OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 23, 2014, 01:31:32 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 12595 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,168


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
Warned
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: 37,963



« 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
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,168


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: 8,593


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
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« 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
Warned
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: 37,963



« 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: 6,147



« 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
Warned
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: 37,963



« 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: 6,147



« 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
Warned
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: 37,963



« 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: 6,147



« 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
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« 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: 6,147



« 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
Warned
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: 37,963



« 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: 11,469


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: 11,469


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
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« 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
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #177 on: March 22, 2011, 03:33:25 PM »

Might I suggest that these academic discussions on papal infallibility, magisterium, and collegiality have little or no connection to the crisis on the ground.

I think both levels are worth discussing. In any case, I welcome a new topic to discuss. Of course, part of that might have to do with my tendency to procrastinate  -- yesterday I responded to half of ialmisry's post; I still have the second half to respond to, plus what he posted since then.

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. 

That sounds about right.

It's worth noting that people often describe the Catholic Church as just the opposite, i.e. having very little diversity of belief. But I think that's mostly because they see it relative to Protestantism, which obviously has an even wider diversity of belief than the RCC does. 
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #178 on: March 22, 2011, 03:52:19 PM »

Might I suggest that these academic discussions on papal infallibility, magisterium, and collegiality have little or no connection to the crisis on the ground.

I think both levels are worth discussing. In any case, I welcome a new topic to discuss. Of course, part of that might have to do with my tendency to procrastinate  -- yesterday I responded to half of ialmisry's post; I still have the second half to respond to, plus what he posted since then.

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. 

That sounds about right.

It's worth noting that people often describe the Catholic Church as just the opposite, i.e. having very little diversity of belief. But I think that's mostly because they see it relative to Protestantism, which obviously has an even wider diversity of belief than the RCC does. 


There are millions and millions and millions of devout third order religious in the world as well as lay monastic associates and members of lay associations.  They probably constitute at least a full third of the active members of the Catholic Church, and more than half, if you include priests and monastics and all those devout Catholics who don't fit in any of your tidy boxes.

Such cynicism...honestly, I cannot believe my eyes.
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #179 on: March 22, 2011, 08:19:11 PM »

I wondered about that too, but I don't think jordanz meant to imply that all Catholics fit in those 3 "tidy boxes".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.24 seconds with 72 queries.