUnland » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #98 on: February 27, 2011, 10:25:22 AM »

Given your approach here, I am very interested, considering how much we all observe the Decalogue in the breach, what you think about the usefulness and worth of the Ten Commandments? 

Would you speak of their moral and theological and spiritual ineffectiveness in the same way that you speak of the Pope in Rome?  Perhaps we should simply expunge them from Scripture so that the Bible falls more in line with human proclivities?   Or perhaps we should set up ecclesiastical courts to deal with people who don't toe the line?...and an ecclesiastical police force to bring the beggars to the bar?

What do you think?


Hello,

Please let me assure all that it was NOT my intention to go off on a papal authority direction with my post, I was limiting that discussion to an inquiry as to why the Pope had not stopped the liturgical abuses that were the original subject of this thread.  I would never presume to argue against the long held Orthodox distrust of papal authority.  I am neither qualified, nor actually inclined to do so since I am not in any meaningful way in disagreement with the Orthodox position.  For taking the thread off course I apologize.

My point was exactly the same as the post above, basically that the Pope has no "real" power.  He is a Bishop with some administrative authority, but clearly the other Bishops do not follow his "suggestions" with much consistency as evidenced by the bizarre liturgies, the "gay" masses and so forth.

As I stated before, I am in complete agreement with the "first among equals" concept held by the Orthodox Church regarding the Pope. My somewhat disjointed previous post was an attempt to point out that I believed that such a position is his reality in my Church right now.  First amongst the Bishops, but NOT holding any power over them except to fire them.

It seems he is like the chairman of a board of directors; elected from a group of equals to maintain order. Not much more.  For the Pope to speak Ex Cathedra, IE; with authority, he needs the backing and approval of the magisterium, the college of cardinals.  He can't just make dogmatic decisions on his own.  That is my understanding anyway.  I don't see it to be much different than the decisions made during Orthodox councils or general assemblies of the Patriarchies.  The Pope is just the figurehead that signs the final decisions, and takes the responsibility for in history. The Apostles were all equals, with Peter as the guy responsible for getting all the others to come to concensus.  I think the Pope's position is not much different in my Church now.

Regards,
William Unland
Logged

WUnland
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditional Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Japan / Bayern
Posts: 44


« Reply #99 on: February 27, 2011, 07:34:47 PM »

My Dear Brother,

That certainly came from nowhere.  I agreed with you that the Pope’s authority is not limitless and NOW you equate it to the authority of the 10 commandments.  Wow, that is a leap!

I REALLY didn’t want this discussion to go here but I feel I must respond.

Firstly I accept the leadership of the Pope. I am a member of his Church. Jesus himself established his authority as the head of the Church on earth.  I do not recall, however; the Gospels saying that ONLY Peter was to be listened to and that only he could discern truth.  He is a man elected by other men. History proves that the hand of God is not always involved in these elections as we have had some VERY bad Popes who abused their authority and lived scandalous lives.  The Pentecost was not only Peter’s.  All of the Apostles received the gifts.  We as Roman Rite members pray that God will inspire and lead the Pope every time we go to Mass. His “personal” infallibility is hardly taken for granted. Jesus made him the leader of the organization, not it's "guru", if you will.

Benedict XVI is a modernist.  Have you read his books?  He does NOT believe in the general Resurrection of the body, and says that the Creed is couched in antiquated ideas and can be misleading.  He believes that Genesis is nothing more than pagan creation mythos. He believes that Jews are not subject to Christ’s covenant (contrary to Matthew). He believes that Islam worships the same God as I do even while they are martyring my brothers and deny the divinity of Christ.  He believes that the cultish heretical Neocatechumenal Way is a positive force in the Church.

NO, I do NOT believe that I must accept these beliefs of the Pope to reach my own salvation.  In fact I must resist them. I am NOT a Sedevacantist.  He is the Pope and the head of my Church.  I obey my Bishop and he obeys the Pope, but there are limits to what level that obedience is required. It says just that in Church law.  If Benedict declared that all believer should henceforth wear pink underwear as a sign of belief, and failure to do so would excommunicate, would you feel this was inspired by God, and feel that your salvation depended on it? Hardly I would proffer.

The ten commandments on the other hand, are a cornerstone of Judeo-Christian thought and tradition.  The Pope’s secular authority is hardly that, and your analogy seems to lack any basis at all. What "authority" are you now addressing?  How did we leap from the Pope's "limited" secular authority to the ten commandments of scripture being without binding authority over believers? If I am missing something please teach me.  As I said I am NOT a theologian, just a fuddling layman trying to get through my life as close to God as I can.

Regards,
William Unland
« Last Edit: February 27, 2011, 08:04:24 PM by WUnland » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #100 on: February 27, 2011, 09:24:39 PM »

My Dear Brother,

That certainly came from nowhere.  


It came from the idea that if something does not work properly then we either need to get rid of it or ignore it.   The ten commandments barely make a dent in a post lapsarian world.  So I suggested, given your logic, that they are useless too.

Since I do not read Pope Benedict as a modernist, I think I'll have to pass on the rest of your note.
Logged

celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #101 on: February 28, 2011, 12:23:31 AM »

If they did this during mass I am going to puke.  Shocked
Logged

Forgive my sins.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #102 on: February 28, 2011, 02:38:49 AM »

If they did this during mass I am going to puke.  Shocked

Quick, someone give this man a bucket! Wink
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #103 on: February 28, 2011, 10:20:51 PM »

Supposedly it is the Mass adapted to "African-American culture." In fact it is indulgent, self-reverential narcissism. A "spiritual entertainment", in the words of Cardinal Ratzinger.
Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #104 on: March 03, 2011, 11:59:40 PM »

My Dear Brother,

That certainly came from nowhere.  I agreed with you that the Pope’s authority is not limitless and NOW you equate it to the authority of the 10 commandments.  Wow, that is a leap!

I REALLY didn’t want this discussion to go here but I feel I must respond.

Firstly I accept the leadership of the Pope. I am a member of his Church. Jesus himself established his authority as the head of the Church on earth.  I do not recall, however; the Gospels saying that ONLY Peter was to be listened to and that only he could discern truth.  He is a man elected by other men. History proves that the hand of God is not always involved in these elections as we have had some VERY bad Popes who abused their authority and lived scandalous lives.  The Pentecost was not only Peter’s.  All of the Apostles received the gifts.  We as Roman Rite members pray that God will inspire and lead the Pope every time we go to Mass. His “personal” infallibility is hardly taken for granted. Jesus made him the leader of the organization, not it's "guru", if you will.

Benedict XVI is a modernist.  Have you read his books?  He does NOT believe in the general Resurrection of the body, and says that the Creed is couched in antiquated ideas and can be misleading.  He believes that Genesis is nothing more than pagan creation mythos. He believes that Jews are not subject to Christ’s covenant (contrary to Matthew). He believes that Islam worships the same God as I do even while they are martyring my brothers and deny the divinity of Christ.  He believes that the cultish heretical Neocatechumenal Way is a positive force in the Church.

NO, I do NOT believe that I must accept these beliefs of the Pope to reach my own salvation.  In fact I must resist them. I am NOT a Sedevacantist.  He is the Pope and the head of my Church.  I obey my Bishop and he obeys the Pope, but there are limits to what level that obedience is required. It says just that in Church law.  If Benedict declared that all believer should henceforth wear pink underwear as a sign of belief, and failure to do so would excommunicate, would you feel this was inspired by God, and feel that your salvation depended on it? Hardly I would proffer.

The ten commandments on the other hand, are a cornerstone of Judeo-Christian thought and tradition.  The Pope’s secular authority is hardly that, and your analogy seems to lack any basis at all. What "authority" are you now addressing?  How did we leap from the Pope's "limited" secular authority to the ten commandments of scripture being without binding authority over believers? If I am missing something please teach me.  As I said I am NOT a theologian, just a fuddling layman trying to get through my life as close to God as I can.

Regards,
William Unland


Are you sure that the Pope really beleives these things that you ascribe to him, or are these just misread qotations taken out of context by some traditionalist RC source?
« Last Edit: March 04, 2011, 12:00:23 AM by Robb » Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
WUnland
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditional Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Japan / Bayern
Posts: 44


« Reply #105 on: March 05, 2011, 02:40:17 AM »

That's a fair question and to be honest I don't really know if I have been "chumped" by the Sedevacantists or not.  I have read two of Benedict's books and found them very laborious and hard to follow.  Could be the translation or I am just too dull witted to "get" them.  Esoteric theology is not my great strength.

My statements are based on quotes from his MANY books BUT what I read was not in context, only quotes, so I guess my answer would be only Benedict really knows what he believes. Consequently it was UNFAIR of me to make them without appropriate references, and that is my mistake.

That said, his approach towards the Jews is well known and stated quite clearly.  He has promised NOT to try to convert Jews and has publically stated that their covenant is valid for them.  This seems to be rather in conflict with traditional Church teaching, and seems rather "modernist" to me. I had always thought that Matthew in particular stressed that Jesus was interested in bringing Jews into the New Covenant, and that his message was firstly directed to them and NOT Gentiles.  How this is abrogated in Benedict's interpretation I have no clue.

Back to the original purpose of this thread, liturgical abuse; I can say that Yes, Benedict has expressed some affinity for the old liturgy, but at the same time endorses the way out there NeoCats with their french bread and wine bottle "meals", so at least for me, his actual "beliefs" are rather hard to understand, and his "fence straddling" isn't helping my Church much.  I think he firmly believes in VatII.  I am NOT a hyper-trad, but I do recognize that VatII has resulted in huge damage to my Church.  The Pope is going to have to "contain" and "define" VatII or the abuses will just continue.  That is if HE considers them abuses at all. I have been told MANY times that it is NOT what I want in a liturgy that is important, and that others express their faith differently.  I accept that, but I just can't express MY feelings of piety at clown Masses, balloon Masses, guitars and bongo Masses and all the other silliness. I am not the handholding, swaying back and forth to the music, eyes turned to heaven kind of guy. It may work for some, but not me. If that is where tthe Church wants to go I just don't think I can follow. But that is just this layman's opinion.

Regards,
William Unland
« Last Edit: March 05, 2011, 02:44:05 AM by WUnland » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #106 on: March 05, 2011, 01:59:44 PM »

Dear William,

I don't think that the Pope endorses modernism in any of its forms.  Also I and others here have told you that we've never seen such liturgies as others have seen and that you enumerate here.  So I expect that things may not be quite as bleak as you are painting them.

But the reality is that you appear not to be being fed spiritually as a Catholic and so perhaps it might be better if you found another place to invest your time and efforts....It seems to me that the salvation of your soul is what is most important at the end of the day.
Logged

Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #107 on: March 05, 2011, 04:10:15 PM »

That's a fair question and to be honest I don't really know if I have been "chumped" by the Sedevacantists or not.

They are Roman Catholics who believe in the necessity of the Pope, but deny the Pope.

Quote
I have read two of Benedict's books I accept that, but I just can't express MY feelings of piety at clown Masses, balloon Masses, guitars and bongo Masses and all the other silliness. I am not the handholding, swaying back and forth to the music, eyes turned to heaven kind of guy. It may work for some, but not me.

How many of these masses have you personally attended?
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,404


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #108 on: March 05, 2011, 04:12:44 PM »

Dear William,

I don't think that the Pope endorses modernism in any of its forms.  Also I and others here have told you that we've never seen such liturgies as others have seen and that you enumerate here.  So I expect that things may not be quite as bleak as you are painting them.
I don't understand why EO try and pretend that the extreme abuses are the norm. I guess it's just one of those questions that won't be answered.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
WUnland
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditional Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Japan / Bayern
Posts: 44


« Reply #109 on: March 05, 2011, 04:40:48 PM »

As others Roman Rite members have said the really abusive Masses are VERY rare.  I have never intended to suggest that they are common, but they do exist, and the NeoCat movement IS becoming more widespread, if not hidden from the view of many Catholics since they have their own "services" away from the main parish. If you watch the Youtube videos it always seems to be the same events, so there have clearly not been that many of the more scandelous Masses.  I have personally never been to a circus Mass etc.

At the local Parish I have attended in California it was not over the top but neither was it "reverent".  A woman pouring wine from a water pitcher on the alter struck me as not particularly reverential.  It could have been done in the sacristy. EM's wearing some kind of psudo vestments.  Holding hands to sing songs, the priest asking for a louder "goodmorning" before the sermon, and the perpetual social justice give more message message just turned me off. I'm sorry if that makes me a bad Catholic.

I am in Japan where the liturgy is conservative albeit rather watered down, if you translate the prayers.  There are only 2 Latin Masses a month in the entire country and they are SSPX. We do have NeoCats here, but not in my parish.  They, of course do the guitar bongo thing, which I am sorry I would never be able to embrace.

I don't think I am asking too much in wanting a liturgy like I experienced back when VATII first came out.  It WAS the Latin Mass in ENGLISH for all intents and purposes.  I am not a trad, I don't demand Latin, that's a bit too much.  I just wish that the liturgy wasn't so "protestant", so "touchy feely" as it has become in the USA. Popular gospel singing, all female servers and EM's, tee shirts and jeans.  I guess I am just getting old and displaying a lack of "evolution" in my opinion on liturgical practice.

As far as the Catholic Church fulfilling my spiritual needs, the theology and prayer life does.  The liturgy doesn't, but I accept the limitations placed on me by my location.  Where I think I disagree with some here is that I do NOT feel that the Pope's personal opinion on anything is an important part of my personal salvation.  I accept him as the head of my Church.  He's the CEO, but because he likes the NeoCats doesn't mean I do.  I cannot believe that my soul is in the balance of how much I agree or disagree with Benedict.  Not dogmatically, but in his writings and "opinions" which do NOT hold the power of the Church behind them.

That's it.  Some my call me a bad Catholic.  I really hope that that is NOT the case, but as I stated when I started my journey on this board I will honestly admit that the lack of substance in the current NO liturgy of my Church is what is pointing me towards the Orthodox. My Roman brethren may dismiss me because of it, but I am only being honest.

Regards,
Bill Unland
« Last Edit: March 05, 2011, 04:53:57 PM by WUnland » Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,942


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #110 on: March 05, 2011, 07:03:55 PM »

Dear William,

I don't think that the Pope endorses modernism in any of its forms.  Also I and others here have told you that we've never seen such liturgies as others have seen and that you enumerate here.  So I expect that things may not be quite as bleak as you are painting them.
I don't understand why EO try and pretend that the extreme abuses are the norm. I guess it's just one of those questions that won't be answered.


Well, for starters, if the only EO's you really 'talk' with are online, then you are only hearing from a microscopic percentage of all believers.  I have never heard a discussion in real life where anyone even brought up, let alone focused on the type of silliness that gets posted on youtube by some Catholics. Sure, we are upset when we see such abuse, but, honestly, so are you and most of your co-religionists.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #111 on: March 05, 2011, 07:17:39 PM »

Dear William,

I don't think that the Pope endorses modernism in any of its forms.  Also I and others here have told you that we've never seen such liturgies as others have seen and that you enumerate here.  So I expect that things may not be quite as bleak as you are painting them.
I don't understand why EO try and pretend that the extreme abuses are the norm. I guess it's just one of those questions that won't be answered.

Well, for starters, if the only EO's you really 'talk' with are online, then you are only hearing from a microscopic percentage of all believers.  I have never heard a discussion in real life where anyone even brought up, let alone focused on the type of silliness that gets posted on youtube by some Catholics. Sure, we are upset when we see such abuse, but, honestly, so are you and most of your co-religionists.

Very true.  There's no business like show business!!   Wink
« Last Edit: March 05, 2011, 07:18:16 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #112 on: March 05, 2011, 08:26:38 PM »

Dear William,

I don't think that the Pope endorses modernism in any of its forms.  Also I and others here have told you that we've never seen such liturgies as others have seen and that you enumerate here.  So I expect that things may not be quite as bleak as you are painting them.
I don't understand why EO try and pretend that the extreme abuses are the norm. I guess it's just one of those questions that won't be answered.
Answered many times over.  But I'll answer yet again.

Ya'll keep on insisting that we are missing something, namely "Catholic communion" with the "font of unity." As outrageous as it may seem, we take a look at who is in communion with that "font of unity," and see this.  We know immediately if that "font of unity" would unite us into communion with this, we have no such interest.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #113 on: March 05, 2011, 08:34:37 PM »

Dear William,

I don't think that the Pope endorses modernism in any of its forms.  Also I and others here have told you that we've never seen such liturgies as others have seen and that you enumerate here.  So I expect that things may not be quite as bleak as you are painting them.
I don't understand why EO try and pretend that the extreme abuses are the norm. I guess it's just one of those questions that won't be answered.
Answered many times over.  But I'll answer yet again.

Ya'll keep on insisting that we are missing something, namely "Catholic communion" with the "font of unity." As outrageous as it may seem, we take a look at who is in communion with that "font of unity," and see this.  We know immediately if that "font of unity" would unite us into communion with this, we have no such interest.

The one holy catholic and apostolic Church of my Baptism is in communion with many sinners.  We pray for them and do our best not to emulate them and are grateful when they are not an immediate part of our everyday lives which is a selfish gratitude and one which I personally hope to overcome before I die.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #114 on: March 05, 2011, 09:00:58 PM »

Dear William,

I don't think that the Pope endorses modernism in any of its forms.  Also I and others here have told you that we've never seen such liturgies as others have seen and that you enumerate here.  So I expect that things may not be quite as bleak as you are painting them.
I don't understand why EO try and pretend that the extreme abuses are the norm. I guess it's just one of those questions that won't be answered.
Answered many times over.  But I'll answer yet again.

Ya'll keep on insisting that we are missing something, namely "Catholic communion" with the "font of unity." As outrageous as it may seem, we take a look at who is in communion with that "font of unity," and see this.  We know immediately if that "font of unity" would unite us into communion with this, we have no such interest.

The one holy catholic and apostolic Church of my Baptism is in communion with many sinners.  We pray for them and do our best not to emulate them and are grateful when they are not an immediate part of our everyday lives which is a selfish gratitude and one which I personally hope to overcome before I die.

Well, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of the Creed in which the Fathers baptized knows that allowing heretics and sinners to persist in their heresy and sin does them no good, and hence gives them the choice of choosing life. So she is in communion with repenting sinners, but not ones celebrating and promoting their sin.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #115 on: March 05, 2011, 09:27:42 PM »

Dear William,

I don't think that the Pope endorses modernism in any of its forms.  Also I and others here have told you that we've never seen such liturgies as others have seen and that you enumerate here.  So I expect that things may not be quite as bleak as you are painting them.
I don't understand why EO try and pretend that the extreme abuses are the norm. I guess it's just one of those questions that won't be answered.
Answered many times over.  But I'll answer yet again.

Ya'll keep on insisting that we are missing something, namely "Catholic communion" with the "font of unity." As outrageous as it may seem, we take a look at who is in communion with that "font of unity," and see this.  We know immediately if that "font of unity" would unite us into communion with this, we have no such interest.

The one holy catholic and apostolic Church of my Baptism is in communion with many sinners.  We pray for them and do our best not to emulate them and are grateful when they are not an immediate part of our everyday lives which is a selfish gratitude and one which I personally hope to overcome before I die.


My Baptism is a Baptism in the Church of the Fathers and there is no human judgment that makes any difference in the repentance of sinners.  Every opportunity for contrition and change remains open to divine grace till we move into life everlasting...What one human says about the condition of another, in terms of their salvation and the state of their souls, is meaningless.  

We may hope for the best in terms of their behaviors, but no amount of human force has ever moved a soul to repent.  Remaining in communion with sinners is perhaps the greatest gift of communion for we are granted the grace to participate in the salvific actions of the Christ through prayer, fasting and alms giving and participating in the public work of the Body of Christ.  We are able to discern right and wrong, good and evil by a graced illumination of our intellect [patristic meaning of intellect intended here] but that is where our human capacities cease.

So that when we see our brothers and sisters fall, it is better to give to the poor than to seek out a schismatic state.   The Body does not reject us when we sin or divide us from ourselves.  So who are we then to divide the Body?
« Last Edit: March 05, 2011, 09:33:20 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #116 on: March 05, 2011, 09:56:27 PM »

Dear William,

I don't think that the Pope endorses modernism in any of its forms.  Also I and others here have told you that we've never seen such liturgies as others have seen and that you enumerate here.  So I expect that things may not be quite as bleak as you are painting them.
I don't understand why EO try and pretend that the extreme abuses are the norm. I guess it's just one of those questions that won't be answered.
Answered many times over.  But I'll answer yet again.

Ya'll keep on insisting that we are missing something, namely "Catholic communion" with the "font of unity." As outrageous as it may seem, we take a look at who is in communion with that "font of unity," and see this.  We know immediately if that "font of unity" would unite us into communion with this, we have no such interest.

The one holy catholic and apostolic Church of my Baptism is in communion with many sinners.  We pray for them and do our best not to emulate them and are grateful when they are not an immediate part of our everyday lives which is a selfish gratitude and one which I personally hope to overcome before I die.


My Baptism is a Baptism in the Church of the Fathers
So you left their Orthodox confession?

and there is no human judgment that makes any difference in the repentance of sinners.
"Whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven...whose soever sins you retain are retained."

And we are not talking about repenting sinners, but unrepentent-boastful even-ones.

Every opportunity for contrition and change remains open to divine grace till we move into life everlasting...What one human says about the condition of another, in terms of their salvation and the state of their souls, is meaningless.
"It is impossible but that offenses will come; but woe to him by whom they come! It were better for him that a millstone tied around his neck and cast into the sea."

Christ has no fellowship with Belial: with whom do these rites have fellowship?

We may hope for the best in terms of their behaviors, but no amount of human force has ever moved a soul to repent.  Remaining in communion with sinners is perhaps the greatest gift of communion for we are granted the grace to participate in the salvific actions of the Christ through prayer, fasting and alms giving and participating in the public work of the Body of Christ.  We are able to discern right and wrong, good and evil by a graced illumination of our intellect [patristic meaning of intellect intended here] but that is where our human capacities cease.

The Fathers told Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Eutyches, Sergius, Honorius, and Leo otherwise.

So that when we see our brothers and sisters fall, it is better to give to the poor than to seek out a schismatic state.   The Body does not reject us when we sin or divide us from ourselves.  So who are we then to divide the Body?
Who are we to unite the Body to Belial?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #117 on: March 05, 2011, 10:02:40 PM »

If you prefer brute force there's not much I can do about that...and if we are not working fast enough for you...ah well.  Frankly your opinion on any of it means less than my own.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #118 on: March 05, 2011, 10:20:45 PM »

If you prefer brute force there's not much I can do about that...
Did wistful nostalgia for the Crusaders and the Inquisition bring up brute force? 'Cuz I didn't.


and if we are not working fast enough for you...ah well.  Frankly your opinion on any of it means less than my own.

I'm only worried about those in communion with me in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and just with warning those in our communion that when the Vatican invites us to supper we have to be careful, as they do have fresh food but they do keep green meat in the fridge.  The Shepherd tells the sheep "eat no green meat."
« Last Edit: March 05, 2011, 10:30:47 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #119 on: March 05, 2011, 10:24:09 PM »

If you prefer brute force there's not much I can do about that...
Did wistful nostalgia for the Crusaders and the Inquisition bring up brute force? 'Cuz I didn't.


and if we are not working fast enough for you...ah well.  Frankly your opinion on any of it means less than my own.

I'm only worried about those in communion with me in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and just with warning thosse in our communion that when the Vatican invites us to supper we have to be careful, as they do have fresh food but they do keep green meat in the fridge.  The Shepherd tells the sheep "eat no green meat."

When our bishops say that it is time to resume communion, shall I commune with you or shall I remember you as green meat?
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #120 on: March 05, 2011, 10:32:40 PM »

If you prefer brute force there's not much I can do about that...
Did wistful nostalgia for the Crusaders and the Inquisition bring up brute force? 'Cuz I didn't.


and if we are not working fast enough for you...ah well.  Frankly your opinion on any of it means less than my own.

I'm only worried about those in communion with me in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and just with warning thosse in our communion that when the Vatican invites us to supper we have to be careful, as they do have fresh food but they do keep green meat in the fridge.  The Shepherd tells the sheep "eat no green meat."

When our bishops say that it is time to resume communion, shall I commune with you or shall I remember you as green meat?
Unlesss your bishops confess the Orthodox Faith, I won't be communing with you.  So you can remember me any way you like.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #121 on: March 05, 2011, 10:38:57 PM »

If you prefer brute force there's not much I can do about that...
Did wistful nostalgia for the Crusaders and the Inquisition bring up brute force? 'Cuz I didn't.


and if we are not working fast enough for you...ah well.  Frankly your opinion on any of it means less than my own.

I'm only worried about those in communion with me in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and just with warning thosse in our communion that when the Vatican invites us to supper we have to be careful, as they do have fresh food but they do keep green meat in the fridge.  The Shepherd tells the sheep "eat no green meat."

When our bishops say that it is time to resume communion, shall I commune with you or shall I remember you as green meat?
Unlesss your bishops confess the Orthodox Faith, I won't be communing with you.  So you can remember me any way you like.

With or without communion with Orthodoxy, I am bound by the laws of charity.  Like it or not, I am so constrained.
Logged

The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #122 on: March 05, 2011, 11:38:08 PM »

The dance and music are fine but don't belong at Mass, and I'm fairly sure Pope Benedict agrees.

(Why do things in church that emptied the mainline Protestant churches?)

I hate to see that high altar go to waste. Get the table out of there and set it back up.

You don't need that dance in church when you have 'choreography by Fortescue' (the ceremonial of the Tridentine Mass) for the asking.

I give Orthodoxy credit for not having these aberrations in church, and its people for not wanting them.
Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #123 on: March 05, 2011, 11:48:08 PM »

I don't understand why EO try and pretend that the extreme abuses are the norm.
Because the larger your list of "grievances" against the Catholic Church the greater, it appears, is your reason for not being in full communion with Her.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #124 on: March 05, 2011, 11:56:00 PM »

I don't understand why EO try and pretend that the extreme abuses are the norm.
Because the larger your list of "grievances" against the Catholic Church the greater, it appears, is your reason for not being in full communion with Her.
The fact that you are in communion with this nonsense is more than enough or the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church not to be in communon with the Vatican.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2011, 11:56:40 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #125 on: March 06, 2011, 01:30:37 AM »

I don't understand why EO try and pretend that the extreme abuses are the norm.
Because the larger your list of "grievances" against the Catholic Church the greater, it appears, is your reason for not being in full communion with Her.

There are plenty of things more common for us to criticize you over like female altar servers and the lack of chanting. If the little things were to be done in a more traditional way, I think there would be less room for the major abuses that become so famous to occur.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #126 on: March 06, 2011, 11:53:22 AM »

I don't understand why EO try and pretend that the extreme abuses are the norm.
Because the larger your list of "grievances" against the Catholic Church the greater, it appears, is your reason for not being in full communion with Her.

There are plenty of things more common for us to criticize you over like female altar servers and the lack of chanting. If the little things were to be done in a more traditional way, I think there would be less room for the major abuses that become so famous to occur.

Everyone has their great and small quibbles with the Novus Ordo.  Since my opinion isn't worth the price of cabbage, I'll offer a couple of prognostications here.  They are not meant to be all inclusive; just a few things set forth for your perusal:

*Female altar servers will not go away in Novus Ordo parishes or masses, nor will female readers and cantors.  And frankly I would not be terribly fluffed about it, though I think they ought to dress all altar servers in something other than stitched up bed-sheets.  What they wear in too many places is more in keeping with fluffy slippers and bunny 'n ducky PJs.  Males and females alike are far from reverential in their appearance.  That bothers me far more than their maleness or femaleness.

*The time will come when the free standing altar and the high altar will be used in Churches that have them because there will be two Roman rite liturgies used in those Churches.   In all cases, Roman rite liturgies are offered to God regardless of orientation toward the east or toward the people.  If that makes you "feel" funny...ah well.  I've never seen a priestly performance at a Novus Ordo mass.  Best to clean up the seminaries and teach our priests well and much of that performance-mode that some folks complain about will go away through the custody of the eyes and heart.

*Communion in the hand will go away in small parishes with a strong core of devout faithful, eventually, and in the largest parishes as well though more slowly.

*Extraordinary Eucharistic ministers will also recede though slowly.  Sooner rather than later there will be dress codes enforced to keep out provocative female or male ministers, and the EMs will be extraordinary rather than usual or reflexive.  I have been to enough Orthodox liturgies with women dressed very provocatively that I don't take even that criticism to seriously, given the source.  My comment is that it is best to attend to your own house in that regard.

*The rule bound juridical Catholic Church, since Vatican II and the new Code of Canon Law, is sore pressed to dump a bishop anywhere in the world.  Bishops councils are slow to dump their fellow bishops or even recommend that they be dumped.  They are called to Rome, talked to, but rarely ordered or evicted summarily and what it would take to crush a bishop would be more destructive than altar girls in bed-sheet.

*Things move slowly in the Church.  We are sorry about that but we are not here to cater to our critics, and frankly there'd be as much pissing and moaning among our critics if we were quick to evict from the top.

*The 20th century hit the Catholic Church, the Church of my Baptism, very hard...and her members were more than willing to go along and sadly too many of those accommodationists and venal and sinful men were bishops.  And the election of bishops as it occurs now guarantees that they will clone themselves unless Rome steps in, and apparently Rome has been stepping in lately.  It is my hope that this "process" of episcopal election is reformed sooner rather than later.

*The Catholic Church, the Church of my Baptism, is not filled with goats.  The Church is filled with some very faithful and patient and loving people.  If you do not want to be in communion with us... Smiley...great!  It won't inhibit our salvation, or even get in the way of us running the good race.

*There are some excellent and holy men in the priesthood in my Church.  Many of them.  I am sorry you all haven't met more of them.

*My last comment is rude, though true.  I won't publish it in its cryptic form so that I may remain in good standing on this Forum.... laugh  But know that I am terribly unimpressed by the sniping that goes on.  Things are changing in the Roman Rite and Ritual and in the actions of the priests and the people.  It would be a grace to encourage their sustained efforts that are bringing welcome change,  rather than huffing and puffing superior aires.

Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,404


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #127 on: March 06, 2011, 04:39:40 PM »

I don't understand why EO try and pretend that the extreme abuses are the norm.
Because the larger your list of "grievances" against the Catholic Church the greater, it appears, is your reason for not being in full communion with Her.
The fact that you are in communion with this nonsense is more than enough or the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church not to be in communon with the Vatican.
There you go calling the Catholic Church "the Vatican" again. LOL. Silly boy.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #128 on: March 06, 2011, 05:09:31 PM »

I don't understand why EO try and pretend that the extreme abuses are the norm.
Because the larger your list of "grievances" against the Catholic Church the greater, it appears, is your reason for not being in full communion with Her.
The fact that you are in communion with this nonsense is more than enough or the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church not to be in communon with the Vatican.
There you go calling the Catholic Church "the Vatican" again. LOL. Silly boy.
Who's the one with these silly "liturgies"? Not, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #129 on: March 06, 2011, 05:13:57 PM »

Who's the one with these silly "liturgies"? Not, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I am sure that not every liturgy within your Church is celebrated perfect. I would even bet there are abuses within your Church as well. The lack of evidence for it on the internet is due to the fact that Eastern Orthodoxy is not nearly as well known as our Church.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2011, 05:14:19 PM by Wyatt » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,404


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #130 on: March 06, 2011, 05:30:39 PM »

I don't understand why EO try and pretend that the extreme abuses are the norm.
Because the larger your list of "grievances" against the Catholic Church the greater, it appears, is your reason for not being in full communion with Her.
The fact that you are in communion with this nonsense is more than enough or the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church not to be in communon with the Vatican.
There you go calling the Catholic Church "the Vatican" again. LOL. Silly boy.
Who's the one with these silly "liturgies"? Not, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
This doesn't change the fact that you are a sill willy and keep calling the Catholic Church "The Vatican".  Cheesy
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #131 on: March 06, 2011, 06:03:15 PM »

I don't understand why EO try and pretend that the extreme abuses are the norm.
Because the larger your list of "grievances" against the Catholic Church the greater, it appears, is your reason for not being in full communion with Her.

There are plenty of things more common for us to criticize you over like female altar servers and the lack of chanting. If the little things were to be done in a more traditional way, I think there would be less room for the major abuses that become so famous to occur.

Everyone has their great and small quibbles with the Novus Ordo.  Since my opinion isn't worth the price of cabbage, I'll offer a couple of prognostications here.  They are not meant to be all inclusive; just a few things set forth for your perusal:

*Female altar servers will not go away in Novus Ordo parishes or masses, nor will female readers and cantors.  And frankly I would not be terribly fluffed about it, though I think they ought to dress all altar servers in something other than stitched up bed-sheets.  What they wear in too many places is more in keeping with fluffy slippers and bunny 'n ducky PJs.  Males and females alike are far from reverential in their appearance.  That bothers me far more than their maleness or femaleness.

I don't really see a huge problem with female readers, I know we have them in some places on occasion, and females sing in the choir and are expected to participate in the prayers of the people in the liturgy. Altar servers  is a different story. Females shouldn't be serving in the altar as an altar server unless they can someday be able to serve at the altar as a priest or at the very least a deacon.

Quote
*The time will come when the free standing altar and the high altar will be used in Churches that have them because there will be two Roman rite liturgies used in those Churches.   In all cases, Roman rite liturgies are offered to God regardless of orientation toward the east or toward the people.  If that makes you "feel" funny...ah well.  I've never seen a priestly performance at a Novus Ordo mass.  Best to clean up the seminaries and teach our priests well and much of that performance-mode that some folks complain about will go away through the custody of the eyes and heart.

I just think it makes more sense to face the altar when addressing God, and face the people when addressing them.

Quote
*Communion in the hand will go away in small parishes with a strong core of devout faithful, eventually, and in the largest parishes as well though more slowly.

This really shouldn't be a problem. I remember reading one of the early fathers (possibly St John Chrysostom) giving instruction on how to receive Communion in the hand.

Quote
*Extraordinary Eucharistic ministers will also recede though slowly.  Sooner rather than later there will be dress codes enforced to keep out provocative female or male ministers, and the EMs will be extraordinary rather than usual or reflexive.  I have been to enough Orthodox liturgies with women dressed very provocatively that I don't take even that criticism to seriously, given the source.  My comment is that it is best to attend to your own house in that regard.

My criticism wouldn't be how they're dressed, even though everyone should dress respectfully for church regrdless of what their position is in the Church. I think the concern is more that Communion should be distributed by and received from the clergy.

Quote
*The rule bound juridical Catholic Church, since Vatican II and the new Code of Canon Law, is sore pressed to dump a bishop anywhere in the world.  Bishops councils are slow to dump their fellow bishops or even recommend that they be dumped.  They are called to Rome, talked to, but rarely ordered or evicted summarily and what it would take to crush a bishop would be more destructive than altar girls in bed-sheet.

*Things move slowly in the Church.  We are sorry about that but we are not here to cater to our critics, and frankly there'd be as much pissing and moaning among our critics if we were quick to evict from the top.

*The 20th century hit the Catholic Church, the Church of my Baptism, very hard...and her members were more than willing to go along and sadly too many of those accommodationists and venal and sinful men were bishops.  And the election of bishops as it occurs now guarantees that they will clone themselves unless Rome steps in, and apparently Rome has been stepping in lately.  It is my hope that this "process" of episcopal election is reformed sooner rather than later.

You make an excellent point. Bishops should be carefully chosen and ordained as pastors over Christ's flock (I'm sure at least one member of my own Church is going to say something about me referring to you as "Christ's flock", but I hope everyone gets my point about the role of a bishop). One reason that some liturgical abuses occur is because they are approved by the local bishop.

Quote
*The Catholic Church, the Church of my Baptism, is not filled with goats.  The Church is filled with some very faithful and patient and loving people.  If you do not want to be in communion with us... Smiley...great!  It won't inhibit our salvation, or even get in the way of us running the good race.


*There are some excellent and holy men in the priesthood in my Church.  Many of them.  I am sorry you all haven't met more of them.

The majority of Catholics I've met are very good and sincere people. It's because of a few Catholics that I've known that I even take religion seriously right now, and it was them that got asking the questions that eventually led me to Orthodoxy, otherwise I would probably still be claiming to believe in God while disregarding my need to live in accordance with His will.

Quote
*My last comment is rude, though true.  I won't publish it in its cryptic form so that I may remain in good standing on this Forum.... laugh  But know that I am terribly unimpressed by the sniping that goes on.  Things are changing in the Roman Rite and Ritual and in the actions of the priests and the people.  It would be a grace to encourage their sustained efforts that are bringing welcome change,  rather than huffing and puffing superior aires.

I apologize if I come across sniping, but there are differencesa between us. I'm not going to pretend that they're not there or not important, but I do try (don't know how successful I am) not to create differences that aren't really there. I've seen a version of the new missal online, and hope that it is followed with reverence and respect. I think it has the potential to bring us closer together (at least in practice but not fully united), making reconciliation easier if/when the time ever comes that we can reach an agreement on doctrine and faith. Church unity isn't based only on doctrine but on a common faith and mutual love for each other, and it can hopefully strengthen whatever common bonds of love there are between us.

Just my opinion.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #132 on: March 06, 2011, 06:15:29 PM »


I apologize if I come across sniping, but there are differencesa between us. I'm not going to pretend that they're not there or not important, but I do try (don't know how successful I am) not to create differences that aren't really there.
Just my opinion.

I don't want to detract from your good points till they've had a chance to percolate, but I did want you to know immediately that you are far far from being in any way offensive as an Orthodox correspondent.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #133 on: March 06, 2011, 06:44:16 PM »

Who's the one with these silly "liturgies"? Not, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I am sure that not every liturgy within your Church is celebrated perfect.

I'm willing to bet that we avoid sacrilege at each and every one, and a priest or congregation that doesn't soon and swifly is corrected one way or another on that.

I would even bet there are abuses within your Church as well.
Interesting, wishful thinking (and with malice at that) offered as an argument and proof.

The lack of evidence for it on the internet is due to the fact that Eastern Orthodoxy is not nearly as well known as our Church.
I find plenty of things on the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church on the internet and youtube, including the WRO.  All good stuff. What can I conclude?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #134 on: March 06, 2011, 06:53:52 PM »

Who's the one with these silly "liturgies"? Not, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I am sure that not every liturgy within your Church is celebrated perfect.

I'm willing to bet that we avoid sacrilege at each and every one, and a priest or congregation that doesn't soon and swifly is corrected one way or another on that.


As I said earlier, the tares are among us, they are not wrenched out as quickly as you would like but they are not as destructive as you insist and change comes in time.   We do not seek bragging rights before we seek the salvation of souls among us all.  The faithful remnant is apparent in each and every parish I've ever encountered in the Church of my Catholic Baptism.  Their influence, in time, prevails.
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #135 on: March 06, 2011, 07:30:42 PM »

I'm willing to bet that we avoid sacrilege at each and every one, and a priest or congregation that doesn't soon and swifly is corrected one way or another on that.
But no proof.

Interesting, wishful thinking (and with malice at that) offered as an argument and proof.
Is it? How can you be sure?

I find plenty of things on the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church on the internet and youtube, including the WRO.  All good stuff. What can I conclude?
Well of course you are only going to find good stuff if you are not seeking out the bad.
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,588


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #136 on: March 06, 2011, 08:52:24 PM »

Quote
Well of course you are only going to find good stuff if you are not seeking out the bad.

I don't need to go to Google or Youtube to know that deviations from proper liturgical order in the Orthodox Church don't exist. Not once in my almost 50 years as an Orthodox Christian, in attending innumerable services (not just the Divine Liturgy) across several jurisdictions and three countries, have I ever encountered anything other than complete adherence to proper liturgical order. Not once.

The chances of "innovations" such as clown liturgies or guitar liturgies being even contemplated, let alone attempted, in an Orthodox church, are zero.


« Last Edit: March 06, 2011, 08:52:47 PM by LBK » Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #137 on: March 06, 2011, 10:19:10 PM »

Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #138 on: March 06, 2011, 10:28:11 PM »

I'm willing to bet that we avoid sacrilege at each and every one, and a priest or congregation that doesn't soon and swifly is corrected one way or another on that.
But no proof.

By definition the proof of the nonexistent does not exist.

Interesting, wishful thinking (and with malice at that) offered as an argument and proof.
Is it? How can you be sure?

With all the proof you gave






I am quite sure.

I find plenty of things on the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church on the internet and youtube, including the WRO.  All good stuff. What can I conclude?
Well of course you are only going to find good stuff if you are not seeking out the bad.
Seeking out the nonexistent wastes time.

Oh, I can find plenty to complain about, e.g. the speech of the Chief Secretary of the Phanar at HCS a year or so back.  But sacriledge? Naw, even our schismatics are even less likely the canonical One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church o indulgence in that.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2011, 10:35:29 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,588


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #139 on: March 06, 2011, 10:30:16 PM »



I stand by what I wrote, Azurestone.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #140 on: March 08, 2011, 11:18:54 AM »

Quote
Well of course you are only going to find good stuff if you are not seeking out the bad.

The chances of "innovations" such as clown liturgies or guitar liturgies being even contemplated, let alone attempted, in an Orthodox church, are zero.


You are quite right, LBK.  There's nothing to compare with clown liturgies in Orthodoxy even in a wild dream.  I will except the musical instrumentation since there is little of that in Orthodoxy and it is not, in itself, a bad thing or an abuse in the western rites.

It's not a matter of tit-for-tat.  It's a matter of the Roman rite getting its collective liturgical show on the right road.

I am sure that many of us appreciate your prayers and good wishes for our success.

That being said, it is not nearly as bleak as it is made out to be Internet-style.

M.
Logged

podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,942


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #141 on: March 08, 2011, 11:42:23 AM »

Quote
Well of course you are only going to find good stuff if you are not seeking out the bad.

The chances of "innovations" such as clown liturgies or guitar liturgies being even contemplated, let alone attempted, in an Orthodox church, are zero.


You are quite right, LBK.  There's nothing to compare with clown liturgies in Orthodoxy even in a wild dream.  I will except the musical instrumentation since there is little of that in Orthodoxy and it is not, in itself, a bad thing or an abuse in the western rites.

It's not a matter of tit-for-tat.  It's a matter of the Roman rite getting its collective liturgical show on the right road.

I am sure that many of us appreciate your prayers and good wishes for our success.

That being said, it is not nearly as bleak as it is made out to be Internet-style.

M.

A thought for Lent: The highlighted comment can be applied to any manner of discourse online- from politics to sports to science to religion - you name it. It is far easier to be lacking in civility and open-mindedness when we are closeted in front of our screens, cloaked with the protective cloth of anonymity while pontificating from the well of our own presumed wisdom. Perhaps we should strive to reach out to our friends during lent and get together for coffee (black, of course) and good conversation. Just a thought!
« Last Edit: March 08, 2011, 11:43:12 AM by podkarpatska » Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #142 on: March 08, 2011, 02:38:19 PM »

A thought for Lent: The highlighted comment can be applied to any manner of discourse online- from politics to sports to science to religion - you name it. It is far easier to be lacking in civility and open-mindedness when we are closeted in front of our screens, cloaked with the protective cloth of anonymity while pontificating from the well of our own presumed wisdom. Perhaps we should strive to reach out to our friends during lent and get together for coffee (black, of course) and good conversation. Just a thought!

Here here! This brand is especially good for the occasion Smiley



I think we can all agree to pray for those poor misguided souls who make such a mangled mess of the Mass. They (and those affected by those "liturgies") certainly need them.

I was at a bad one on Sunday (I was travelling) and I resolved to do reparations (prayer, fasting) for it rather than just fume and complain. Surely we can endure our fellow sinners in church by offering it up for them (and for our own failings) in humility.
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #143 on: March 15, 2011, 01:46:53 AM »

I have same kind of question to Roman Catholics on this forum (and in post scriptum below I will append the reason I'm asking this question, this way you could choose read a little more if you wanted). I saw on youtube novus ordo masses celebrated by a cardinal Roger Mahony. This cardinal seems to be in good standing. He's not excommunicated or anything. He apparently has been conducting some Religious Education Congress Masses for some time (now he's retired). So I looked at one of these masses from 2008 and it appears to look like novus ordo mass. Here's couple links to those videos:
Religious Education Congress Closing Liturgy 2008 Part 1

Religious Education Congress Closing Liturgy 2008 Part 4

Now my questions are: 1) Is this a valid liturgy following new missal of novus ordo? 2) If not how come the cardinal was still cardinal for several years in spite of the fact he was celebrating this type of entertainment for years?

I did some research actually on these issue. Found several videos (including from but not limited to  a very "leftist" source of "most holy family monastery" and very balanced video from a nice person who seems to be missing Tridentine Mass very much). Then I read several written (including commentaries to those videos from Roman Catholics) sources from which I liked this one most. It gives side-by-side and very extensive comparison of these two masses. From the sources I've read it is clear to me that Novus Ordo mass is prone to changes and such liturgical dances could even be considered not an abuse of liturgy but something that follows from the new missal. I read more thing I did not now which I'm not going to mention here. So my answers to above question are affirmative but I'd like to know your opinion on that.

P.S. This is why I asked these question. I'm going to be very frank with you. I don't like Catholicism and I think Catholics are trying to poison Georgian people (and I've read a story like this from a Georgian Catholic who converted back to EO) by proselytizing to it using methods that are absolutely remote to anything spiritual - this is my opinion and you have the right to rebuke me. So on one of the Georgian forums I wrote little article about this post Vatican II changes in Catholicism including the changes in the Tridentine mass. Then I compared these two masses based on above source (I just translated them) and pointed that new mass is absolutely terrible, prone to many abuses and certain things (like liturgical dance) is being becoming norm. I clearly pointed though 1) Old mass was/is completely different and the critique did not concern Tridentine mass; 2) Many truly Catholics actually miss old mass and dislike novus ordo mass. Here moderator of that forum, who ironically is Orthodox and who has not read even a shred of the links I provided and who does not have any idea about this new "novus ordo" mass, banned me from the forum for a month. Moreover, he, before banning me, pointed to me not to spread such slender and at least wait for Catholics to repudiate my claims and answer my question (I asked the exactly same questions). After this a Catholic member of the forum tells the  moderator such a thing: "You know we can properly answer to him" but I get no answers to my questions and no explanations. Somehow the moderator takes this nonsense as a debunking of my statements and he bans me. So, I want to know answers at least from Catholics here. I'll appreciate you answer however harsh it may be. Thanks for being patient and kind.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #144 on: March 15, 2011, 01:50:47 AM »

Let us put aside our differences during the Great Lent and instead rejoice in our common love for Christ!
Logged
orthonorm
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,670



« Reply #145 on: March 15, 2011, 02:17:54 AM »

Quote
Well of course you are only going to find good stuff if you are not seeking out the bad.

The chances of "innovations" such as clown liturgies or guitar liturgies being even contemplated, let alone attempted, in an Orthodox church, are zero.


You are quite right, LBK.  There's nothing to compare with clown liturgies in Orthodoxy even in a wild dream.  I will except the musical instrumentation since there is little of that in Orthodoxy and it is not, in itself, a bad thing or an abuse in the western rites.

It's not a matter of tit-for-tat.  It's a matter of the Roman rite getting its collective liturgical show on the right road.

I am sure that many of us appreciate your prayers and good wishes for our success.

That being said, it is not nearly as bleak as it is made out to be Internet-style.

M.

A thought for Lent: The highlighted comment can be applied to any manner of discourse online- from politics to sports to science to religion - you name it. It is far easier to be lacking in civility and open-mindedness when we are closeted in front of our screens, cloaked with the protective cloth of anonymity while pontificating from the well of our own presumed wisdom. Perhaps we should strive to reach out to our friends during lent and get together for coffee (black, of course) and good conversation. Just a thought!

I'm pretty much a jerk in RL as well.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #146 on: March 15, 2011, 10:22:35 AM »

From my point of view ativan, I think you should choose any number of faithful bishops in the United States and find their priests and write to them and voice your concerns and see what they say,  and seek out images and texts of their masses that do follow the rubrics and are not "entertainments"...and study them in the same way that you have studied these exceptional kinds of liturgies.  And when you've done that perhaps some of us who know that these exceptional liturgies are on the wane will be willing to talk to you about our own...pre and post Vatican II experiences.

But to come at it this way, announcing that you are happily and actively working against the Catholic Church through your writings...all I want to do is smile at you and say "Rap on!"...because eventually the truth will make the lie out of not only these exceptional liturgies but also your representation of them as the heart and soul of Catholic liturgical life.

So go ahead...you don't need our permission to do your thing.  Tear it up!!  Have a ball!!  Grin

M.

I have same kind of question to Roman Catholics on this forum (and in post scriptum below I will append the reason I'm asking this question, this way you could choose read a little more if you wanted). I saw on youtube novus ordo masses celebrated by a cardinal Roger Mahony. This cardinal seems to be in good standing. He's not excommunicated or anything. He apparently has been conducting some Religious Education Congress Masses for some time (now he's retired). So I looked at one of these masses from 2008 and it appears to look like novus ordo mass. Here's couple links to those videos:
Religious Education Congress Closing Liturgy 2008 Part 1

Religious Education Congress Closing Liturgy 2008 Part 4

Now my questions are: 1) Is this a valid liturgy following new missal of novus ordo? 2) If not how come the cardinal was still cardinal for several years in spite of the fact he was celebrating this type of entertainment for years?

I did some research actually on these issue. Found several videos (including from but not limited to  a very "leftist" source of "most holy family monastery" and very balanced video from a nice person who seems to be missing Tridentine Mass very much). Then I read several written (including commentaries to those videos from Roman Catholics) sources from which I liked this one most. It gives side-by-side and very extensive comparison of these two masses. From the sources I've read it is clear to me that Novus Ordo mass is prone to changes and such liturgical dances could even be considered not an abuse of liturgy but something that follows from the new missal. I read more thing I did not now which I'm not going to mention here. So my answers to above question are affirmative but I'd like to know your opinion on that.

P.S. This is why I asked these question. I'm going to be very frank with you. I don't like Catholicism and I think Catholics are trying to poison Georgian people (and I've read a story like this from a Georgian Catholic who converted back to EO) by proselytizing to it using methods that are absolutely remote to anything spiritual - this is my opinion and you have the right to rebuke me. So on one of the Georgian forums I wrote little article about this post Vatican II changes in Catholicism including the changes in the Tridentine mass. Then I compared these two masses based on above source (I just translated them) and pointed that new mass is absolutely terrible, prone to many abuses and certain things (like liturgical dance) is being becoming norm. I clearly pointed though 1) Old mass was/is completely different and the critique did not concern Tridentine mass; 2) Many truly Catholics actually miss old mass and dislike novus ordo mass. Here moderator of that forum, who ironically is Orthodox and who has not read even a shred of the links I provided and who does not have any idea about this new "novus ordo" mass, banned me from the forum for a month. Moreover, he, before banning me, pointed to me not to spread such slender and at least wait for Catholics to repudiate my claims and answer my question (I asked the exactly same questions). After this a Catholic member of the forum tells the  moderator such a thing: "You know we can properly answer to him" but I get no answers to my questions and no explanations. Somehow the moderator takes this nonsense as a debunking of my statements and he bans me. So, I want to know answers at least from Catholics here. I'll appreciate you answer however harsh it may be. Thanks for being patient and kind.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2011, 10:23:48 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #147 on: March 15, 2011, 01:07:49 PM »

Let us put aside our differences during the Great Lent and instead rejoice in our common love for Christ!
Amen.

Lord have mercy! Christ have mercy!
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #148 on: March 16, 2011, 03:26:59 AM »

So go ahead...you don't need our permission to do your thing.  Tear it up!!  Have a ball!!  Grin
I did not ask you for permission on this Cheesy I just wanted to have the answers on those specific questions which I did not get yet - answers after Great Lent will be fine Smiley

Thanks anyways and God bless you

Ortho_cat
Quote
Let us put aside our differences during the Great Lent and instead rejoice in our common love for Christ!
Absolutely agree with you but my sinner soul is not ready yet to attend to its sinfulness first and the think about the world.

Glory to The Lord
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #149 on: March 18, 2011, 12:52:59 AM »

The likes of Cardinal Mahony's "religious entertainments" are rare. As for Mahony, he will stand before the terrible judgment seat of Christ over his actions as Archbishop of Los Angeles (and as Bishop of Stockton before that), and I pray that mercy may be granted to him.

As for the Pope and Cardinal Mahony, it is not easy for a Pope to remove a bishop, who is also a Successor of the Apostles. And this particular bishop is not only a cardinal but the archbishop of a flock of nearly five million. In other words, multiple times the total number of Eastern Orthodox in the United States.

Such are the dark times of crisis which engulf the Catholic Church that such bishops are around. But things improve. I have no doubt that such "religious entertainments" will not be seen at next year's conference now that Archbishop Gomez is commanding the ship in Los Angeles.

Thank God there are not many Mahonys left in the United States episcopate. The Pope did the most he could realistically do by have Mahony "retire" immediately upon his 75th birthday.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #150 on: March 18, 2011, 12:59:03 AM »

Thinking of another "Mahony Mess", you can see a photo of the first Mahony Mess celebrated at the opening of his new $200 million cathedral on the cover of this fine little book by the late (and great) Michael Davies:



Certainly a bizarre scene. That altar you see was reported to have cost $5 million alone.

Speaking of which, the monstrous cathedral, Roger Cardinal Mahony's pet project, is usually nicknamed the Taj Mahony or the http://Raj Mahal. Take your pick.


« Last Edit: March 18, 2011, 12:59:25 AM by lubeltri » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #151 on: March 18, 2011, 01:52:42 AM »

The likes of Cardinal Mahony's "religious entertainments" are rare. As for Mahony, he will stand before the terrible judgment seat of Christ over his actions as Archbishop of Los Angeles (and as Bishop of Stockton before that), and I pray that mercy may be granted to him.

As for the Pope and Cardinal Mahony, it is not easy for a Pope to remove a bishop, who is also a Successor of the Apostles. And this particular bishop is not only a cardinal but the archbishop of a flock of nearly five million.
So much for the grandious claims of Pastor Aeternus.

Quote
In other words, multiple times the total number of Eastern Orthodox in the United States.

What does that have to do with anything?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #152 on: March 18, 2011, 11:02:22 PM »

The likes of Cardinal Mahony's "religious entertainments" are rare. As for Mahony, he will stand before the terrible judgment seat of Christ over his actions as Archbishop of Los Angeles (and as Bishop of Stockton before that), and I pray that mercy may be granted to him.

As for the Pope and Cardinal Mahony, it is not easy for a Pope to remove a bishop, who is also a Successor of the Apostles. And this particular bishop is not only a cardinal but the archbishop of a flock of nearly five million.
So much for the grandious claims of Pastor Aeternus.

Quote
In other words, multiple times the total number of Eastern Orthodox in the United States.

What does that have to do with anything?

In other words, Mahony is no bishop of some baby diocese, he is a really, really big cheese.

Well, Isa, those who voted on Pastor Aeternus knew full well the many times in history in which the Bishop of Rome was held in actual or effective captivity by others. They saw no contradiction---the breaking of a law does not make the law not exist. Consider this another period of time where the Pope's hands are tied by powerful and disobedient forces in distant lands.

All moot anyway, Roger "Dodger" Mahony is gone at last. And LA is free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, LA is free at last!

« Last Edit: March 18, 2011, 11:03:57 PM by lubeltri » Logged
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #153 on: March 19, 2011, 12:18:53 AM »

Supposedly it is the Mass adapted to "African-American culture." In fact it is indulgent, self-reverential narcissism. A "spiritual entertainment", in the words of Cardinal Ratzinger.

"Praise dancing" is popular in evangelical/pentecostal African American congregations.  I suspect that this is the inspiration for similar dancing in African-American Roman Catholic parishes.

Cdl. Francis Arinze once offered some wise words on the subject of liturgical dance.  He's of the opinion that no one in North America or Europe, presumably African-Americans as well, should ever perform liturgical dance during the Mass.  In his opinion, any liturgical dance is completely foreign to European-derived piety.  He gives a very cautious qualified permission for liturgical dance in African Roman liturgies.  Even then, he is quick to point out that not all dance is worthy of worship.

If I were a broad church to progressive pastor I would certainly take Cdl. Arinze's advice and absolutely forbid any liturgical dance during Mass, benediction, processions -- anything that happens in the church.  Any liturgical dancing would be performed in a parish hall or an off-site venue.

A pastor who is asked to permit any liturgical dance, even outside of Mass, should consider the following points:

*Do praise dances reflect evangelical/pentecostal theologies that are incompatible with Roman Christianity?

*Are there any profane (i.e. secular) elements of praise dances that do not reflect apostolic and orthodox Christian doctrine?

*Are the dances modest in clothing and gestures?

*Is the music based on the traditional psalmody and hymnody of the Roman liturgy, or pop songs?

Praise dancing usually runs afoul of at least one of these points.  Hence, no parish should allow liturgical dance even outside Mass.

Even so, it's important that caucasian Catholics be sensitive to African-American Catholic aspirations.  Also, remember that not all African-American Catholics prefer evangelical/pentecostal worship.  There are many African-Americans that are enthusiastic worshippers at the extraordinary form or reverent and traditional Ordinary Form celebrations.  The notion that African-Americans, or anybody, will inevitably prefer one type of liturgy over another is not-so-implicit racism and bigotry.     
Logged
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #154 on: March 19, 2011, 12:28:03 AM »

2) Many truly Catholics actually miss old mass and dislike novus ordo mass.

Yes, the Novus Ordo is a bizarre mess in some (many?) places.  The multiple examples on this thread alone are a testament to this.  Cdl. Mahony's Religious Education Conference "Masses" are exemplars of utter lunacy.  Nevertheless per Roman liturgical theology even Mahony's whack Masses are still valid liturgies.  I must assent to the fundamental validity of the Novus Ordo as a Roman Catholic, even if I choose to completely avoid worshiping at those Masses.

I don't fault a moderator who criticized your views.  The liturgical crisis in Roman Catholicism has created a traditional community who barely hangs on to the notion that the Novus Ordo is valid.  It's hard to affirm the new rite with all the bizarre abuses and its obvious departures from Roman liturgical patrimony.  Still, the temptation to say that the Novus Ordo was a "mistake", which I secretly and sinfully nurse in my heart, is so controversial that it is best unspoken lest a flame war erupt.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2011, 12:31:12 AM by jordanz » Logged
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #155 on: March 19, 2011, 12:37:28 AM »

Quote
Well of course you are only going to find good stuff if you are not seeking out the bad.

I don't need to go to Google or Youtube to know that deviations from proper liturgical order in the Orthodox Church don't exist.

Same here.  I don't have the statistical sample that you have, but all of the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic DL's I've been to have been mostly rubrically sound.  Certainly no bongos, guitars, synthesizers, or other gross abuses.

However, at least one Ukrainian Eastern Catholic church has an interesting Low Mass like Divine Liturgy.  The Priest sings his parts, but the people recite the answers.  Quite strange.  That is probably a mild abuse.
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #156 on: March 20, 2011, 12:28:04 AM »

The likes of Cardinal Mahony's "religious entertainments" are rare.
Unfortunately this is not true. In fact these things (liturgical dance call it formally abuse or not) are very common. It is easy to check this. First, if this cardinal is heading a diocese of 5 million believers doesn't it say something about the possible frequency of abuses? Second, you can find multiple videos on youtube on several different kind of liturgical abuses including dancing on liturgy and that cardinal is not alone. Besides Catholics themselves state that. For example this is what a Catholic website has to say on 10 most common liturgical abuses:
Quote
9. Performing liturgical dance.

Introducing dance into the liturgy in the United States would be to add "one of the most desacralized and desacralizing elements" leading to "an atmosphere of profanity, which would easily suggest to those present worldly places and profane situations. Nor is it acceptable to introduce into the liturgy the so-called artistic ballet because it would reduce the liturgy to mere entertainment" (Notitiae 11 [1975] 202–205).

Cardinal Arinze himself said this (when he was asked about liturgical dance):
Quote
Has liturgical dance been approved for Masses by your office?

There has never been a document from our Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments saying that dance is approved in the Mass.

The question of dance is difficult and delicate. However, it is good to know that the tradition of the Latin Church has not known the dance. It is something that people are introducing in the last ten years -- or twenty years. It was not always so. Now it is spreading like wildfire, one can say, in all the continents -- some more than others. In my own continent, Africa, it is spreading. In Asia, it is spreading.

Quote
As for the Pope and Cardinal Mahony, it is not easy for a Pope to remove a bishop, who is also a Successor of the Apostles.
So what pope is a pope if he can't keep his house clean?

Quote
Consider this another period of time where the Pope's hands are tied by powerful and disobedient forces in distant lands.
It seems that Pope has his hands tied in his neighborhood too. This is clear from the quote above of Cardinal Arinze's. Check this links too:
Liturgical scandal in Vienna, Donauinselfest - Holy Mass

Stand up, stand up - today's "liturgy" in France


Here's another big cheese (borrowing your expression)  cardinal's mass

Same Cardinal Schönborn celebrates Youth Mass

Wiki link on short bio of Christoph Schönborn

jordanz
Quote
Yes, the Novus Ordo is a bizarre mess in some (many?) places.  The multiple examples on this thread alone are a testament to this.  Cdl. Mahony's Religious Education Conference "Masses" are exemplars of utter lunacy.  Nevertheless per Roman liturgical theology even Mahony's whack Masses are still valid liturgies.  I must assent to the fundamental validity of the Novus Ordo as a Roman Catholic, even if I choose to completely avoid worshiping at those Masses.
Could you elaborate on the following 2 questions a little more please: How can a mass be valid and at the same time wacky? How can 2 absolutely different masses (one beautiful and another one ugly) both be valid?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #157 on: March 20, 2011, 09:15:28 AM »

As for the Pope and Cardinal Mahony, it is not easy for a Pope to remove a bishop, who is also a Successor of the Apostles.

Not to split hairs, but strictly speaking, I don't think it's so much a question of how easy it would have been but rather of whether it would have been wise. Presumably Pope Benedict deemed that removing Mahony, whom Pope John Paul II made the Archbishop of Los Angeles in 1985 and a cardinal in 1991, would do more harm than good.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #158 on: March 20, 2011, 10:47:30 AM »

The likes of Cardinal Mahony's "religious entertainments" are rare. As for Mahony, he will stand before the terrible judgment seat of Christ over his actions as Archbishop of Los Angeles (and as Bishop of Stockton before that), and I pray that mercy may be granted to him.

As for the Pope and Cardinal Mahony, it is not easy for a Pope to remove a bishop, who is also a Successor of the Apostles. And this particular bishop is not only a cardinal but the archbishop of a flock of nearly five million.
So much for the grandious claims of Pastor Aeternus.

Quote
In other words, multiple times the total number of Eastern Orthodox in the United States.

What does that have to do with anything?

In other words, Mahony is no bishop of some baby diocese, he is a really, really big cheese.

Well, Isa, those who voted on Pastor Aeternus knew full well the many times in history in which the Bishop of Rome was held in actual or effective captivity by others. They saw no contradiction---the breaking of a law does not make the law not exist. Consider this another period of time where the Pope's hands are tied by powerful and disobedient forces in distant lands.
You mean like this?
Quote
Pope St. Agapetus I
Reigned 535-536. Date of birth uncertain; died 22 April, 536. He was the son of Gordianus, a Roman priest who had been slain during the riots in the days of Pope Symmachus. His first official act was to burn in the presence of the assembled clergy the anathema which Boniface II had pronounced against the latter's rival Dioscurus and had ordered to be preserved in the Roman archives. He confirmed the decrees of the council held at Carthage, after the liberation of Africa from the Vandal yoke, according to which converts from Arianism were declared ineligible to Holy Orders and those already ordained were merely admitted to lay communion. He accepted an appeal from Contumeliosus, Bishop of Riez, whom a council at Marseilles had condemned for immorality, and he ordered St. Caesarius of Arles to grant the accused a new trial before papal delegates. Meanwhile Belisarius, after the very easy conquest of Sicily, was preparing for an invasion of Italy. The Gothic king, Theodehad, as a last resort, begged the aged pontiff to proceed to Constantinople and bring his personal influence to bear on the Emperor Justinian. To defray the costs of the embassy Agapetus was compelled to pledge the sacred vessels of the Church of Rome. He set out in midwinter with five bishops and an imposing retinue. In February, 536, he appeared in the capital of the East and was received with all the honours befitting the head of the Catholic Church. As he no doubt had foreseen, the ostensible object of his visit was doomed to failure. Justinian could not be swerved from his resolve to re-establish the rights of the Empire in Italy. But from the ecclesiastical standpoint, the visit of the Pope in Constantinople issued in a triumph scarcely less memorable than the campaigns of Belisarius. The then occupant of the Byzantine See was a certain Anthimus, who without the authority of the canons had left his episcopal see of Trebizond to join the crypto-Monophysites who, in conjunction with the Empress Theodora were then intriguing to undermine the authority of the Council of Chalcedon. Against the protests of the orthodox, the Empress finally seated Anthimus in the patriarchal chair. No sooner had the Pope arrived than the most prominent of the clergy entered charges against the new patriarch as an intruder and a heretic. Agapetus ordered him to make a written profession of faith and to return to his forsaken see; upon his refusal, he declined to have any relations with him. This vexed the Emperor, who had been deceived by his wife as to the orthodoxy of her favorite, and he went so far as to threaten the Pope with banishment. Agapetus replied with spirit: "With eager longing have I come to gaze upon the Most Christian Emperor Justinian. In his place I find a Diocletian, whose threats, however, terrify me not." This intrepid language made Justinian pause; and being finally convinced that Anthimus was unsound in faith, he made no objection to the Pope's exercising the plenitude of his powers in deposing and suspending the intruder and, for the first time in the history of the Church, personally consecrating his legally elected successor, Mennas. This memorable exercise of the papal prerogative was not soon forgotten by the Orientals
Nihil Obstat. March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
My, my. Here they claimed (And Cardinal Farley wasn't a Cardinal at Vatican I, but he was a priest, and shortly thereafter became secretary to Arb. then Cardinal McCloskey, who voted for Pastor Aeternus.  So I guess Card. Farley had an idea what those who voted for Pastor Aeternus were thinking) that the Pope, "exercising the plenitude of his powers" which Pastor Aeternus claims he has in deposing the Patriarch of the Second See of Christendom.  But maybe because it was in the East, it isn't big enough cheese for you because of that fact (it did number about 5 million at the time). Or maybe Cardinal (and we haven't heard the explanation of why he was elevated rather than removed) Mahoney had more force than the Emperor and Belisarius, the conqueror of North Africa, Italy and Spain.

Alas for this fairy tale upon which the Cardinals based Pastor Aeternus: the episode was never repeated (and he was deposed for violation of the canons, not the pope's dismissal) and EP Mennas ignored Rome when it twice claimed to depose him.  Needless to say, he remained firmly on the Throne of St. Andrew.  And yet that represents the height of Roman control over New Rome. Until 1204 that is.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #159 on: March 20, 2011, 11:01:58 AM »

As for the Pope and Cardinal Mahony, it is not easy for a Pope to remove a bishop, who is also a Successor of the Apostles.

Not to split hairs, but strictly speaking, I don't think it's so much a question of how easy it would have been but rather of whether it would have been wise. Presumably Pope Benedict deemed that removing Mahony, whom Pope John Paul II made the Archbishop of Los Angeles in 1985 and a cardinal in 1991, would do more harm than good.

I have often said that after a few things that the pope clearly can do without asking anyone's permission...to call a council...and to command a bishop to appear before him...the rest is guided by due process as laid out in the canons.

The premise of the Church is that we heal sinners, not chuck them out in the cold.

And then there is the point that you make above.

These are all broad brush assessments but they are in fact what is behind the fact that the Church moves slowly.

In fact the Vatican expects the local Synods or Councils to be the first line of episcopal censure.  And in fact they are.  What we cannot see is how much WORSE things might have been had negative pressure not been placed on someone like Cardinal Mahony.

Bishop Hubbard from New York is another disaster of a bishop.  He was pressured so badly that he hired an outside investigator to clear him.  Paid millions of dollars, and in return got a clean bill of health but the ONLY people he MIGHT have fooled live outside of his diocese....

It is not a perfect system but it does work if you are willing to look. 

Could it stand for some revamping...sure...starting with HOW we choose and elect bishops in the first place.  That system has been cloning bad bishops for several generations.

Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #160 on: March 20, 2011, 10:36:24 PM »

You mean like this?
Quote
Pope St. Agapetus I
Reigned 535-536. Date of birth uncertain; died 22 April, 536. He was the son of Gordianus, a Roman priest who had been slain during the riots in the days of Pope Symmachus. His first official act was to burn in the presence of the assembled clergy the anathema which Boniface II had pronounced against the latter's rival Dioscurus and had ordered to be preserved in the Roman archives. He confirmed the decrees of the council held at Carthage, after the liberation of Africa from the Vandal yoke, according to which converts from Arianism were declared ineligible to Holy Orders and those already ordained were merely admitted to lay communion. He accepted an appeal from Contumeliosus, Bishop of Riez, whom a council at Marseilles had condemned for immorality, and he ordered St. Caesarius of Arles to grant the accused a new trial before papal delegates. Meanwhile Belisarius, after the very easy conquest of Sicily, was preparing for an invasion of Italy. The Gothic king, Theodehad, as a last resort, begged the aged pontiff to proceed to Constantinople and bring his personal influence to bear on the Emperor Justinian. To defray the costs of the embassy Agapetus was compelled to pledge the sacred vessels of the Church of Rome. He set out in midwinter with five bishops and an imposing retinue. In February, 536, he appeared in the capital of the East and was received with all the honours befitting the head of the Catholic Church. As he no doubt had foreseen, the ostensible object of his visit was doomed to failure. Justinian could not be swerved from his resolve to re-establish the rights of the Empire in Italy. But from the ecclesiastical standpoint, the visit of the Pope in Constantinople issued in a triumph scarcely less memorable than the campaigns of Belisarius. The then occupant of the Byzantine See was a certain Anthimus, who without the authority of the canons had left his episcopal see of Trebizond to join the crypto-Monophysites who, in conjunction with the Empress Theodora were then intriguing to undermine the authority of the Council of Chalcedon. Against the protests of the orthodox, the Empress finally seated Anthimus in the patriarchal chair. No sooner had the Pope arrived than the most prominent of the clergy entered charges against the new patriarch as an intruder and a heretic. Agapetus ordered him to make a written profession of faith and to return to his forsaken see; upon his refusal, he declined to have any relations with him. This vexed the Emperor, who had been deceived by his wife as to the orthodoxy of her favorite, and he went so far as to threaten the Pope with banishment. Agapetus replied with spirit: "With eager longing have I come to gaze upon the Most Christian Emperor Justinian. In his place I find a Diocletian, whose threats, however, terrify me not." This intrepid language made Justinian pause; and being finally convinced that Anthimus was unsound in faith, he made no objection to the Pope's exercising the plenitude of his powers in deposing and suspending the intruder and, for the first time in the history of the Church, personally consecrating his legally elected successor, Mennas. This memorable exercise of the papal prerogative was not soon forgotten by the Orientals
Nihil Obstat. March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
My, my. Here they claimed (And Cardinal Farley wasn't a Cardinal at Vatican I, but he was a priest, and shortly thereafter became secretary to Arb. then Cardinal McCloskey, who voted for Pastor Aeternus.  So I guess Card. Farley had an idea what those who voted for Pastor Aeternus were thinking) that the Pope, "exercising the plenitude of his powers" which Pastor Aeternus claims he has in deposing the Patriarch of the Second See of Christendom.  But maybe because it was in the East, it isn't big enough cheese for you because of that fact (it did number about 5 million at the time). Or maybe Cardinal (and we haven't heard the explanation of why he was elevated rather than removed) Mahoney had more force than the Emperor and Belisarius, the conqueror of North Africa, Italy and Spain.

Alas for this fairy tale upon which the Cardinals based Pastor Aeternus: the episode was never repeated (and he was deposed for violation of the canons, not the pope's dismissal) and EP Mennas ignored Rome when it twice claimed to depose him.  Needless to say, he remained firmly on the Throne of St. Andrew.  And yet that represents the height of Roman control over New Rome. Until 1204 that is.

ialmisry,

You said somewhere that you prefer to deal with the positions of the Vatican, but your actions say otherwise. Why don't you quote something that shows what the Vatican's position is (e.g. the CCC)? I like you and all, but I'm not prepared to automatically believe that the Vatican's position is such-and-such just because you say it is.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #161 on: March 21, 2011, 12:25:19 PM »

The likes of Cardinal Mahony's "religious entertainments" are rare.

Unfortunately this is not true. In fact these things (liturgical dance call it formally abuse or not) are very common.

<snip>

I fall somewhere in the middle.  I have seen "liturgical dance" in person.  Yes, it's as cringeworthy in person as it is on youtube.  However, there are other abuses that are far more common and distressing.  Particularly distressing is the sad narcissism that many Roman priests cultivate.  A good number of priests will use the Mass as a personal platform for their ideologies, to the point of completely disregarding the Missal and ad-libbing the liturgy.  That's a more insidious abuse than having people in leotards jumping around the church while waving streamers, Olympics-floor-show style (yes, I endured this at a Graduation Mass once.)

There are many priests who are reverting to the Tridentine Mass and/or celebrating the Novus Ordo according to traditional Catholic liturgy and piety.  The traditional Catholic backlash/movement has gathered a lot of steam in the past decade.  However, clerical liturgical narcissism is well entrenched in many places.  Cdl. Mahony is the textbook case for this pathology, but it appears regularly in more muted circumstances.  It's going to take more than a traditional revival to turn the Roman liturgical crisis back to a modicum of orthodox liturgy and faith.

Quote
Yes, the Novus Ordo is a bizarre mess in some (many?) places.  The multiple examples on this thread alone are a testament to this.  Cdl. Mahony's Religious Education Conference "Masses" are exemplars of utter lunacy.  Nevertheless per Roman liturgical theology even Mahony's whack Masses are still valid liturgies.  I must assent to the fundamental validity of the Novus Ordo as a Roman Catholic, even if I choose to completely avoid worshiping at those Masses.

Could you elaborate on the following 2 questions a little more please: How can a mass be valid and at the same time wacky? How can 2 absolutely different masses (one beautiful and another one ugly) both be valid?

According to Roman theology, if a celebrant recites the Words of Institution (Consecration) correctly, the Mass is a Mass.  That's all that is fundamentally needed.  Now, many priests that go off on an ad-libbed tangent often render the Mass invalid.  This is not always the case.  When a priest mutilates almost all of the Mass but says the Consecration correctly, he said Mass.  I have to respect that no matter how despicable a priest's liturgical actions are in general.

I am convinced that a priest who mutilates any Mass, especially for ulterior ideological motives (i.e. secular philosophies), is committing a grave injustice to the Mass.  However, I am not permitted to judge his soul.  I have the option to hear the Mass or hear Mass somewhere else. Due to the great frequency of liturgical abuses where I live, I have decided to attend the DL or Tridentine Mass exclusively.  In general, these Masses and Liturgies are celebrated with a much greater degree of reverence.  Also, these liturgies are historic liturgies of the apostolic church.      

Cdl. Mahony has been replaced with an Opus Dei prelate who, while probably not eager to celebrate the Extraordinary Form/Tridentine Mass, will most likely not tolerate the bizarre funfairs (erm, "Masses") that Cdl. Mahony has put on for more than a decade.  I suspect that the Los Angeles diocese will take a sharp turn to the right doctrinally and liturgically, thankfully.  Pope Benedict needs to replace many more bishops in the USA, especially those who block a priest's freedom to say the Extraordinary Form whenever he pleases.  Some bishops resent that traditional Catholic parishes which celebrate the Extraordinary Form are often more financially secure and better attended than your average Novus Ordo parish.  I'm not surprised, as people know piety, orthodoxy, and quality when they see it.  However, bishops generally do not want to admit that the DIY liberal liturgical regime has failed.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2011, 12:26:39 PM by jordanz » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #162 on: March 21, 2011, 03:17:50 PM »

You mean like this?
Quote
Pope St. Agapetus I
Reigned 535-536. Date of birth uncertain; died 22 April, 536. He was the son of Gordianus, a Roman priest who had been slain during the riots in the days of Pope Symmachus. His first official act was to burn in the presence of the assembled clergy the anathema which Boniface II had pronounced against the latter's rival Dioscurus and had ordered to be preserved in the Roman archives. He confirmed the decrees of the council held at Carthage, after the liberation of Africa from the Vandal yoke, according to which converts from Arianism were declared ineligible to Holy Orders and those already ordained were merely admitted to lay communion. He accepted an appeal from Contumeliosus, Bishop of Riez, whom a council at Marseilles had condemned for immorality, and he ordered St. Caesarius of Arles to grant the accused a new trial before papal delegates. Meanwhile Belisarius, after the very easy conquest of Sicily, was preparing for an invasion of Italy. The Gothic king, Theodehad, as a last resort, begged the aged pontiff to proceed to Constantinople and bring his personal influence to bear on the Emperor Justinian. To defray the costs of the embassy Agapetus was compelled to pledge the sacred vessels of the Church of Rome. He set out in midwinter with five bishops and an imposing retinue. In February, 536, he appeared in the capital of the East and was received with all the honours befitting the head of the Catholic Church. As he no doubt had foreseen, the ostensible object of his visit was doomed to failure. Justinian could not be swerved from his resolve to re-establish the rights of the Empire in Italy. But from the ecclesiastical standpoint, the visit of the Pope in Constantinople issued in a triumph scarcely less memorable than the campaigns of Belisarius. The then occupant of the Byzantine See was a certain Anthimus, who without the authority of the canons had left his episcopal see of Trebizond to join the crypto-Monophysites who, in conjunction with the Empress Theodora were then intriguing to undermine the authority of the Council of Chalcedon. Against the protests of the orthodox, the Empress finally seated Anthimus in the patriarchal chair. No sooner had the Pope arrived than the most prominent of the clergy entered charges against the new patriarch as an intruder and a heretic. Agapetus ordered him to make a written profession of faith and to return to his forsaken see; upon his refusal, he declined to have any relations with him. This vexed the Emperor, who had been deceived by his wife as to the orthodoxy of her favorite, and he went so far as to threaten the Pope with banishment. Agapetus replied with spirit: "With eager longing have I come to gaze upon the Most Christian Emperor Justinian. In his place I find a Diocletian, whose threats, however, terrify me not." This intrepid language made Justinian pause; and being finally convinced that Anthimus was unsound in faith, he made no objection to the Pope's exercising the plenitude of his powers in deposing and suspending the intruder and, for the first time in the history of the Church, personally consecrating his legally elected successor, Mennas. This memorable exercise of the papal prerogative was not soon forgotten by the Orientals
Nihil Obstat. March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
My, my. Here they claimed (And Cardinal Farley wasn't a Cardinal at Vatican I, but he was a priest, and shortly thereafter became secretary to Arb. then Cardinal McCloskey, who voted for Pastor Aeternus.  So I guess Card. Farley had an idea what those who voted for Pastor Aeternus were thinking) that the Pope, "exercising the plenitude of his powers" which Pastor Aeternus claims he has in deposing the Patriarch of the Second See of Christendom.  But maybe because it was in the East, it isn't big enough cheese for you because of that fact (it did number about 5 million at the time). Or maybe Cardinal (and we haven't heard the explanation of why he was elevated rather than removed) Mahoney had more force than the Emperor and Belisarius, the conqueror of North Africa, Italy and Spain.

Alas for this fairy tale upon which the Cardinals based Pastor Aeternus: the episode was never repeated (and he was deposed for violation of the canons, not the pope's dismissal) and EP Mennas ignored Rome when it twice claimed to depose him.  Needless to say, he remained firmly on the Throne of St. Andrew.  And yet that represents the height of Roman control over New Rome. Until 1204 that is.

ialmisry,

You said somewhere that you prefer to deal with the positions of the Vatican, but your actions say otherwise. Why don't you quote something that shows what the Vatican's position is (e.g. the CCC)? I like you and all, but I'm not prepared to automatically believe that the Vatican's position is such-and-such just because you say it is.
I've cited Pastor Aeternus, many times.  That should be enough. 

And the quote above aren't my words, they are the words approved by an archbishop intimately involved as secratary to an archbishop who voted for Pastor Aeternus at Vatican I.  We are told that all bishops are part of the magisterium.  Pastor Aeternus claims as much: are you saying we can agree and say that such claims are false?

According to the definition-as much as there is one-of ex cathedra, the CCC should fit the bill. But alas! I've been told that its is not a magisterial document and not infallible, so I don't know how much citing the CCC is going to help (although you haven't personally stated what your stand of the theological certitude of the CCC is). Even if it is infallible, it doesn't say much as to history, which is what Luberti brought up: if it had, it wouldn't fall within faith and morals, possibly mooting what it had to say anyway.

Then we have the problem of the Vatican saying one thing, and doing another: telling the "sui juirs" churches to disown their Latinisms and reclaim their practices at the time of union, and then banning them from taking those practices with them, and indeed, in the case of the Ukrainians banning them from its traditional homeland and in the case of the Romanians even cutting the married clergy, for instance, from educational opportunities.

So, instance, the Vatican gives a nuanced apology for the 1204: was it really an absolution for the perpetrators?  The Vatican still considers-and this is offical-its fruits (Lateran IV, Lyons II, Florence and their constiutions etc.) binding. What are we to make of that, as to the Vatican's position?

Perhaps we can deal with this irreduceable fact: the Vatican set up and instituted rival patriarchates in Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, and maintained them into through Vatican II: they were only abolished when the Vatican set up the present "sui juris" scheme with Orientalium Ecclesarum, in which it states
Quote
By the name Eastern patriarch, is meant the bishop to whom belongs jurisdiction over all bishops, not excepting metropolitans clergy and people of his own territory or rite, in accordance with canon law and without prejudice to the primacy of the Roman Pontiff
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html
of course, this mandate conflicts with the historical fact it states in the first half of the same paragraph (7):
Quote
The patriarchate, as an institution, has existed in the Church from the earliest times and was recognized by the first ecumenical councils
which is surreal in that it cites as its authority canon 3 of Constantinople I and 28 of Chalcedon, which the Popes of Rome howled about and claimed to "not recognize, and by the blessed Apostle Peter's authority we absolutely dis-annul in comprehensive terms."
(Pope St. Leo)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3604105.htm
Of course, we know that the remainder of the paragraph has no substance, nor has it in the last 47 years checked the authority of the Latin ordinary over the Eastern sui juris:
Quote
Wherever an hierarch of any rite is appointed outside the territorial bounds of the patriarchate, he remains attached to the hierarchy of the patriarchate of that rite, in accordance with canon law.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #163 on: March 21, 2011, 03:55:39 PM »

jordanz
Thank you for you clear and and interesting explanations.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #164 on: March 21, 2011, 07:28:59 PM »

ialmisry,

You said somewhere that you prefer to deal with the positions of the Vatican, but your actions say otherwise. Why don't you quote something that shows what the Vatican's position is (e.g. the CCC)? I like you and all, but I'm not prepared to automatically believe that the Vatican's position is such-and-such just because you say it is.
I've cited Pastor Aeternus, many times.  That should be enough. 

So essentially, because you've quoted Pastor Aeternus x number of times in the past, we should all trust you now whenever you say "Such-and-such is the Vatican's position"? Sorry, no can do.

And the quote above aren't my words, they are the words approved by an archbishop intimately involved as secratary to an archbishop who voted for Pastor Aeternus at Vatican I.  We are told that all bishops are part of the magisterium.  Pastor Aeternus claims as much: are you saying we can agree and say that such claims are false?

I'm not sure what point, in terms of logic, you're trying to make with your first two sentences, or what you're asking in the third sentence.

According to the definition-as much as there is one-of ex cathedra, the CCC should fit the bill. But alas! I've been told that its is not a magisterial document and not infallible, so I don't know how much citing the CCC is going to help (although you haven't personally stated what your stand of the theological certitude of the CCC is). Even if it is infallible, it doesn't say much as to history, which is what Luberti brought up: if it had, it wouldn't fall within faith and morals, possibly mooting what it had to say anyway.

Personally, I am quite convinced that the CCC is not ex cathedra, since it fulfills 2, at most, of the 3 conditions for an ex cathedra statement:
1. Is it on faith and morals? Yes.
2. Was the Pope acting in "his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority"? I really couldn't say whether he was or wasn't.
3. Did he [dogmatically] define a doctrine to be held by the whole Church? No, he did not.

Statement that satisfies 1 or 2 of the 3 conditions is not an ex cathedra statement. Q.E.D.



Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
orthonorm
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,670



« Reply #165 on: March 21, 2011, 07:38:40 PM »

Personally, I am quite convinced that the CCC is not ex cathedra, since it fulfills 2, at most, of the 3 conditions for an ex cathedra statement:
1. Is it on faith and morals? Yes.
2. Was the Pope acting in "his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority"? I really couldn't say whether he was or wasn't.
3. Did he [dogmatically] define a doctrine to be held by the whole Church? No, he did not.

Statement that satisfies 1 or 2 of the 3 conditions is not an ex cathedra statement. Q.E.D.

You are speaking to an Orthodox. When using pretentious rhetoric, use the language of God:

ο.ε.δ.

or at least:

ч.т.д.

It is much more convincing.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #166 on: March 21, 2011, 08:00:36 PM »

Personally, I am quite convinced that the CCC is not ex cathedra, since it fulfills 2, at most, of the 3 conditions for an ex cathedra statement:
1. Is it on faith and morals? Yes.
2. Was the Pope acting in "his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority"? I really couldn't say whether he was or wasn't.
3. Did he [dogmatically] define a doctrine to be held by the whole Church? No, he did not.

Statement that satisfies 1 or 2 of the 3 conditions is not an ex cathedra statement. Q.E.D.

You are speaking to an Orthodox. When using pretentious rhetoric, use the language of God:

ο.ε.δ.

or at least:

ч.т.д.

It is much more convincing.

LOL!
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #167 on: March 21, 2011, 08:38:12 PM »

If you find my posts pretentious, I would advise you not to read them.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #168 on: March 21, 2011, 08:49:27 PM »

If you find my posts pretentious, I would advise you not to read them.

Peter!!...laugh!!...it was a tease...it was a DOUBLE tease...back at the Orthodox using you as the wall....
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #169 on: March 21, 2011, 11:35:41 PM »

ialmisry,

You said somewhere that you prefer to deal with the positions of the Vatican, but your actions say otherwise. Why don't you quote something that shows what the Vatican's position is (e.g. the CCC)? I like you and all, but I'm not prepared to automatically believe that the Vatican's position is such-and-such just because you say it is.
I've cited Pastor Aeternus, many times.  That should be enough. 

So essentially, because you've quoted Pastor Aeternus x number of times in the past, we should all trust you now whenever you say "Such-and-such is the Vatican's position"?
No, because PA leaves no mystery as to the Vatican's position:why something so plain has to be repeated baffles me.

And the quote above aren't my words, they are the words approved by an archbishop intimately involved as secratary to an archbishop who voted for Pastor Aeternus at Vatican I.  We are told that all bishops are part of the magisterium.  Pastor Aeternus claims as much: are you saying we can agree and say that such claims are false?

I'm not sure what point, in terms of logic, you're trying to make with your first two sentences, or what you're asking in the third sentence.

You complained
I'm not prepared to automatically believe that the Vatican's position is such-and-such just because you say it is.
when I merely posted the magisterium approved words describing a specific event of papal power in response to Lubeltri's vague allusion that
those who voted on Pastor Aeternus knew full well the many times in history in which the Bishop of Rome was held in actual or effective captivity by others.
without indicating how he read the hearts of those who voted on Pastor Aeternus. Since he did not reference any of those "many times in history," I merely provided a Vatican (ooops! I mean "magisterium."  We'll get to that below) approved account of a time in history in which the pope is claimed to "exercise the papal perrogative" in "the plenitude of his powers," approved-as I indicated-by someone who was intimately involved with a cardinal who voted for Pastor Aeternus after said cardinal's return from Vatican I, and thereafter succeeded him to the cardinalate and its place in the magisterium.

My words were only to identify these undisputable facts, and raise questions to Lubeltri's excuses for the Vatican:
They saw no contradiction---the breaking of a law does not make the law not exist. Consider this another period of time where the Pope's hands are tied by powerful and disobedient forces in distant lands.

As to your present complaint, Pastor Aeternus claims:
Quote
This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due."
Vatican, part II expands on this disclaimer (Lumen Gentium):
Quote
The individual bishops, who are placed in charge of particular churches, exercise their pastoral government over the portion of the People of God committed to their care, and not over other churches nor over the universal Church. But each of them, as a member of the episcopal college and legitimate successor of the apostles, is obliged by Christ's institution and command to be solicitous for the whole Church,...Bishops, as successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord, to whom was given all power in heaven and on earth, the mission to teach all nations and to preach the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain to salvation by faith, baptism and the fulfilment of the commandments. To fulfill this mission, Christ the Lord promised the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and on Pentecost day sent the Spirit from heaven, by whose power they would be witnesses to Him before the nations and peoples and kings even to the ends of the earth. And that duty, which the Lord committed to the shepherds of His people, is a true service, which in sacred literature is significantly called "diakonia" or ministry.(...For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. ...Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held,...The pastoral office or the habitual and daily care of their sheep is entrusted to them completely; nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs, for they exercise an authority that is proper to them, and are quite correctly called "prelates," heads of the people whom they govern.  Their power, therefore, is not destroyed by the supreme and universal power, but on the contrary it is affirmed, strengthened and vindicated by it, since the Holy Spirit unfailingly preserves the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church.
upon which the CCC states:
Quote
The teaching office

888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task "to preach the Gospel of God to all men," in keeping with the Lord's command.415 They are "heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers" of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ."416

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. the exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... the infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.
Such should be enough to support that the "imprimatur" of a Cardinal (and one personally intimately connected so close in time to his predecessor cardinal who voted for Pastor Aeternus) of an instance of an "exercise the papal perrogative" in "the plenitude of his powers" illustrating "the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff," as Pastor Aeternus puts it, is the Vatican's position. After all, the above claims that the bishops (not to mention a cardinal) exercises the magisterium with their supreme pontiff.

But, as we have discussed, the muddled mess of an ecclesiology that Pastor Aeternus, Lumen Gentium and the CCC make by juxtaposing plausible deniable with mandated certitude basically empties the imprimatur, except perhaps "the supreme pontiff"'s, of authority.  Of course, the supreme pontiff could issue imprimaturs ex officio, even cathedra, but that would resolve something and bind him and his successors (and therefore establish a standard to which they can be judged) and so his holiness doesn't.  Infalliblity isn't about illuminating anything, it's about erecting an aura around someone.

So we have to go, itself, to only things that have the papal signature, seal or fingerprint. I for one think that Unam Sanctam, Lateran IV and Exsurge Domine express the Vatican's position clear enough, but the present magisterium seems to disagree somewhat.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29960.msg474174.html#msg474174
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30253.msg488753.html#msg488753
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33045.0.html

According to the definition-as much as there is one-of ex cathedra, the CCC should fit the bill. But alas! I've been told that its is not a magisterial document and not infallible, so I don't know how much citing the CCC is going to help (although you haven't personally stated what your stand of the theological certitude of the CCC is). Even if it is infallible, it doesn't say much as to history, which is what Luberti brought up: if it had, it wouldn't fall within faith and morals, possibly mooting what it had to say anyway.
Personally, I am quite convinced that the CCC is not ex cathedra, since it fulfills 2, at most, of the 3 conditions for an ex cathedra statement:
1. Is it on faith and morals? Yes.
2. Was the Pope acting in "his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority"? I really couldn't say whether he was or wasn't.
Do tell your friends. We've had some argument from them on this point:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30177.0.html


3. Did he [dogmatically] define a doctrine to be held by the whole Church? No, he did not.

Did Vatican II define anything new? We are told no, that it was a "teaching council" (whatever that means).  According to its promulgation "for everlasting memory" by the Vatican, the "magisterium" put more effort into it that all the documents of Vatican II.

Quote
APOSTOLIC LETTER
LAETAMUR MAGNOPERE
IN WHICH THE LATIN TYPICAL EDITION OF THE
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
IS APPROVED AND PROMULGATED

JOHN PAUL, BISHOP
SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD
FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY


To my Venerable Brothers the cardinals,
Patriarchs,
Archbishops,
Bishops,
Priests,
Deacons,
and to all the People of God.

IT IS A CAUSE FOR GREAT JOY THAT THE LATIN TYPICAL EDITION OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS BEING PUBLISHED.

It is approved and promulgated by me in this Apostolic Letter and thus becomes the definitive text of the aforementioned Catechism. This is occurring about five years after the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum of October 11, 1992, which, on the 30th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council, accompanied the publication of the first, French-language text of the Catechism.


We have all been able to note with pleasure the broad positive reception and wide dissemination of the Catechism in these years, especially in the particular Churches, which have had it translated into their respective languages, thus making it as accessible as possible to the various linguistic communities of the world. This fact confirms how fitting was the request submitted to me in 1985 by the Extraordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops that a catechism or compendium of all Catholic doctrine regarding faith and morals be composed.


Drawn up by the special Commission of Cardinals and Bishops established in 1986, the Catechism was approved and promulgated by me in the aforementioned Apostolic Constitution, which today retains all its validity and timeliness, and finds its definitive achievement in this Latin typical edition.


This edition was prepared by an Interdicasterial Commission which I appointed for this purpose in 1993. Presided over by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, this Commission worked diligently to fulfill the mandate it received. It devoted particular attention to a study of the many suggested changes to the contents of the text, which in these years had come from around the world and from various parts of the ecclesial community.


In this regard one can certainly understand that such a remarkable number of suggested improvements shows the extraordinary interest that the Catechism has raised throughout the world, even among non-Christians, and confirms its purpose of being presented as a full, complete exposition of Catholic doctrine, enabling everyone to know what the Church professes, celebrates, lives, and prays in her daily life. At the same time it draws attention to the eager desire of all to make their contribution so that the Christian faith, whose essential and necessary elements are summarized in the Catechism, can be presented to the people of our day in the most suitable way possible. Furthermore, this collaboration of the various members of the Church will once again achieve what I wrote in the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum: "The harmony of so many voices truly expresses what could be called the 'symphony' of the faith" (no. 2).


For these reasons too, the Commission seriously considered the suggestions offered, carefully examined them at various levels and submitted its conclusions for my approval. These conclusions, insofar as they allow for a better expression of the Catechism's contents regarding the deposit of the Catholic faith, or enable certain truths of this faith to be formulated in a way more suited to the requirements of contemporary catechetical instruction, have been approved by me and thus have been incorporated into this Latin typical edition. Therefore it faithfully repeats the doctrinal content which I officially presented to the Church and to the world in December 1992.


With today's promulgation of the Latin typical edition, therefore, the task of composing the Catechism, begun in 1986, is brought to a close and the desire of the aforementioned Extraordinary Synod of Bishops is happily fulfilled. The Church now has at her disposal this new, authoritative exposition of the one and perennial apostolic faith, and it will serve as a "valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion" and as a "sure norm for teaching the faith," as well as a "sure and authentic reference text" for preparing local catechisms (cf. Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, no. 4).


Catechesis will find in this genuine, systematic presentation of the faith and of Catholic doctrine a totally reliable way to present, with renewed fervor, each and every part of the Christian message to the people of our time. This text will provide every catechist with sound help for communicating the one, perennial deposit of faith within the local Church, while seeking, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to link the wondrous unity of the Christian mystery with the varied needs and conditions of those to whom this message is addressed. All catechetical activity will be able to experience a new, widespread impetus among the People of God, if it can properly use and appreciate this post-conciliar Catechism.


All this seems even more important today with the approach of the third millennium. For an extraordinary commitment to evangelization is urgently needed so that everyone can know and receive the Gospel message and thus grow "to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ" (Eph 4:13).


I therefore strongly urge my Venerable Brothers in the Episcopate, for whom the Catechism is primarily intended, to take the excellent opportunity afforded by the promulgation of this Latin edition to intensify their efforts to disseminate the text more widely and to ensure that it is well received as an outstanding gift for the communities entrusted to them, which will thus be able to rediscover the inexhaustible riches of the faith.


Through the harmonious and complementary efforts of all the ranks of the People of God, may this Catechism be known and shared by everyone, so that the unity in faith whose supreme model and origin is found in the Unity of the Trinity may be strengthened and extended to the ends of the earth.


To Mary, Mother of Christ, whose Assumption body and soul into heaven we celebrate today, I entrust these wishes so that they may be brought to fulfillment for the spiritual good of all humanity.


 From Castel Gandolfo, August 15, 1997, the nineteenth year of the Pontificate.

Btw, if someone has a link to a French version of this letter, I've been looking for one.
Not sure how point 3 is unfulflled. It defines a lot of things that all the faithful are supposed to hold.  In fact, it was made, so we are told "for everlasting memory," so that would know what to hold.

Quote
Statement that satisfies 1 or 2 of the 3 conditions is not an ex cathedra statement. Q.E.D.
LOL. This has already been dealt with.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #170 on: March 22, 2011, 12:14:42 AM »

Might I suggest that these academic discussions on papal infallibility, magisterium, and collegiality have little or no connection to the crisis on the ground.

Pope Benedict XVI has little direct control over the politics of his Church.  He is quite hamstrung as the supreme legislator of the Roman Rite.  He presides over a Church that has little or no credibility in post-industrial societies, especially in Europe and (to a lesser extent) in North America.  Pope Benedict is famous for his media ineptitude (viz. the Williamson affair).  He has a church that is split into three informal schisms.  First, there's a small but vocal progressive/liberal postmodern faction that would prefer to move Catholicism even farther away from its doctrinal and liturgical orthodoxy.  Then, there's an equally vocal and small traditional faction on the right that would rather see the Novus Ordo and postmodern heterodoxy go the way of the lava lamp.  A large apathetic middle could care less about these battles so long as they're out of Sunday Mass in 45 minutes or less.  Any notion that Pope Benedict exercises the power of Innocent III or Pio Nono is merely a pipe dream.

Although the Orthodox in general want nothing to do with Rome (I can sympathize), now would be the time to break through papal infallibility and the creaking Roman power structure.  Rome's house is a mess, with bishops and cardinals scrambling to rule within the chaos.  Moscow (and perhaps Constantinople) would never want to conjointly rule with Rome, but now's the best time to make a bid if one is to be made.  Heck, the Tridentines might even regard their Eastern brethren as liberators.


           
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,827


WWW
« Reply #171 on: March 22, 2011, 12:50:04 AM »

Might I suggest that these academic discussions on papal infallibility, magisterium, and collegiality have little or no connection to the crisis on the ground.

Pope Benedict XVI has little direct control over the politics of his Church.

So who controls the politics?  The 200 (under 80) members of the College of Cardinals who elect one of their member to preside over the entire Roman Catholic entity?

He is quite hamstrung as the supreme legislator of the Roman Rite.  He presides over a Church that has little or no credibility in post-industrial societies, especially in Europe and (to a lesser extent) in North America. 

As in the case of the Eastern Catholic Romanian Clergy - the Pope can flex legal and canonical muscle regardless of where the situation is "on the ground."

Pope Benedict is famous for his media ineptitude (viz. the Williamson affair).  He has a church that is split into three informal schisms.  First, there's a small but vocal progressive/liberal postmodern faction that would prefer to move Catholicism even farther away from its doctrinal and liturgical orthodoxy.  Then, there's an equally vocal and small traditional faction on the right that would rather see the Novus Ordo and postmodern heterodoxy go the way of the lava lamp.  A large apathetic middle could care less about these battles so long as they're out of Sunday Mass in 45 minutes or less.  Any notion that Pope Benedict exercises the power of Innocent III or Pio Nono is merely a pipe dream.

But any Cardinal Bishop who's a member of any of these 3 "informal schisms" can be elected Supreme Pontiff and exercise whatever "schism" philosophy that Cardinal brings to the table.  The former Cardinal Ratzinger was a conservative hardliner who apparently softened upon being elected to the Holy See.  Pope John Paul II became a liberator who ended the Cold War as befitting his head of state persona.

Although the Orthodox in general want nothing to do with Rome (I can sympathize), now would be the time to break through papal infallibility and the creaking Roman power structure.  Rome's house is a mess, with bishops and cardinals scrambling to rule within the chaos.  Moscow (and perhaps Constantinople) would never want to conjointly rule with Rome, but now's the best time to make a bid if one is to be made.  Heck, the Tridentines might even regard their Eastern brethren as liberators.

How about if such Cardinals and Bishops seek the Eastern Orthodox Church in a spirit of humility or do they realize that power and glory are to be lacking in the Orthodox Hierarchy?   Huh
Logged
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #172 on: March 22, 2011, 01:12:31 AM »

Might I suggest that these academic discussions on papal infallibility, magisterium, and collegiality have little or no connection to the crisis on the ground.

Pope Benedict XVI has little direct control over the politics of his Church.

So who controls the politics?  The 200 (under 80) members of the College of Cardinals who elect one of their member to preside over the entire Roman Catholic entity?

Think of today's Roman Curia as the US Congress but with really cool threads and lifetime membership (heck, that's true for some members of Congress as well!)  A conclave goes with whomever they think can keep the ship afloat for the time being.  Remember, even a current Pope's "faction" might have dissenting members who voted him into office as a compromise candidate or simply as the only person who wanted the darn job.  John Paul II had a lot of detractors even though he appeared to the non-Catholic world as an authoritarian leader of a relatively unified Church.  Catholics from the left accused him of looking the other way with high profile sex abuse scandals (Legion of Christ/Fr. Maciel, the Irish clergy scandal, for starters), and Catholics from the right blasted him for blowing hot and cold on the liturgy (JP II authorized altar girls, remember?).  Non-Catholics don't see a lot of the continuing intrigue beyond the Piazza San Pietro.       

He is quite hamstrung as the supreme legislator of the Roman Rite.  He presides over a Church that has little or no credibility in post-industrial societies, especially in Europe and (to a lesser extent) in North America. 

As in the case of the Eastern Catholic Romanian Clergy - the Pope can flex legal and canonical muscle regardless of where the situation is "on the ground."

Are you referring to the situation where an Eastern Catholic priest and an Orthodox priest concelebrated the Divine Liturgy?  Not familiar with the details.

Pope Benedict is famous for his media ineptitude (viz. the Williamson affair).  He has a church that is split into three informal schisms.  First, there's a small but vocal progressive/liberal postmodern faction that would prefer to move Catholicism even farther away from its doctrinal and liturgical orthodoxy.  Then, there's an equally vocal and small traditional faction on the right that would rather see the Novus Ordo and postmodern heterodoxy go the way of the lava lamp.  A large apathetic middle could care less about these battles so long as they're out of Sunday Mass in 45 minutes or less.  Any notion that Pope Benedict exercises the power of Innocent III or Pio Nono is merely a pipe dream.

But any Cardinal Bishop who's a member of any of these 3 "informal schisms" can be elected Supreme Pontiff and exercise whatever "schism" philosophy that Cardinal brings to the table.

Quite true.  Once you're in the hot seat, you can do what you want.  Pope Paul VI made some enormous and extremely controversial decisions which Rome is still trying to understand.  A conservative pope can be followed by a liberal pope.  Also, as you note below, popes can change their ideology while in office.  Couldn't the same be said of Orthodox hierarchs, though?   

The former Cardinal Ratzinger was a conservative hardliner who apparently softened upon being elected to the Holy See.  Pope John Paul II became a liberator who ended the Cold War as befitting his head of state persona.

Again, both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI are complex figures that can't be whittled down to one or two characteristics.  Pope Benedict is very orthodox doctrinally and very conservative liturgically, but is also modern or postmodern from some theological standpoints.  Pope John Paul was morally very conservative, but liturgically lax and theologically moderate.  Again, each papacy is individual and contingent on the events of the Roman Church in that period as well as socio-political events outside of the Church.

Although the Orthodox in general want nothing to do with Rome (I can sympathize), now would be the time to break through papal infallibility and the creaking Roman power structure.  Rome's house is a mess, with bishops and cardinals scrambling to rule within the chaos.  Moscow (and perhaps Constantinople) would never want to conjointly rule with Rome, but now's the best time to make a bid if one is to be made.  Heck, the Tridentines might even regard their Eastern brethren as liberators.

How about if such Cardinals and Bishops seek the Eastern Orthodox Church in a spirit of humility or do they realize that power and glory are to be lacking in the Orthodox Hierarchy?   Huh

Well, the question right now isn't really ecumenism.  Rather, Rome has enough trouble right now dealing with her own battling children that any unity with the Orthodox is far and away off the table.  However, there are Roman Catholics (like myself) who are deeply troubled by Rome's path beginning in the latter half of the 20th century.  While much good came out of Vatican II (especially the documents that spoke out against anti-Semitism, for the freedom of conscience, and for episcopal collegiality), Rome has also lost much by trying to please the postmodern world through liturgy that has little connection to its heritage.  Orthodoxy, by and large, hasn't caved into the pressure to be all things for "modern man".  If Roman Catholicism is going to get back on its feet, redevelop orthodoxy and traditional liturgy, and stop pandering to postmodern society, it should take a humble cue from Orthodoxy.  Reunion?  Maybe not.  We could learn more than a few lessons from the East about preserving and cherishing orthodox belief and liturgical heritage.   
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,827


WWW
« Reply #173 on: March 22, 2011, 01:40:26 AM »

Think of today's Roman Curia as the US Congress but with really cool threads and lifetime membership (heck, that's true for some members of Congress as well!)  A conclave goes with whomever they think can keep the ship afloat for the time being. 

I remember the commentators mentioning that Pope Benedict XVI was a "caretaker" Pope, expected to serve a few years until the next conclave elects the next Pope who would bring an agenda different from his predecessors.  Some are campaigning for the next Pope to be from Africa or Asia; Some would like to see a US Cardinal become Pope.

Remember, even a current Pope's "faction" might have dissenting members who voted him into office as a compromise candidate or simply as the only person who wanted the darn job.  John Paul II had a lot of detractors even though he appeared to the non-Catholic world as an authoritarian leader of a relatively unified Church.  Catholics from the left accused him of looking the other way with high profile sex abuse scandals (Legion of Christ/Fr. Maciel, the Irish clergy scandal, for starters), and Catholics from the right blasted him for blowing hot and cold on the liturgy (JP II authorized altar girls, remember?).  Non-Catholics don't see a lot of the continuing intrigue beyond the Piazza San Pietro.

How much did the Parkinson's have in affecting Pope John Paul II's cognition; Roman Catholic Hierarchs throughout the world have had free reign and only the Pope appoints Bishops and Cardinals.

He is quite hamstrung as the supreme legislator of the Roman Rite.  He presides over a Church that has little or no credibility in post-industrial societies, especially in Europe and (to a lesser extent) in North America. 

As in the case of the Eastern Catholic Romanian Clergy - the Pope can flex legal and canonical muscle regardless of where the situation is "on the ground."

Are you referring to the situation where an Eastern Catholic priest and an Orthodox priest concelebrated the Divine Liturgy?  Not familiar with the details.

My apologies.  My understanding is that Eastern Catholic Clergy from Romania are being forced into Latin Rite Dioceses in Italy or something to that extent.

Quite true.  Once you're in the hot seat, you can do what you want.  Pope Paul VI made some enormous and extremely controversial decisions which Rome is still trying to understand.  A conservative pope can be followed by a liberal pope.  Also, as you note below, popes can change their ideology while in office.  Couldn't the same be said of Orthodox hierarchs, though?

If we look at the Greek Orthodox Metropolitans in the USA - they tend to express consistent views and run their Metropolitanates the same way even as each Hierarch has his own unique personality.  That's the best I can explain it - Archbishop Demetrios has been consistent in his 12 years of leading the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America as the Archdiocese transitioned from being located on 2 continents to being divided into 9 US based Jurisdictions.  As to whether an Orthodox Hierarch has changed ideology while in office ... I really don't know modern examples (Former EP Meletios comes to mind) other than the ones who absconded and joined Rome?   Huh
  
Again, both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI are complex figures that can't be whittled down to one or two characteristics.  Pope Benedict is very orthodox doctrinally and very conservative liturgically, but is also modern or postmodern from some theological standpoints.  Pope John Paul was morally very conservative, but liturgically lax and theologically moderate.  Again, each papacy is individual and contingent on the events of the Roman Church in that period as well as socio-political events outside of the Church.

Pope John Paul II was afflicted with Parkinson's in the last 10-15 years of His Papacy and that would affect his ideology from 1979 to 1989 to 1999 and eventually his death?

Pope Benedict XVI is in better health and inherited the chaotic situation you've described.  I think Pope Benedict XVI has cleaned up some of the issues that his predecessor couldn't handle and there's a long road ahead lasting decades, if not Centuries and perhaps ... never....

Well, the question right now isn't really ecumenism.  Rather, Rome has enough trouble right now dealing with her own battling children that any unity with the Orthodox is far and away off the table.  However, there are Roman Catholics (like myself) who are deeply troubled by Rome's path beginning in the latter half of the 20th century.  While much good came out of Vatican II (especially the documents that spoke out against anti-Semitism, for the freedom of conscience, and for episcopal collegiality), Rome has also lost much by trying to please the postmodern world through liturgy that has little connection to its heritage.

The effects of that are already seen 40 years post Novus Ordo.  I have friends of mine that are very conservative in their Catholic praxis while their parents grew up when things were liberalized.  Where I live, Roman Catholicism remains strong and vibrant and to an extent, I'm proud of having a strong Roman Catholic Church in my area (helps make for good friends, lol).  Based on anecdotal evidence, a lot of people gave up on Roman Catholicism because they didn't appreciate how Roman Catholicism gave them freedom on one end and enforced a corrupt system on the other end.  I was reading an article about Catholics not being happy that there are no outdoor or destination weddings permitted in Roman Catholicism.  Gee, I find that tactless and appalling; however, some want to blame the Catholic Church for these apostasies....

Orthodoxy, by and large, hasn't caved into the pressure to be all things for "modern man".  If Roman Catholicism is going to get back on its feet, redevelop orthodoxy and traditional liturgy, and stop pandering to postmodern society, it should take a humble cue from Orthodoxy.  Reunion?  Maybe not.  We could learn more than a few lessons from the East about preserving and cherishing orthodox belief and liturgical heritage.

The dilemma is that Roman Catholics are growing rapidly in Asia and Africa - meaning that the emphasis will be on developing nations as Roman Catholicism takes a step back from the post-modern world that, ironically, she contributed to.  Right now, the Eastern Orthodox can still assert that they are the Church founded on Pentecost and as for Roman Catholicism - it can't minister to a world that it indirectly created....  Christ said to Pilate, "My Kingdom is not of this world" and there are 200 individuals (e.g. Cardinals) who have their own individual kingdoms that they're trying to maintain at the cost of the Gospel....
Logged
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #174 on: March 22, 2011, 05:18:42 AM »

I remember the commentators mentioning that Pope Benedict XVI was a "caretaker" Pope, expected to serve a few years until the next conclave elects the next Pope who would bring an agenda different from his predecessors.  Some are campaigning for the next Pope to be from Africa or Asia; Some would like to see a US Cardinal become Pope.

Well, goes to show you that the "caretaker pope" theory is a myth.  Pope Bl. John XXIII was supposed to be a "caretaker" as well.  Though he only reigned for five years, he set in motion the Second Vatican Council.  While I think Roman Catholicism would've been better off liturgically if John XXIII saw the Council through, history proved otherwise.  That is the great downside of centralized Roman authority -- power, and the fate of Rome, is centralized in one bishop-emperor.  The Orthodox synodic model offers some balance between personalities and a checksum against unilateral and controversial decisions.

How much did the Parkinson's have in affecting Pope John Paul II's cognition; Roman Catholic Hierarchs throughout the world have had free reign and only the Pope appoints Bishops and Cardinals.

I heard Pope John Paul II recite the Angelus in Rome in 2002.  His Latin was beyond incomprehensible at that point.  The only reason I knew it was the Angelus was because of the monsignori's responses and that it was noon.

It is said (rumor, remember) that John Paul II did not necessarily pick bishops based on their pastoral capabilities but on their ability to uphold certain teachings, such as Humanae Vitae.  JP II was, in some cases, more interested in shoring up allegiance to encyclicals than attending to other doctrinal issues, the state of the liturgy, or criminal-sociological issues such as child abuse.  Pope John Paul elevated some rather questionable clergy to the prelature and cardinalate.  For example, Bernard Law of Boston was made archbishop in 1984 and cardinal in 2002.  While Cdl. Law deserves praise for his civil rights campaigning in the 1960's American South, he also deserves quite a bit of criticism for both shielding pedophile priests and protecting his own reputation through criminal activities.  I remember at least one American priest's thorough disgust when John Paul II removed Cdl. Law from Boston, only to give him legal asylum in the Vatican and elevate him to the position of archpriest at St. Mary Major.  Subsequent revelations of the Vatican's cover-up of child abuse by clergy and lay brothers in Ireland point to a rather distant Vatican of the time more interested in damage control rather than the repair of souls and the institution.

JP II put most of the criminal bishops in place before the later stages of his Parkinson's.  Nevertheless, I doubt that John Paul II was entirely aware of the social situation outside of eastern Europe and maybe western Europe.  John Paul II's episcopal appointments for the United States tend to suggest that he relied a bit much on personal allegiance and the advice of his inner circle, and not on a more thorough and personal investigation of candidates.  Pope Benedict has committed some gaffes, but generally he is more aware of the doings of his bishops.       

The effects of that are already seen 40 years post Novus Ordo.  I have friends of mine that are very conservative in their Catholic praxis while their parents grew up when things were liberalized.  Where I live, Roman Catholicism remains strong and vibrant and to an extent, I'm proud of having a strong Roman Catholic Church in my area (helps make for good friends, lol).  Based on anecdotal evidence, a lot of people gave up on Roman Catholicism because they didn't appreciate how Roman Catholicism gave them freedom on one end and enforced a corrupt system on the other end.  I was reading an article about Catholics not being happy that there are no outdoor or destination weddings permitted in Roman Catholicism.  Gee, I find that tactless and appalling; however, some want to blame the Catholic Church for these apostasies....

Re: Cancun weddings ... well, you should hear what some Roman priests have told me about wedding (and funeral) requests.  Plenty of Roman Catholics are woefully undercatechized about anything having to do with Christianity in general.  Part of the problem is the behavior of indulgent priests who will, for example, "do" destination weddings, or not care about the qualifications for marriage in the Roman Catholic Church.  These priests sometimes encourage false expectations about Matrimony and other sacraments.  I've known of at least one couple who has complained publicly about an orthodox priest's refusal to wed them because of their premarital cohabitation and contraception use.  Easy solution: find a priest by word of mouth who weds every couple no questions asked.   

As for the new liturgy: many more Roman Catholics than you might think greatly missed the Tridentine rites.  Many did not say anything unless they appear "disobedient", but many privately doubted the changes.  My paternal grandparents stopped going to church after the introduction of the New Mass.  Their devout siblings also greatly missed the Latin Mass and privately sorrowed at the destruction, but were obedient and continued to hear Mass at their parish.  My parents returned to the Faith in part through the Latin Mass, the Novus Ordo celebrated as closely to the Tridentine Rite as rubrics allow and (partially) in Latin, and the preaching of orthodox clergy.  Many people have been won back to the Church and faithful observance through dedicated and faithful priests.  There just aren't enough orthodox priests to go around.  Also, many older priests are still stuck in the Age of Aquarius.  Essentially, the church lost two generations of clergymen to institutional anarchy.  The newly ordained are generally more informed and faithful, but you are right -- the damage is largely done.  There's nothing that can be done now except prayer and the encouragement of younger, more traditionally-minded priests.           
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #175 on: March 22, 2011, 09:23:11 AM »

Might I suggest that these academic discussions on papal infallibility, magisterium, and collegiality have little or no connection to the crisis on the ground.

Pope Benedict XVI has little direct control over the politics of his Church.  He is quite hamstrung as the supreme legislator of the Roman Rite.  He presides over a Church that has little or no credibility in post-industrial societies, especially in Europe and (to a lesser extent) in North America.  Pope Benedict is famous for his media ineptitude (viz. the Williamson affair).  He has a church that is split into three informal schisms.  First, there's a small but vocal progressive/liberal postmodern faction that would prefer to move Catholicism even farther away from its doctrinal and liturgical orthodoxy.  Then, there's an equally vocal and small traditional faction on the right that would rather see the Novus Ordo and postmodern heterodoxy go the way of the lava lamp.  A large apathetic middle could care less about these battles so long as they're out of Sunday Mass in 45 minutes or less.  Any notion that Pope Benedict exercises the power of Innocent III or Pio Nono is merely a pipe dream.

Although the Orthodox in general want nothing to do with Rome (I can sympathize), now would be the time to break through papal infallibility and the creaking Roman power structure.  Rome's house is a mess, with bishops and cardinals scrambling to rule within the chaos.  Moscow (and perhaps Constantinople) would never want to conjointly rule with Rome, but now's the best time to make a bid if one is to be made.  Heck, the Tridentines might even regard their Eastern brethren as liberators.         

Oh...I had no idea that you were a Vatican Insider.  Had I known you had that kind of position in the world I would have called you, Sir!!

Logged

orthonorm
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,670



« Reply #176 on: March 22, 2011, 12:44:56 PM »

If you find my posts pretentious, I would advise you not to read them.

Peter!!...laugh!!...it was a tease...it was a DOUBLE tease...back at the Orthodox using you as the wall....


(choked up) It's like you get me . . .

At least one person didn't give up double-reverse-irony for Lent.

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
*