OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 01, 2014, 02:53:47 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 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Post-Enlightenment Developments, Roman Catholicism, and Orthodoxy  (Read 3482 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« on: March 19, 2011, 09:15:19 PM »

Here's the shocker (from a convinced Roman Catholic, no less): I agree with those Orthodox who say that the Western Church's downfall has been rationalism and secularism.  The postmodern Church fell headlong into secular philosophies and post-Enlightenment thought.  These developments were afoot well before the new liturgy.  I agree with synLeszka that the problem isn't the Roman faith and its heritage.  The problem resides with the common Roman notion that secular anthropology, social sciences, and atheistic/agnostic philosophies can substitute for revelation and piety.       

Man you had better be ready to document this!!

I want to see the references to formal Catholic teaching or you backing your train right off this track.

I don't want any how-to books for bored Catholic housewives or ads for Catholic Yoga classes to tuck the tummy and blast away post-parturition blues...

Since I don't have a uterus, I won't have to blast away post-parturition blues.  I could use a tummy tuck though.  I'm a bit, um, portly.

I want the real deal.  I want to see them Vatican documents front and center...I want the lives of saints that point to this reality tunnel that you are wandering around in...

What's wrong with an "reality tunnel"?  I mean, don't we all nurse some psychotic pet peeve/conspiracy theory?  I know I'm (expletive) nuts, myself.

Anyway, let's begin with Pope Paul VI's General Audience, 26 November 1969 (EWTN English translation) that concerns the pending implementation of the bull Missale Romanum (latine) (Vatican English translation).  This bull introduced the Novus Ordo.  The EWTN English translation of the 26 November 1969 General Audience contains some significant and problematic paraphrases from the Italian, which I will talk about later.

For now, pay special attention to the points 12 and 16 in the English translation.  I will provide a more thorough exegesis later on.  Note the allusions to secular thought in these paragraphs.

 
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 19, 2011, 09:26:33 PM »

Here's the shocker (from a convinced Roman Catholic, no less): I agree with those Orthodox who say that the Western Church's downfall has been rationalism and secularism.  The postmodern Church fell headlong into secular philosophies and post-Enlightenment thought.  These developments were afoot well before the new liturgy.  I agree with synLeszka that the problem isn't the Roman faith and its heritage.  The problem resides with the common Roman notion that secular anthropology, social sciences, and atheistic/agnostic philosophies can substitute for revelation and piety.      

Man you had better be ready to document this!!

I want to see the references to formal Catholic teaching or you backing your train right off this track.

I don't want any how-to books for bored Catholic housewives or ads for Catholic Yoga classes to tuck the tummy and blast away post-parturition blues...

Since I don't have a uterus, I won't have to blast away post-parturition blues.  I could use a tummy tuck though.  I'm a bit, um, portly.

I want the real deal.  I want to see them Vatican documents front and center...I want the lives of saints that point to this reality tunnel that you are wandering around in...

What's wrong with an "reality tunnel"?  I mean, don't we all nurse some psychotic pet peeve/conspiracy theory?  I know I'm (expletive) nuts, myself.

Anyway, let's begin with Pope Paul VI's General Audience, 26 November 1969 (EWTN English translation) that concerns the pending implementation of the bull Missale Romanum (latine) (Vatican English translation).  This bull introduced the Novus Ordo.  The EWTN English translation of the 26 November 1969 General Audience contains some significant and problematic paraphrases from the Italian, which I will talk about later.

For now, pay special attention to the points 12 and 16 in the English translation.  I will provide a more thorough exegesis later on.  Note the allusions to secular thought in these paragraphs.

 Cheesy Cheesy  Well you do have pretty clear sense of self there, and precious little fear of the mighty pen, I'd say!

Go ahead.  I am not going to fight with you.  I am interested in your perspectives and living memory.  I am in my late fifties, so I was still a youth during the most tumultuous years of the Council and the post-conciliar committees.

M.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2011, 09:37:29 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #2 on: March 19, 2011, 10:12:46 PM »

Here's the shocker (from a convinced Roman Catholic, no less): I agree with those Orthodox who say that the Western Church's downfall has been rationalism and secularism.  The postmodern Church fell headlong into secular philosophies and post-Enlightenment thought.  These developments were afoot well before the new liturgy.  I agree with synLeszka that the problem isn't the Roman faith and its heritage.  The problem resides with the common Roman notion that secular anthropology, social sciences, and atheistic/agnostic philosophies can substitute for revelation and piety.      

Man you had better be ready to document this!!

I want the real deal.  I want to see them Vatican documents front and center...I want the lives of saints that point to this reality tunnel that you are wandering around in...

Okay, I can't get this all down in a fell swoop. I probably won't be able to comment on this for another two weeks or so, since I'm very busy with writing.  Maybe we can get the ball rolling.

Need to emphasize this from the beginning: I'm not a sedevacantist.  Even though I have a lot of difficulty assenting to what he has ruled and said about the postmodern reformation of the Roman liturgy, Pope Paul VI is a successor of Peter and held the keys during his reign.  I have difficulty with interior assent, but I will need to if I want to count myself as a member of the Roman Church.    

Lots of Catholics have teachings that bother them.  Most often it's Humanae Vitae.  I have reservations about the Ordinary Form Roman Mass and the general movement to scrap the Tridentine Mass when all it needed was some pruning and vernacularization.  The Ordinary Form is valid, orthodox, and can be celebrated in a reverent manner consonant with Roman tradition (though most often it isn't).  Still, I think that the 1965 "interim" revisions to the 1962 missal were exactly what the Council Fathers called for in Sancrosanctum Concilium.  Apparently Paul VI and the Concilium wanted much more radical reforms.  We Romans should have stopped reform with the vernacular permissions and simplified rubrics in 1965 (without flipping the altars), and called it quits after that.  I can't change history.

Anyway, these are my observations about the Roman Rite as it stands today.  The Easterners haven't been as infected by these developments, thankfully.  

* The general trend to interpret the Mass through anthropology and social sciences.  The notion that liturgy is an unfolding process guided by revelation has been replaced with the notion that the Mass must first satisfy the intellectual and social needs of the laity according to academic metrics.  This includes the notion that every liturgical text must be in a simplistic vernacular, that Latin must be rejected since it is "not understood", that traditional psalmody must be rejected for similar reasons, and that Mass ad orientem impedes "active participation" since the laity cannot see the manual movements of the priest.  Mass has been psychologized and turned inward towards cognitive and intellectual satisfaction rather gradual human intellectual and spiritual development through organic liturgy and traditional modes of piety.

<snip>

I do not blame Paul VI for these developments.  However, his notion that the Mass must change for "modern man" could be viewed as a genesis for many difficulties in the modern Roman liturgy.  Hence my difficult to assent to his teachings.

I will later provide some agnostic/deist views of Enlightenment thinkers that I am convinced have led to these developments.      
« Last Edit: March 19, 2011, 10:35:56 PM by jordanz » Logged
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #3 on: March 19, 2011, 10:34:52 PM »

I apologize for the length of this post.  Instead, I have edited the post to include the first point only.  I will comment on the other observations as time permits.
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,330


WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2011, 01:42:20 AM »

I apologize for the length of this post.  Instead, I have edited the post to include the first point only.  I will comment on the other observations as time permits.

I like your approach better than mine.  If you review some of my posts, I based Roman Catholic doctrine on "visions" experienced by self-mutilating teenage girls.   Undecided 

Although I thought Novus Ordo was introduced during Vatican II and not afterward.  How much time elapsed between Humanae Vitae and the encyclicals ushering in Novus Ordo?   Huh
Logged
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2011, 07:31:20 AM »

I apologize for the length of this post.  Instead, I have edited the post to include the first point only.  I will comment on the other observations as time permits.

I like your approach better than mine.  If you review some of my posts, I based Roman Catholic doctrine on "visions" experienced by self-mutilating teenage girls.   Undecided

Huh  Didn't know about that.  Are you referring to St. Bernadette?  Not quite sure about this statement.

Although I thought Novus Ordo was introduced during Vatican II and not afterward.  How much time elapsed between Humanae Vitae and the encyclicals ushering in Novus Ordo?   Huh

Almost all the liturgical changes we are familiar with today happened during the Second Vatican Council.  The liturgy celebrated every day at Vatican II was generally the 1962 Missal (the Extraordinary Form).  Cdl. Montini (later Paul VI) celebrated the Ambrosian Rite a few times, and maybe there were a few public Divine Liturgies in there.

During the Council, there were two notable documents on the liturgy drafted.

First there was Sancrosanctum Concilium (4 December 1963), the sacred constitution on the Liturgy.

Then there was Inter oecumenici (September 26, 1964) (adoremus.org), the first changes proposed by the Concilium of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, the consultation body responsible for liturgical changes. This document is famous for some minor changes (the introduction of "Corpus Christi" as the Communion formula) and one very major change (the command to 'flip' the altars around.)

The Council ended 8 December 1965.

Humanae Vitae was promulgated 25 July 1968.

Pope Paul VI issued the apostolic constitution (bull) Missale Romanum on 3 April 1969.  This bull outlined the new Missal (now referred to as the 'Ordinary Form') which was to be enforced beginning on 1st Advent 1970.  This document was clearly intended to have the same force of the bull Quo Primum of July 1570.   Paul VI's 26 November 1969 General Audience, cited in a previous post of mine, directly refers to the apostolic constitution Missale Romanum.

The absolute force of Paul VI's bull Missale Romanum has been blunted by Pope Benedict XVI's motu proprio Summorum Pontificum (sanctamissa.org) issued 7 July 2007 and enforced from 14 September of the same year.  As is well known, this motu proprio created "One Rite, Two Forms": the Ordinary Form of 1970 and the Extraordinary Form of 1962.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2011, 07:34:42 AM by jordanz » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2011, 11:06:44 AM »

Are you going to distinguish between what the conciliar documents called for and what happened?  It seems a little muzzy here.


I apologize for the length of this post.  Instead, I have edited the post to include the first point only.  I will comment on the other observations as time permits.

I like your approach better than mine.  If you review some of my posts, I based Roman Catholic doctrine on "visions" experienced by self-mutilating teenage girls.   Undecided

Huh  Didn't know about that.  Are you referring to St. Bernadette?  Not quite sure about this statement.

Although I thought Novus Ordo was introduced during Vatican II and not afterward.  How much time elapsed between Humanae Vitae and the encyclicals ushering in Novus Ordo?   Huh

Almost all the liturgical changes we are familiar with today happened during the Second Vatican Council.  The liturgy celebrated every day at Vatican II was generally the 1962 Missal (the Extraordinary Form).  Cdl. Montini (later Paul VI) celebrated the Ambrosian Rite a few times, and maybe there were a few public Divine Liturgies in there.

During the Council, there were two notable documents on the liturgy drafted.

First there was Sancrosanctum Concilium (4 December 1963), the sacred constitution on the Liturgy.

Then there was Inter oecumenici (September 26, 1964) (adoremus.org), the first changes proposed by the Concilium of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, the consultation body responsible for liturgical changes. This document is famous for some minor changes (the introduction of "Corpus Christi" as the Communion formula) and one very major change (the command to 'flip' the altars around.)

The Council ended 8 December 1965.

Humanae Vitae was promulgated 25 July 1968.

Pope Paul VI issued the apostolic constitution (bull) Missale Romanum on 3 April 1969.  This bull outlined the new Missal (now referred to as the 'Ordinary Form') which was to be enforced beginning on 1st Advent 1970.  This document was clearly intended to have the same force of the bull Quo Primum of July 1570.   Paul VI's 26 November 1969 General Audience, cited in a previous post of mine, directly refers to the apostolic constitution Missale Romanum.

The absolute force of Paul VI's bull Missale Romanum has been blunted by Pope Benedict XVI's motu proprio Summorum Pontificum (sanctamissa.org) issued 7 July 2007 and enforced from 14 September of the same year.  As is well known, this motu proprio created "One Rite, Two Forms": the Ordinary Form of 1970 and the Extraordinary Form of 1962.
Logged

jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2011, 12:25:48 PM »

Are you going to distinguish between what the conciliar documents called for and what happened?  It seems a little muzzy here.

First, I encourage everyone here to read translations of the documents for themselves.  Every instance of a document title is hyperlinked to an English translation.  I only gave a timeline to acquaint readers with the dates of various significant events in and around the Council period.  My job here is to facilitate self-education and discussion, not make capsule summaries.  Here goes, anyway.

From my previous post:

During the (Second Vatican) Council (11 October 1962 --- 8 December 1965), there were two notable documents on the liturgy drafted.

First there was Sancrosanctum Concilium (4 December 1963), the sacred constitution on the Liturgy.

Then there was Inter oecumenici (September 26, 1964) (adoremus.org), the first changes proposed by the Concilium of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, the consultation body responsible for liturgical changes. This document is famous for some minor changes (the introduction of "Corpus Christi" as the Communion formula) and one very major change (the command to 'flip' the altars around.)

The Council ended 8 December 1965.

Vatican II issued only one Constitution on the liturgy, Sancrosanctum Concilium.  This document offered broad guidelines on vernacularization, the role of Latin in the liturgy, psalmody and hymnody, instrumentation, and the role of the laity in liturgy.  No rubrical changes were prescribed.  Only guidelines for reform were offered.

The instruction Inter oecumenici was the first instruction on liturgical reform.  This document proposed some interim changes to the 1962 version of the Tridentine Missal, including permissions for vernacularization, the deletion of certain parts of the Mass, and perhaps its most famous ruling, the order for the priest to "face the people" while saying Mass.  The Tridentine calendar, lectionary, offertory, prefaces, and Canon were left untouched.  


************************************************************************************************************************************************************


Certain notable changes to the Mass found in Inter oecumenici:

* The "prayers at the foot of the altar" were shortened to the form used until that point for the Requiem Mass.  In other words, the Judica Me (Ps. 42/43) was reduced to the antiphon only, and was made optional.  Mass could begin with the Confiteor.

* The Mass of the Catechumens (the Mass until the Offertory) could be said from the "sedilla" (celebrant's chair) or from the altar.  The priest was instructed to face the people over a freestanding altar (versus populum celebration) for the entire Mass.  Theoretically, facing the people was optional, as the Missal rubrics still presumed that the priest faced an altar while celebrating Mass.  In practice, bishops were ordered to turn the altars around by the end of 1965.    

* All of the propers of the Mass, and the lections, could be said in the vernacular.  Certain bishops' conferences, such as the American conference, only permitted certain propers to be translated.  Other Anglophone countries (Canada, Australia) permitted all the propers to be said in English.  I do not know what happened in the case of other modern languages.

* Two new rubrical options for lections were introduced.  Lay lectors could read the epistle from a lectern, facing the people.  The priest-celebrant or deacon could also recite the Gospel from the pulpit, facing the people.  

* Bidding prayers after the Credo were introduced ("Prayer of the Faithful").

* The Preface dialogue, Preface, and Canon (still silent) all remained in Latin.  The obligation to recite the Preface and Canon in Latin was removed by the second instruction on liturgical reform, Tres Abhinc Annos (4 May 1967) (adoremus.org).  More later on this second instruction.

* The number of blessings during the Canon were reduced.

* Certain minor liturgical gestures, such as the priest's self-blessing with the paten after the prayer Libera Nos, were suppressed.

* The priest's prayer at the administration of the Communion, "Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi ..." was replaced with "Corpus Christi".  Communicants were instructed to say "Amen".

* The prayers after Low Mass were again suppressed. Technically, the "Low Mass prayers" were suppressed in 1962, but they were still being said by many priests at the time.  Heck, many priests who celebrate the EF Low Mass today still say these prayers.  Nowadays, Low Mass prayers are a "tolerated local custom" in the Extraordinary Form, just like the confiteor and indulgentiam blessing before Holy Communion (also removed in 1962).
 
Other than these changes, the 1965 "interim" missal remained the same as the 1962 missal.  
« Last Edit: March 20, 2011, 12:26:34 PM by jordanz » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 20, 2011, 12:46:48 PM »


Vatican II issued only one Constitution on the liturgy, Sancrosanctum Concilium.  This document offered broad guidelines on vernacularization, the role of Latin in the liturgy, psalmody and hymnody, instrumentation, and the role of the laity in liturgy.  No rubrical changes were prescribed.  Only guidelines for reform were offered.

The instruction Inter oecumenici was the first instruction on liturgical reform.  This document proposed some interim changes to the 1962 version of the Tridentine Missal, including permissions for vernacularization, the deletion of certain parts of the Mass, and perhaps its most famous ruling, the order for the priest to "face the people" while saying Mass.  The Tridentine calendar, lectionary, offertory, prefaces, and Canon were left untouched.  


Though I was young, I remember the 1965 missal.  It was not a shock.  It is what came after that turned my little world on its head...but it was more than the liturgy and remains so for me today.

The two most shattering occurrences of the years between 1965 and 1970 included the elimination of useless repetitions:  There are no useless repetitions in the life or work of the Church.   Without those repetitions we are lost.  And the total obliteration of the old liturgical cycle that made perfect sense and allowed for extended prayer and reflection on the most momentous events of that cycle, and its being replaced by something so deadly dull and un-noteworthy that I finally gave up trying to follow it except superficially and went back to the old calendar and lived in parallel time, till I moved into an eastern Catholic jurisdiction...but NOT because I disliked the Roman rite...oddly enough.  I had managed to make peace with it, learn from it and teach about it.

But it was not the present liturgy that drove me to distraction.  What drove me to near tears were the changes made in the entire liturgical cycle and the elimination of essential repetitions.

.02

« Last Edit: March 20, 2011, 12:49:51 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #9 on: March 20, 2011, 01:21:38 PM »

/\  I remember when we were establishing our fledgling monastery in the early 1980s.  The Dominican Sisters, about 6 of them who lived in a convent and ran a residential school for the deaf, used to come to Vespers.

We would discuss liturgical worship. "The Trinity," they said, "is vibrant and alive in your worship.  In the course of a 30 or 40 minute Vespers service the Trinity has 2 dozen mentions.  But It has faded from our services."
Logged
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #10 on: March 20, 2011, 01:28:59 PM »

The two most shattering occurrences of the years between 1965 and 1970 included the elimination of useless repetitions:  There are no useless repetitions in the life or work of the Church.   Without those repetitions we are lost.  And the total obliteration of the old liturgical cycle that made perfect sense and allowed for extended prayer and reflection on the most momentous events of that cycle, and its being replaced by something so deadly dull and un-noteworthy that I finally gave up trying to follow it except superficially

Amen, Amen, Amen!

The reformation of the old liturgical cycle did a lot of damage to Roman piety and culture.  The removal of pre-Lent, Epiphanytide, and the effective cancellation of octaves were very destructive.  I agree about "repetitions" -- the Byzantine Divine Liturgy has enlivened Christians for centuries.  It is even more repetitive than the Tridentine Mass!  Still, the Liturgical Movement in Western Christianity (including the Anglicans and Lutherans) privileged didacticism (i.e. liturgy as instruction) over the notion that liturgy is a gradual, unfolding, and sometimes baffling process.  Holy Mass and Divine Liturgy don't make rational sense, and that's a good thing!  Fortunately, the Extraordinary Form movement is trying to recapture the orthodox development of liturgy.  The restoration of Roman worship will take many more years than it took heterodox Catholics to wound the Mass, but in the end liturgical orthodoxy will triumph since Christ's Church always prevails.  

Again, there is no one person or event to "blame" for the liturgical crisis in modern Roman Catholicism.  The Tridentine liturgy, for all its beauty and poetry, needed translation and some simplification.  The simplifications in the 1950's generally preserved the nature of the Tridentine liturgy without completely destroying the rite.  However, there were (and still are) many in Roman Catholicism, both before and after the council, who have inverted the dogma that Mass is the union of Calvary and our fragile world.  Rather, for them, Calvary should serve our desires and needs.  There's a difference between making ritual more accessible (using modern languages, some simplifications) and the inversion of liturgy as a clerical ideological palette for novelties.  

The crisis stems not from the Council or Pope Paul VI, but from the inherent fallibility of human nature.  When left to our own devices, we would rather set up idols to ourselves than conform to the Holy Sacrifice.  It is much easier to deceive ourselves into worship that is self-serving rather than God-adoring.  
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 20, 2011, 01:32:24 PM »

/\  I remember when we were establishing our fledgling monastery in the early 1980s.  The Dominican Sisters, about 6 of them who lived in a convent and ran a residential school for the deaf, used to come to Vespers.

We would discuss liturgical worship. "The Trinity," they said, "is vibrant and alive in your worship.  In the course of a 30 or 40 minute Vespers service the Trinity has 2 dozen mentions.  But It has faded from our services."

It was the eastern liturgical inclusion of the Holy Spirit in a striking manner...and the continuous liturgical attention paid to the Theotokos, and the more ascetic spiritual practice that drew me out of the western Church, into the east.   These things were "natural" to me but I had no outlet for them in the rite and ritual of my Baptism.  Now I am more in concert with what is spiritual second nature to me.

Precisely!!
« Last Edit: March 20, 2011, 01:33:43 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,330


WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 20, 2011, 02:33:45 PM »

I apologize for the length of this post.  Instead, I have edited the post to include the first point only.  I will comment on the other observations as time permits.

I like your approach better than mine.  If you review some of my posts, I based Roman Catholic doctrine on "visions" experienced by self-mutilating teenage girls.   Undecided

Huh  Didn't know about that.  Are you referring to St. Bernadette?  Not quite sure about this statement.

I was referring to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque who had visions of Jesus physically removing her heart from her body, resting it on her chest, placing the heart back into her body and giving her a legal document saying that her heart belonged to him.  The doctrine of Immaculate Heart of Jesus and Mary is based on that vision, and many, many, many more visions reported by young teen-aged girls before Dr. Freud and Dr. Phil.  Forgive me if I wasn't clear....   angel

Quote from: SolEX01
Although I thought Novus Ordo was introduced during Vatican II and not afterward.  How much time elapsed between Humanae Vitae and the encyclicals ushering in Novus Ordo?   Huh

Almost all the liturgical changes we are familiar with today happened during the Second Vatican Council.  The liturgy celebrated every day at Vatican II was generally the 1962 Missal (the Extraordinary Form).  Cdl. Montini (later Paul VI) celebrated the Ambrosian Rite a few times, and maybe there were a few public Divine Liturgies in there.

During the Council, there were two notable documents on the liturgy drafted.

First there was Sancrosanctum Concilium (4 December 1963), the sacred constitution on the Liturgy.

Then there was Inter oecumenici (September 26, 1964) (adoremus.org), the first changes proposed by the Concilium of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, the consultation body responsible for liturgical changes. This document is famous for some minor changes (the introduction of "Corpus Christi" as the Communion formula) and one very major change (the command to 'flip' the altars around.)

The Council ended 8 December 1965.

Humanae Vitae was promulgated 25 July 1968.

Pope Paul VI issued the apostolic constitution (bull) Missale Romanum on 3 April 1969.  This bull outlined the new Missal (now referred to as the 'Ordinary Form') which was to be enforced beginning on 1st Advent 1970.  This document was clearly intended to have the same force of the bull Quo Primum of July 1570.   Paul VI's 26 November 1969 General Audience, cited in a previous post of mine, directly refers to the apostolic constitution Missale Romanum.

The absolute force of Paul VI's bull Missale Romanum has been blunted by Pope Benedict XVI's motu proprio Summorum Pontificum (sanctamissa.org) issued 7 July 2007 and enforced from 14 September of the same year.  As is well known, this motu proprio created "One Rite, Two Forms": the Ordinary Form of 1970 and the Extraordinary Form of 1962.

Thank you for the above explanation.   Smiley
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 20, 2011, 09:54:07 PM »

I apologize for the length of this post.  Instead, I have edited the post to include the first point only.  I will comment on the other observations as time permits.

I like your approach better than mine.  If you review some of my posts, I based Roman Catholic doctrine on "visions" experienced by self-mutilating teenage girls.   Undecided

Huh  Didn't know about that.  Are you referring to St. Bernadette?  Not quite sure about this statement.

I was referring to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque who had visions of Jesus physically removing her heart from her body, resting it on her chest, placing the heart back into her body and giving her a legal document saying that her heart belonged to him.  The doctrine of Immaculate Heart of Jesus and Mary is based on that vision, and many, many, many more visions reported by young teen-aged girls before Dr. Freud and Dr. Phil.  Forgive me if I wasn't clear....   angel

It is still not clear to me.  Why?  Because the actual document including the Sacred Heart into the liturgical cycle of the Church explicitly states that it is NOT because of the visions of anyone at all.  It is an ancient devotion of the Church beginning with the Holy Fathers, and then emerging in the west most explicitly with Bernard of Clairvaux, and it was finally and formally made a part of the Church's liturgical cycle and not at all dependent upon anyone's private revelations.

Now...that does not make good rocks to throw at us from an Orthodox point of view but it is a reality and a fact for me as a Catholic.   Now you can either deal with my reality or you can keep on repeating yourself because it make other Orthodox say "Yea!"

Logged

SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,330


WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 20, 2011, 10:43:35 PM »

I apologize for the length of this post.  Instead, I have edited the post to include the first point only.  I will comment on the other observations as time permits.

I like your approach better than mine.  If you review some of my posts, I based Roman Catholic doctrine on "visions" experienced by self-mutilating teenage girls.   Undecided

Huh  Didn't know about that.  Are you referring to St. Bernadette?  Not quite sure about this statement.

I was referring to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque who had visions of Jesus physically removing her heart from her body, resting it on her chest, placing the heart back into her body and giving her a legal document saying that her heart belonged to him.  The doctrine of Immaculate Heart of Jesus and Mary is based on that vision, and many, many, many more visions reported by young teen-aged girls before Dr. Freud and Dr. Phil.  Forgive me if I wasn't clear....   angel

It is still not clear to me.  Why?  Because the actual document including the Sacred Heart into the liturgical cycle of the Church explicitly states that it is NOT because of the visions of anyone at all.

So you discredit how "visions" (or what would be called today as hallucinations) can be told to Priests, who become Bishops, who become Cardinals, who were elected Pope, receiving the keys from St. Peter, and preach the "visions" of young girls as infallible dogma?

It is an ancient devotion of the Church beginning with the Holy Fathers,

We've already gone down that road - the Holy Fathers didn't have such things as Immaculate Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

and then emerging in the west most explicitly with Bernard of Clairvaux,

Who wasn't even mentioned in the proclamations exclaiming the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

and it was finally and formally made a part of the Church's liturgical cycle and not at all dependent upon anyone's private revelations.

Of course not - the Pope merely canonizes the thousands upon thousands of St. Bernadettes and St. Margarets and St. Marys and St. Theresas and St. Elizabeths and St. <insert popular girl's name here>

Now...that does not make good rocks to throw at us from an Orthodox point of view but it is a reality and a fact for me as a Catholic.  Now you can either deal with my reality

So does the movie Groundhog Day - wake up every day stuck between Eastern Catholicism, Vatican and Eastern Orthodoxy.

or you can keep on repeating yourself because it make other Orthodox say "Yea!"

I don't have to repeat myself often.  I learned well in my Drama class.   Wink
Logged
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #15 on: March 20, 2011, 11:10:31 PM »

I was referring to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque who had visions of Jesus physically removing her heart from her body, resting it on her chest, placing the heart back into her body and giving her a legal document saying that her heart belonged to him.  The doctrine of Immaculate Heart of Jesus and Mary is based on that vision, and many, many, many more visions reported by young teen-aged girls before Dr. Freud and Dr. Phil.  Forgive me if I wasn't clear....   angel

It is still not clear to me.  Why?  Because the actual document including the Sacred Heart into the liturgical cycle of the Church explicitly states that it is NOT because of the visions of anyone at all.  It is an ancient devotion of the Church beginning with the Holy Fathers, and then emerging in the west most explicitly with Bernard of Clairvaux, and it was finally and formally made a part of the Church's liturgical cycle and not at all dependent upon anyone's private revelations.

In a way, you're both "right" in a way (don't know if there's a right answer to this question, really.)

As SolEX01 notes, the circumstances of the Sacred Heart devotion as most people know it today (the sappy sweet sentimental devotions) have a strange beginning.  However, elijahmaria is also right that the Sacred Heart metaphor has been a part of Western spirituality long before St. Margaret Mary Alacoque.  

The Jesuits encouraged the devotion to the Sacred Heart (and later still, the feast and octave) as a counterbalance to Jansenism or Jansenistic influences.  The devotion was meant to reacquaint Roman Catholics with the orthodox dogma that God the Son is true God and true Man.  This is in opposition to the Jansenist-Calvinist emphasis on predestination and the absolute sovereignty of God over creation (and, logically, the Jansenist denial of free human cooperation with grace).  The devotion was meant to re-catechize populations that had fallen into the Jansenist heresy.  In a somewhat literate early-modern society, the best way to catechize is through devotions.  This is how we Westerners got "apparitions" and sentimentality.

I don't care for the novenas, cheesy portraiture, and saints' legends.  However, the doctrine behind the Sacred Heart devotion is very orthodox.  The devotion entered at a time when the Western church was facing a very difficult battle with Calvinist influences and attitudes within the Church, and especially in France.  Without the Sacred Heart devotion, the Church might not have recovered the orthodox doctrines.

I have a devotion to the Sacred Heart, but without all the ephemera.  It's possible to have an intellectual devotion without the cultural manifestations.            
« Last Edit: March 20, 2011, 11:11:15 PM by jordanz » Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,330


WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 20, 2011, 11:29:34 PM »

I was referring to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque who had visions of Jesus physically removing her heart from her body, resting it on her chest, placing the heart back into her body and giving her a legal document saying that her heart belonged to him.  The doctrine of Immaculate Heart of Jesus and Mary is based on that vision, and many, many, many more visions reported by young teen-aged girls before Dr. Freud and Dr. Phil.  Forgive me if I wasn't clear....   angel

It is still not clear to me.  Why?  Because the actual document including the Sacred Heart into the liturgical cycle of the Church explicitly states that it is NOT because of the visions of anyone at all.  It is an ancient devotion of the Church beginning with the Holy Fathers, and then emerging in the west most explicitly with Bernard of Clairvaux, and it was finally and formally made a part of the Church's liturgical cycle and not at all dependent upon anyone's private revelations.

In a way, you're both "right" in a way (don't know if there's a right answer to this question, really.)

The Orthodox assert that there is no necessity to venerate Sacred Hearts or other body parts because the Resurrection obliterates any need to venerate the Sacred Heart of Jesus or Mary.  While Western-Rite Orthodox makes some allowance for veneration of Sacred Hearts - it is not the same liturgical form as developed by Roman Catholicism.

As SolEX01 notes, the circumstances of the Sacred Heart devotion as most people know it today (the sappy sweet sentimental devotions) have a strange beginning. However, elijahmaria is also right that the Sacred Heart metaphor has been a part of Western spirituality long before St. Margaret Mary Alacoque.

But how long before St. Margaret Mary Alacoque and how long after 1054?  St. Bernard of Clariveux was after the Great Schism and his work has some references from the Holy Fathers; however, my understanding is that the work of St. Bernard didn't result directly in the Sacred Heart of Mary or Jesus devotion.

The Jesuits encouraged the devotion to the Sacred Heart (and later still, the feast and octave) as a counterbalance to Jansenism or Jansenistic influences.  The devotion was meant to reacquaint Roman Catholics with the orthodox dogma that God the Son is true God and true Man.  This is in opposition to the Jansenist-Calvinist emphasis on predestination and the absolute sovereignty of God over creation (and, logically, the Jansenist denial of free human cooperation with grace).  The devotion was meant to re-catechize populations that had fallen into the Jansenist heresy.  In a somewhat literate early-modern society, the best way to catechize is through devotions.  This is how we Westerners got "apparitions" and sentimentality.

I'm not familiar with Calvinism or Jansenism and I would say that the use of devotions (then) would be analogous to a dog and pony show....

I don't care for the novenas, cheesy portraiture, and saints' legends.  However, the doctrine behind the Sacred Heart devotion is very orthodox.  The devotion entered at a time when the Western church was facing a very difficult battle with Calvinist influences and attitudes within the Church, and especially in France.  Without the Sacred Heart devotion, the Church might not have recovered the orthodox doctrines.

Well, in my entire life as an Orthodox Christian, I never heard of a devotion to the Sacred Heart.  Maybe my terminology is different from yours; I will not dispute that the Sacred Heart exists as a vocabulary that I haven't tried to process.  Surely, the Roman Catholic formulations of the Sacred Heart are foreign to me.

I have a devotion to the Sacred Heart, but without all the ephemera.  It's possible to have an intellectual devotion without the cultural manifestations.

For me it is spiritual understanding based on the Resurrection - perhaps not that far removed from intellectual devotion.   Smiley
Logged
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #17 on: March 21, 2011, 12:07:46 AM »

The Orthodox assert that there is no necessity to venerate Sacred Hearts or other body parts because the Resurrection obliterates any need to venerate the Sacred Heart of Jesus or Mary.  While Western-Rite Orthodox makes some allowance for veneration of Sacred Hearts - it is not the same liturgical form as developed by Roman Catholicism.

Is the Western Orthodox devotion doctrinally similar to the Roman Catholic version?  In other words, do the devotions serve the same ends?  External manifestations, such as statuary, portraiture, or novenas, are not as important as the dogmas and doctrines behind the devotions.  The devotions are catechetical tools, not ends in themselves.

The Jesuits encouraged the devotion to the Sacred Heart (and later still, the feast and octave) as a counterbalance to Jansenism or Jansenistic influences.
(....)

I'm not familiar with Calvinism or Jansenism and I would say that the use of devotions (then) would be analogous to a dog and pony show....

Calvinism or Jansenism might not have a direct bearing on your Orthodox faith.  However, any person that lives in North America or Western Europe has been influenced by Calvinism, other strands of Reformation thought, or early modern Roman Catholicism.  One should know about post-schism developments in Western Christianity simply because of their enormous impact on contemporary (post)-Christian Western society.  The legacies of these doctrines and practices influence your social environment whether or not you subscribe to them directly.

From a socio-historical standpoint, it is irrelevant whether or not one believes that Roman Catholicism is a heresy.  It's important to know that the Sacred Heart devotion preserved the core tenets of the Roman Catholic faith in Western Europe during the early modern period.  Through the Sacred Heart devotion, Rome was able to differentiate itself from Reformation thought.  The devotion, and its social effects, are part of the greater Tridentine-Counter Reformation history.   
« Last Edit: March 21, 2011, 12:20:14 AM by jordanz » Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,330


WWW
« Reply #18 on: March 21, 2011, 12:26:18 AM »

The Orthodox assert that there is no necessity to venerate Sacred Hearts or other body parts because the Resurrection obliterates any need to venerate the Sacred Heart of Jesus or Mary.  While Western-Rite Orthodox makes some allowance for veneration of Sacred Hearts - it is not the same liturgical form as developed by Roman Catholicism.

Is the Western Orthodox devotion doctrinally similar to the Roman Catholic version?  In other words, do the devotions serve the same ends?

I don't think so.  Disclaimer, I'm not familiar with Western Orthodoxy.

External manifestations, such as statuary, portraiture, or novenas, are not as important as the dogmas and doctrines behind the devotions.  The devotions are catechetical tools, not ends in themselves.

Which is how they (bolded text) are used in Western Orthodoxy according to my understanding (based on reading the forum).

It's important to know that the Sacred Heart devotion preserved the core tenets of the Roman Catholic faith in Western Europe during early modern period.

Preserved them or added/expanded them?  When Jesus said that he was the Alpha and the Omega and that nothing was to be added or subtracted from the Gospel, I think that the Sacred Heart devotions represent such an addition (or subtraction).

Through the Sacred Heart devotion, Rome was able to differentiate itself from Reformation thought.  The devotion, and its social effects, are part of the greater Tridentine-Counter Reformation history.

And then we reach Vatican I and the worms that it unleashed on Roman Catholicism which are being dissected today.   Wink

Logged
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #19 on: March 21, 2011, 01:23:13 AM »

Preserved them or added/expanded them?  When Jesus said that he was the Alpha and the Omega and that nothing was to be added or subtracted from the Gospel, I think that the Sacred Heart devotions represent such an addition (or subtraction).

The Sacred Heart devotion was encouraged to combat heresy, not create new doctrine.  The Jansenists (like classical Calvinists) taught that from the beginning of time God the Father elects certain people to be saved and others to be damned regardless of their ability or inclination to cooperate with grace and the sacraments.  According to the Jansenists, since God is all-sovereign, He can effect grace in those who are in mortal sin (reveal election to people in sin).  The Jansenists also taught that Jesus Christ died only for the elect and not for all those who are baptized, profess the catholic faith, seek sacramental repentance, and participate in the sacraments.  For Calvinists, there is no such thing as human choice to cooperate with grace or reject it.  That teaching is in opposition to the constant teaching of both West and East.

The Sacred Heart was an emphasis on the humanity of Jesus Christ.  A focus on the humanity of Christ (without denying his equal all-divinity) was meant to combat errors about grace and salvation spread by the Jansenists.  The Sacred Heart emphasizes that Jesus Christ desires all people to repent and trust in Him and his sacraments because his passion, death, and resurrection is the ultimate Love for humanity.  This opposes the Jansenist notion of a distant, abstract God the Father with exaggerated transcendence. 

There is nothing in the theological underpinnings of the Sacred Heart devotion that is not orthodox for both Roman Catholics and Orthodox.  Some Roman Catholics have over-emphasized or even idolized the devotion, but that is beyond the teachings of the Church and indicative of the fallibility of individuals.  It is also true that the typical manifestations of the Sacred Heart devotion offend Orthodox sensibilities by encouraging adoration of certain body parts or bodily aspects of Jesus Christ rather than the entirety of His Paschal Mystery, but that does not necessarily detract from the doctrinal objectives of the adoration of the human Jesus Christ.  Does the Sacred Heart devotion get out of hand and even stray into heresies of its own?  Certainly, but a good pastor should be aware of these tendencies when introducing a devotion to his flock.  Sound preaching is key.   

Through the Sacred Heart devotion, Rome was able to differentiate itself from Reformation thought.  The devotion, and its social effects, are part of the greater Tridentine-Counter Reformation history.

And then we reach Vatican I and the worms that it unleashed on Roman Catholicism which are being dissected today.   Wink

I agree that the doctrine of papal infallibility has caused certain acute problems for modern Roman Catholicism.  Even so, the Sacred Heart devotion was never defined as an infallible dogma under papal infallibility.  It is still a pious devotion that one may choose or decline.  While a Roman can dislike the Sacred Heart devotion or certain aspects of it, one may not deny that Jesus Christ is true God and true Man, or that all apostolic Christians are called to repentance through sacramental confession and cooperation with grace in the sacraments. 

The First Vatican Council, the question of the development of doctrine, and papal infallibility are controversial and important parts of Roman history.  However, I wouldn't lump the Jansenist controversy together with papal infallibility given that Jansenism is a doctrinal and social heresy-movement and papal infallibility is a theological dispute.  Also, many aspects of papal legal positivism (i.e. the notion that a Pope can change liturgical legislation or even render entire rites unlawful) predate Vatican I.  The first Pope to render previously legitimate rites of the Roman Church null was Pope St. Pius V with his bull Quo Primum in 1570.  This innovation significantly predates the introduction of the Novus Ordo/Ordinary Form in 1970.  It's not a good idea to retroactively attribute modern Roman notions of magisterium and papal infallibility on pre-Vatican I events.
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,330


WWW
« Reply #20 on: March 21, 2011, 02:37:16 AM »

Preserved them or added/expanded them?  When Jesus said that he was the Alpha and the Omega and that nothing was to be added or subtracted from the Gospel, I think that the Sacred Heart devotions represent such an addition (or subtraction).

The Sacred Heart devotion was encouraged to combat heresy, not create new doctrine.  

The 12 Promises of the Sacred Heart have been translated into 238 languages (Wikipedia).  We can choose whether or not to follow the 10 Commandments; Are the 12 Promises on the same level (e.g. one can freely abide by them or reject them outright)?  If yes, that would be an addition....

The Sacred Heart was an emphasis on the humanity of Jesus Christ.  A focus on the humanity of Christ (without denying his equal all-divinity) was meant to combat errors about grace and salvation spread by the Jansenists.  The Sacred Heart emphasizes that Jesus Christ desires all people to repent and trust in Him and his sacraments because his passion, death, and resurrection is the ultimate Love for humanity.  This opposes the Jansenist notion of a distant, abstract God the Father with exaggerated transcendence.

As an Orthodox Christian, I agree with the bolded part.  I do not agree or accept the necessity of its implementation via the Sacred Heart devotion.

There is nothing in the theological underpinnings of the Sacred Heart devotion that is not orthodox for both Roman Catholics and Orthodox.  Some Roman Catholics have over-emphasized or even idolized the devotion, but that is beyond the teachings of the Church and indicative of the fallibility of individuals.

Which hasn't been corrected.  No Saint has been uncanonized, to put it another way.

It is also true that the typical manifestations of the Sacred Heart devotion offend Orthodox sensibilities by encouraging adoration of certain body parts or bodily aspects of Jesus Christ rather than the entirety of His Paschal Mystery, but that does not necessarily detract from the doctrinal objectives of the adoration of the human Jesus Christ.

On Holy Thursday Evening, the service of the 12 Gospels (Matins for Holy Friday Morning) re-enacts the Passion of Christ.  We (Orthodox Christians) venerate Christ crucified on the cross; we venerate Christ placed in the tomb on Holy Friday; we celebrate His Resurrection on Easter Sunday and we celebrate the Sunday of St. Thomas who doubted.  Note the use of the word venerate, versus adoration.  The Orthodox do not have to adore what happened to Christ for we preach Christ resurrected and Hades defeated.  I remember watching on PBS the history of Roman Catholic Church and seeing the origins of the excessive emphasis on Christ's suffering and bloodshed; This emphasis drives the devotions to the Sacred Heart and Immaculate Heart and there are a lot of Roman Catholic Church buildings in my part of the world named for Sacred Heart or Immaculate Heart.   Smiley

Does the Sacred Heart devotion get out of hand and even stray into heresies of its own?  Certainly, but a good pastor should be aware of these tendencies when introducing a devotion to his flock.  Sound preaching is key.

At least among the Roman Catholics I know, such discussion of Sacred Heart never surfaced.  

I agree that the doctrine of papal infallibility has caused certain acute problems for modern Roman Catholicism.  Even so, the Sacred Heart devotion was never defined as an infallible dogma under papal infallibility.

Why do Roman Catholics have Annum Sacrum where the entire world (including Orthodox and non-Christians) was consecrated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus?

Quote
To this twofold ground of His power and domination He graciously allows us, if we think fit, to add voluntary consecration. Jesus Christ, our God and our Redeemer, is rich in the fullest and perfect possession of all things: we, on the other hand, are so poor and needy that we have nothing of our own to offer Him as a gift. But yet, in His infinite goodness and love, He in no way objects to our giving and consecrating to Him what is already His, as if it were really our own; nay, far from refusing such an offering, He positively desires it and asks for it: "My son, give me thy heart."

I never saw the bolded text in any Gospel.  I've seen references to sacrificing one's life for the Gospel; not one's heart.

It is still a pious devotion that one may choose or decline.  

I didn't choose to have my heart consecrated to Jesus by a long-dead Roman Pontiff and his successors.  Didn't the above Papal Bull take away my freewill by consecrating my heart to Jesus without my permission?   Huh

While a Roman can dislike the Sacred Heart devotion or certain aspects of it, one may not deny that Jesus Christ is true God and true Man, or that all apostolic Christians are called to repentance through sacramental confession and cooperation with grace in the sacraments.

We agree on the latter.   Smiley

The First Vatican Council, the question of the development of doctrine, and papal infallibility are controversial and important parts of Roman history.  However, I wouldn't lump the Jansenist controversy together with papal infallibility given that Jansenism is a doctrinal and social heresy-movement and papal infallibility is a theological dispute.  Also, many aspects of papal legal positivism (i.e. the notion that a Pope can change liturgical legislation or even render entire rites unlawful) predate Vatican I.  The first Pope to render previously legitimate rites of the Roman Church null was Pope St. Pius V with his bull Quo Primum in 1570.  This innovation significantly predates the introduction of the Novus Ordo/Ordinary Form in 1970.  It's not a good idea to retroactively attribute modern Roman notions of magisterium and papal infallibility on pre-Vatican I events.

Quo Primum should have rendered the Eastern Rites illegal (or maybe the 200 year clause was invoked).  The Popes have exercised economy by allowing the Eastern Churches (from 1596 onward) to use Eastern Rites rather than forcing the Missal upon them.  That also explains why my local RC Church can't construct an icon stand and perform the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom since that Rite is not listed in the Missal.

The modern references of magisterium and papal infallibility are lodged towards the Pope's role as Head of State of Vatican City, another modern innovation that doesn't sit well with Orthodox Christians.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2011, 02:54:43 AM by SolEX01 » Logged
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #21 on: March 21, 2011, 07:36:09 AM »

The 12 Promises of the Sacred Heart have been translated into 238 languages (Wikipedia).  We can choose whether or not to follow the 10 Commandments; Are the 12 Promises on the same level (e.g. one can freely abide by them or reject them outright)?  If yes, that would be an addition....

I didn't know that about the 12 Promises of the Sacred Heart.  Heck, I don't know what the 12 Promises are!  Thanks for letting me know.  Certainly, no one has to affirm or deny these points to be a Roman Catholic. 

You're exaggerating this a bit.  Yes, certain devotions (the Sacred Heart, the scapulars, the miraculous medal of Lourdes) have become almost like talismans for certain people.  No one should give any of these items, sayings, promises etc. the same level of doctrinal or dogmatic certitude as the nature of Christ, the mystery of the Trinity, or the definition of the Sacraments.  Popular 'folk' Roman Catholicism can get a bit out of hand.  Unfortunately, this is what many non-Roman Catholics see about this faith.  There is a place for popular devotions when put into perspective.  Some people are not well catechized, however, and tend to confuse the peripheral for the essential.  I am certain that this is the case for Orthodoxy and any religion, at that rate. 

The Sacred Heart was an emphasis on the humanity of Jesus Christ.  A focus on the humanity of Christ (without denying his equal all-divinity) was meant to combat errors about grace and salvation spread by the Jansenists.  The Sacred Heart emphasizes that Jesus Christ desires all people to repent and trust in Him and his sacraments because his passion, death, and resurrection is the ultimate Love for humanity.  This opposes the Jansenist notion of a distant, abstract God the Father with exaggerated transcendence.

As an Orthodox Christian, I agree with the bolded part.  I do not agree or accept the necessity of its implementation via the Sacred Heart devotion.

That's chill.  So long as we agree doctrinally, expression doesn't matter.  Heck, even if we didn't agree doctrinally, or were of completely different religions, I wouldn't mind learning more.  The Orthodox "folk" or popular devotions for these same doctrines and dogmas can be just as profound as the Roman devotions, or maybe even better suited for some people.  I'd like to learn more.

There is nothing in the theological underpinnings of the Sacred Heart devotion that is not orthodox for both Roman Catholics and Orthodox.  Some Roman Catholics have over-emphasized or even idolized the devotion, but that is beyond the teachings of the Church and indicative of the fallibility of individuals.

Which hasn't been corrected.  No Saint has been uncanonized, to put it another way.

So? All of Roman Catholicism is suspect because certain saints have been canonized because of visions or apparitions?  Certain pre-schism saints, such as the desert fathers of Egypt, likewise had visions, apparitions, or metaphorical struggles with Satan or unspecified devils.  Should they be struck from the sanctoral cycle of both East and West?

To base the validity or invalidity of a belief system based on tertiary (at best) phenomena is a strange apologetic tactic, to say the least.

This Roman respects your right to exist as an Orthodox Christian separate from definition under Roman terms.  Furthermore, you have an absolute  right to believe that my faith is corrupt or even heretical.  I understand the historical reasons for why Orthodox have an animus towards Western Christians.  As I have said earlier, Western Christianity has dealt with different heresies and political situations than most of Orthodoxy.  When Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy historically intersected, it was usually the Orthodox who "lost out" (Crusades, Polonization, the Hapsburgs, the Ottomans indirectly ...).  Hence, I'm not that critical of those Orthodox who have an axe to grind with Catholicism.  We have a hand in the historical muck also. 

So many of our differences truly begin with political differences and not issues of doctrine.  St. Mary Margaret Alacoque is merely a valence for much deeper, usually socio-cultural, historical, or political issues.  Most of what the Easterners and Westerns believe is quite the same.  Its the peripheral issues that are the wrench in the system.     

It is also true that the typical manifestations of the Sacred Heart devotion offend Orthodox sensibilities by encouraging adoration of certain body parts or bodily aspects of Jesus Christ rather than the entirety of His Paschal Mystery, but that does not necessarily detract from the doctrinal objectives of the adoration of the human Jesus Christ.

I remember watching on PBS the history of Roman Catholic Church and seeing the origins of the excessive emphasis on Christ's suffering and bloodshed; This emphasis drives the devotions to the Sacred Heart and Immaculate Heart and there are a lot of Roman Catholic Church buildings in my part of the world named for Sacred Heart or Immaculate Heart.   Smiley

First off, what Roman Catholics call "Triduum" (Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and the Easter Vigil) is also an act of veneration.  This is especially true of the Good Friday presanctified liturgy.

It is true that medieval and early modern Western Christianity had an excessive focus on bodily suffering and the passion and crucifixion to the expense of the Resurrection.  It must be remembered, however, that the East and West had to battle different heresies.  The East had Arianism, monophysitism, and similar challenges to the dual nature of Christ and the Trinity.  The West had to contend with heresies that attacked the nature of the Eucharist and the Mass.  This is why Western theology is overtly concerned with the metaphysical mechanics of the Mass.  It is also quite true that Trent over emphasized the propitiation of the Mass and de-emphasized (but never truly denied) its pneumatic element.  This over-reaction was a compensation for the Protestant reformers that modified the apostolic doctrine of Real Presence into a non-apostolic doctrine (Calvin, Cramner, Luther), or denied real presence altogether (Zwingli). 

Modern and post-modern Roman Catholic theology has restored much of what was overlooked in the rush to defend Catholicism against medieval heresy and Protestantism.  See the new Catechism on the Catholic Church about the Eucharist, and you will find that Catholicism affirms both the Tridentine dogmatic definition of the Mass as a sacrifice of propitiation and the doctrine of Mass as the Paschal Mystery.

I agree that the doctrine of papal infallibility has caused certain acute problems for modern Roman Catholicism.  Even so, the Sacred Heart devotion was never defined as an infallible dogma under papal infallibility.

Why do Roman Catholics have Annum Sacrum where the entire world (including Orthodox and non-Christians) was consecrated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus?

Quote
To this twofold ground of His power and domination He graciously allows us, if we think fit, to add voluntary consecration. Jesus Christ, our God and our Redeemer, is rich in the fullest and perfect possession of all things: we, on the other hand, are so poor and needy that we have nothing of our own to offer Him as a gift. But yet, in His infinite goodness and love, He in no way objects to our giving and consecrating to Him what is already His, as if it were really our own; nay, far from refusing such an offering, He positively desires it and asks for it: "My son, give me thy heart."

I never saw the bolded text in any Gospel.  I've seen references to sacrificing one's life for the Gospel; not one's heart.

How many Orthodox saints have preached the total sacrifice and subjection of the inherently sinful human being to the Holy Trinity and Mysteries?

Westerners and Easterners have different ways of explaining the same phenomena (i.e. Dormition versus Assumption: same event, focus on different aspects).  The Sacred Heart message is similar to many aspects of Orthodox spirituality: we, all of us as sinners, are in desperate need of baptism, sacramental forgiveness (confession), and sacramental grace through all the sacraments.  While I understand why the Orthodox have difficulty with the notion that discrete aspects of Jesus' body can be singled out for catechism and spiritual exercise, the underlying doctrinal concepts are the same.  I also understand the political baggage behind the Sacred Heart.  It is quite true that Western occupiers of Orthodox lands sometimes forced the Sacred Heart devotion on Eastern Christians as a false act of uniformity with the Roman Church.  Nevertheless, it's important to look past these historical accidents towards the substantial doctrinal unity behind the affirmation of the humanity of Jesus.  However, given the great temporal power of Roman Catholicism in history and today, it is very easy for a Roman to dismiss socio-political history and very difficult for an Orthodox Christian to do so.  This is why I tend to tread lightly here.

It is still a pious devotion that one may choose or decline.  

I didn't choose to have my heart consecrated to Jesus by a long-dead Roman Pontiff and his successors.  Didn't the above Papal Bull take away my freewill by consecrating my heart to Jesus without my permission?   Huh

I don't think that contemporary Roman Catholicism would care if you were to privately (or even publicly) deny that you are bound by the consecration of the Sacred Heart.  Even if every Orthodox Christian were to do so, Rome would (most likely) not lower her estimation of your apostolic faith.  Again, you're aiming at the peripheral socio-political issues rather than doctrinal and dogmatic issues.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #22 on: March 21, 2011, 01:10:58 PM »

Dear Jordan,

There's a great deal of ink being spilled here that is actually off-topic again and it is very clear that neither one of you have read the actual document formally making the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus a part of the Catholic liturgical cycle, or at least your Orthodox correspondent has decided that it is irrelevant if he's read it at all.   It is very patristic in its language and actually says that no one person or person's visions or revelations are a part of this devotion.  As you know, there is never any need to believe any private revelation in the Church.

So I fear you are simply playing into hands that only intend harm to Catholic teaching at this point. 

It might be interesting to discuss actual Catholic documents but this discussion is simply a waste of time.

M.
Logged

jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #23 on: March 21, 2011, 01:28:05 PM »

Dear Jordan,

There's a great deal of ink being spilled here that is actually off-topic again and it is very clear that neither one of you have read the actual document formally making the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus a part of the Catholic liturgical cycle, or at least your Orthodox correspondent has decided that it is irrelevant if he's read it at all.   It is very patristic in its language and actually says that no one person or person's visions or revelations are a part of this devotion.  As you know, there is never any need to believe any private revelation in the Church.

So I fear you are simply playing into hands that only intend harm to Catholic teaching at this point.  

It might be interesting to discuss actual Catholic documents but this discussion is simply a waste of time.

M.

Quite true.  

It is frustrating, though, to read people pontificate about the most minor and fully optional devotions when, in fact, the differences between East and West are much much smaller than the similarities.

Sacred Heart spirituality is extremely valuable for Westerners.  It keeps us on the orthodox path towards Jesus Christ. Roman Christians have come perilously close to minimizing the humanity of Christ.  That would be a very grave detriment should it come to pass.  Our Eastern brethren should be glad they they never had to go through the Reformation, Counter-Reformation, and the theological aftermath of these developments.

    
« Last Edit: March 21, 2011, 01:29:41 PM by jordanz » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #24 on: March 21, 2011, 02:13:40 PM »

Dear Jordan,

There's a great deal of ink being spilled here that is actually off-topic again and it is very clear that neither one of you have read the actual document formally making the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus a part of the Catholic liturgical cycle, or at least your Orthodox correspondent has decided that it is irrelevant if he's read it at all.   It is very patristic in its language and actually says that no one person or person's visions or revelations are a part of this devotion.  As you know, there is never any need to believe any private revelation in the Church.

So I fear you are simply playing into hands that only intend harm to Catholic teaching at this point.  

It might be interesting to discuss actual Catholic documents but this discussion is simply a waste of time.

M.

Quite true.  

It is frustrating, though, to read people pontificate about the most minor and fully optional devotions when, in fact, the differences between East and West are much much smaller than the similarities.

Sacred Heart spirituality is extremely valuable for Westerners.  It keeps us on the orthodox path towards Jesus Christ. Roman Christians have come perilously close to minimizing the humanity of Christ.  That would be a very grave detriment should it come to pass.  Our Eastern brethren should be glad they they never had to go through the Reformation, Counter-Reformation, and the theological aftermath of these developments.

Need to stay with the documents on this one.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_15051956_haurietis-aquas_en.html

This prayer from St. Bernard of Clairvaux should give you something to chew on for a while as well, if you do not already know it:

http://www.zimbio.com/Christianity/articles/6H_4iKB13xu/Saint+Bernard+Clairvaux+Rhythmical+Prayer

Logged

SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,330


WWW
« Reply #25 on: March 21, 2011, 02:32:25 PM »


Sure (citing from the link above)...

Quote
Entirely in keeping with this most sweet and wise disposition of divine Providence is the memorable act of consecration by which We Ourselves solemnly dedicated Holy Church and the whole world to the spotless Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary....

Meanwhile, refreshed by sweet hope and foreseeing already those spiritual fruits which We are confident will spring up in abundance in the Church from the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus -provided it is correctly understood according to Our explanation and actively put into practice

"Our explanation" of the Sacred Heart of Jesus?  How does "our explanation" come across to most people if it doesn't involve private or personal visions?   Huh
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,330


WWW
« Reply #26 on: March 21, 2011, 02:39:15 PM »

Dear Jordan,

There's a great deal of ink being spilled here that is actually off-topic again and it is very clear that neither one of you have read the actual document formally making the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus a part of the Catholic liturgical cycle, or at least your Orthodox correspondent has decided that it is irrelevant if he's read it at all.   It is very patristic in its language and actually says that no one person or person's visions or revelations are a part of this devotion.  As you know, there is never any need to believe any private revelation in the Church.

So I fear you are simply playing into hands that only intend harm to Catholic teaching at this point.

Worried that Catholic teaching can't withstand critical analysis in the latest of heresies called post-Modernism?

It might be interesting to discuss actual Catholic documents but this discussion is simply a waste of time.

I felt the same way about the movie, Groundhog Day, until I realized how funny it was at the end.   Wink
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #27 on: March 21, 2011, 02:40:52 PM »


Sure (citing from the link above)...

Quote
Entirely in keeping with this most sweet and wise disposition of divine Providence is the memorable act of consecration by which We Ourselves solemnly dedicated Holy Church and the whole world to the spotless Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary....

Meanwhile, refreshed by sweet hope and foreseeing already those spiritual fruits which We are confident will spring up in abundance in the Church from the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus -provided it is correctly understood according to Our explanation and actively put into practice

"Our explanation" of the Sacred Heart of Jesus?  How does "our explanation" come across to most people if it doesn't involve private or personal visions?   Huh

You cannot speak for "most people"...You don't have enough data.  And you can't speak for Catholics because it is clear that you do not have enough data.  You have a favorite bone to pick and so far as I can see that is all that you have.  So pick it.  I simply suggested to a fellow Catholic that he not pick it along with you.

Mary
Logged

SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,330


WWW
« Reply #28 on: March 21, 2011, 03:05:44 PM »


Sure (citing from the link above)...

Quote
Entirely in keeping with this most sweet and wise disposition of divine Providence is the memorable act of consecration by which We Ourselves solemnly dedicated Holy Church and the whole world to the spotless Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary....

Meanwhile, refreshed by sweet hope and foreseeing already those spiritual fruits which We are confident will spring up in abundance in the Church from the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus -provided it is correctly understood according to Our explanation and actively put into practice

"Our explanation" of the Sacred Heart of Jesus?  How does "our explanation" come across to most people if it doesn't involve private or personal visions?   Huh

You cannot speak for "most people"...You don't have enough data.

I'm not speaking for "most people."  I'm asking how does "Our Explanation" (e.g. the Roman Papacy) come across to most Catholic adherents if it doesn't involve private or personal visions?  Who said I needed data?   Huh

And you can't speak for Catholics because it is clear that you do not have enough data.

What data do you think I need?   Huh

You have a favorite bone to pick and so far as I can see that is all that you have. So pick it.  I simply suggested to a fellow Catholic that he not pick it along with you.

I'm engaged in healthy discussion with your fellow Catholic which helps add to my understanding about Roman Catholicism.
Logged
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #29 on: March 21, 2011, 06:32:31 PM »

Sacred Heart devotion apologists claim that the fall of the Bourbon monarchy, and the seismic events that began with the French Revolution, are directly related to France not consecrating itself to the Sacred Heart. And picking up where they left off, Fatima apparition devotees have been making the same claim about Russia, its errors, and the Immaculate Heart of Mary devotion. Some of the more ecumenically inclined Fatima followers view the Russian Orthodox church as the vehicle for Russia's conversion, but others within traditionalist circles won't be happy until Russia is Roman Catholic.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2011, 06:35:27 PM by John Larocque » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #30 on: March 21, 2011, 06:44:07 PM »

Sacred Heart devotion apologists claim that the fall of the Bourbon monarchy, and the seismic events that began with the French Revolution, are directly related to France not consecrating itself to the Sacred Heart. And picking up where they left off, Fatima apparition devotees have been making the same claim about Russia, its errors, and the Immaculate Heart of Mary devotion. Some of the more ecumenically inclined Fatima followers view the Russian Orthodox church as the vehicle for Russia's conversion, but others within traditionalist circles won't be happy until Russia is Roman Catholic.

And we are supposed to pay attention to what a group of like-minded laity choose to do with their time and energies?    Smiley   All too Byzantine for this little Catholic!  Besides it has nothing to do with the Church's teaching.
Logged

SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,330


WWW
« Reply #31 on: March 21, 2011, 06:45:01 PM »

Sacred Heart devotion apologists claim that the fall of the Bourbon monarchy, and the seismic events that began with the French Revolution, are directly related to France not consecrating itself to the Sacred Heart. And picking up where they left off, Fatima apparition devotees have been making the same claim about Russia, its errors, and the Immaculate Heart of Mary devotion. Some of the more ecumenically inclined Fatima followers view the Russian Orthodox church as the vehicle for Russia's conversion, but others within traditionalist circles won't be happy until Russia is Roman Catholic.

I would place the odds of Russia becoming Roman Catholic to be essentially zero since it is imputed that Russia will not become Eastern Catholic before becoming Roman Catholic.  No Roman Catholic Pope has set foot on Russian soil since 1589 or ever; however, some would say that a visit of a Roman Catholic Pope to Russia would accelerate Russia's conversion to Roman Catholicism.

The Pope has visited all other countries of the world - except Russia.  Is it because of the visions of Fatima more so than geopolitics?   Huh
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,330


WWW
« Reply #32 on: March 21, 2011, 06:47:33 PM »

Sacred Heart devotion apologists claim that the fall of the Bourbon monarchy, and the seismic events that began with the French Revolution, are directly related to France not consecrating itself to the Sacred Heart. And picking up where they left off, Fatima apparition devotees have been making the same claim about Russia, its errors, and the Immaculate Heart of Mary devotion. Some of the more ecumenically inclined Fatima followers view the Russian Orthodox church as the vehicle for Russia's conversion, but others within traditionalist circles won't be happy until Russia is Roman Catholic.

And we are supposed to pay attention to what a group of like-minded laity choose to do with their time and energies?    Smiley   All too Byzantine for this little Catholic!  Besides it has nothing to do with the Church's teaching.

Why does everything have to be too "byzantine" for you?  I would consider being stuck between 3 Churches to be equally as "byzantine."   Wink
Logged
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #33 on: March 21, 2011, 07:05:45 PM »

And we are supposed to pay attention to what a group of like-minded laity choose to do with their time and energies?    Smiley   All too Byzantine for this little Catholic!  Besides it has nothing to do with the Church's teaching.

These matter for two reasons. Firstly, these are approved apparitions (worthy of belief), whose cult was started by people who are either canonized saints or on the road to caonized sainthood. Thus, the cult (i.e. religious devotion) has been given the highest sanction of the Latin church.

Associated with these devotions are visions. Sister Lucy is reputed to have been told that Russia should be consecrated, specifically, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Before she died, she made it known that this request was filled, but in the minds of the this was not done, and followers carried stories of faked Sister Lucy interviews and suppressed Fourth Secret of Fatima revelations by the post-Vatican II NewChurch (traditionalists actually use this language).

Thus, within the pages of publications like The Remnant or Catholic Family News, traditionalist Catholics would launch attacks on John Paul II for being disobedient to Our Lady's requests, and then remind people (correctly) of his involvement with various ecumenist errors (Koran-kissing, Assissi 1986 etc...)

This random google link refers to the reputed request by Jesus to consecrate FRANCE to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, which was not done. And thus France fell to the worst fruits of the Enlightenment in 1789.
http://teaattrianon.blogspot.com/2007/06/vow-of-louis-xvi-to-sacred-heart.html

In summary, what these people think matters for the simple reason they are demanding that people obey the reputed requests of Jesus and Mary as communicated to authentic visionaries.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2011, 07:15:08 PM by John Larocque » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,857



« Reply #34 on: March 21, 2011, 07:36:04 PM »

Sacred Heart devotion apologists claim that the fall of the Bourbon monarchy, and the seismic events that began with the French Revolution, are directly related to France not consecrating itself to the Sacred Heart. And picking up where they left off, Fatima apparition devotees have been making the same claim about Russia, its errors, and the Immaculate Heart of Mary devotion. Some of the more ecumenically inclined Fatima followers view the Russian Orthodox church as the vehicle for Russia's conversion, but others within traditionalist circles won't be happy until Russia is Roman Catholic.

I would place the odds of Russia becoming Roman Catholic to be essentially zero since it is imputed that Russia will not become Eastern Catholic before becoming Roman Catholic.  No Roman Catholic Pope has set foot on Russian soil since 1589 or ever; however, some would say that a visit of a Roman Catholic Pope to Russia would accelerate Russia's conversion to Roman Catholicism.
Not "Russian Catholic," mind you (which consists of Rusphiles but not many Russians, and seems to have more outside of Russia than inside), but "Roman Catholic."
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 #35 on: March 21, 2011, 07:40:00 PM »

Sacred Heart devotion apologists claim that the fall of the Bourbon monarchy, and the seismic events that began with the French Revolution, are directly related to France not consecrating itself to the Sacred Heart. And picking up where they left off, Fatima apparition devotees have been making the same claim about Russia, its errors, and the Immaculate Heart of Mary devotion. Some of the more ecumenically inclined Fatima followers view the Russian Orthodox church as the vehicle for Russia's conversion, but others within traditionalist circles won't be happy until Russia is Roman Catholic.

And we are supposed to pay attention to what a group of like-minded laity choose to do with their time and energies?    Smiley   All too Byzantine for this little Catholic!  Besides it has nothing to do with the Church's teaching.

Why does everything have to be too "byzantine" for you?  I would consider being stuck between 3 Churches to be equally as "byzantine."   Wink

 laugh laugh laugh

You just redeemed yourself in my eyes!!

THAT is funny...why?...cause it be true!!

M.
Logged

John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #36 on: March 21, 2011, 07:45:10 PM »

There's loads of stuff in this link:
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/catholicteaching/privaterevelation/russia.htm

This just one part of the whole:
Quote
It has also been claimed that the promised conversion meant the conversion to the schismatic Russian Orthodox Church.

"Of course Russia would not convert to Roman Catholicism. Their culture is rooted in Russian Orthodoxy and any conversion would need to be to that Church [sic]. The Vatican has been making progress in reconciliation with the Russia Orthodox."

While less preposterous than a "conversion" away from communism, this claim still lacks merit for several reasons. Until the onset of recent ecumenical confusion (which happened long after 1917), the Russian Orthodox were regarded by all in the Church as in need of conversion. Our Lady came with a message of Catholic doctrine for the world as a whole but primarily for the Catholic Pope and the Catholic Church. She spoke of purgatory, the papacy, the rosary and Her Immaculate Heart — all distinctly Catholic. She did not appear in Kiev with instructions for the Russian Orthodox patriarch in Moscow.

The Fatima prophecies (and stories of the disobedient/ecumenist Vatican) are a favourite of the Remannt/SSPX/traditionalist crowd
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/05Feb/2005fat.htm
« Last Edit: March 21, 2011, 07:47:30 PM by John Larocque » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #37 on: March 21, 2011, 07:45:29 PM »

And we are supposed to pay attention to what a group of like-minded laity choose to do with their time and energies?    Smiley   All too Byzantine for this little Catholic!  Besides it has nothing to do with the Church's teaching.

These matter for two reasons. Firstly, these are approved apparitions (worthy of belief), whose cult was started by people who are either canonized saints or on the road to caonized sainthood. Thus, the cult (i.e. religious devotion) has been given the highest sanction of the Latin church.

Associated with these devotions are visions. Sister Lucy is reputed to have been told that Russia should be consecrated, specifically, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Before she died, she made it known that this request was filled, but in the minds of the this was not done, and followers carried stories of faked Sister Lucy interviews and suppressed Fourth Secret of Fatima revelations by the post-Vatican II NewChurch (traditionalists actually use this language).

Thus, within the pages of publications like The Remnant or Catholic Family News, traditionalist Catholics would launch attacks on John Paul II for being disobedient to Our Lady's requests, and then remind people (correctly) of his involvement with various ecumenist errors (Koran-kissing, Assissi 1986 etc...)

This random google link refers to the reputed request by Jesus to consecrate FRANCE to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, which was not done. And thus France fell to the worst fruits of the Enlightenment in 1789.
http://teaattrianon.blogspot.com/2007/06/vow-of-louis-xvi-to-sacred-heart.html

In summary, what these people think matters for the simple reason they are demanding that people obey the reputed requests of Jesus and Mary as communicated to authentic visionaries.

Ahhhh... You read Elena-Maria Vidal's website, do you?

She is a dear friend of many years.  We don't talk politics or apparitions too often though I do pay attention to many of the things that she says.  I don't think she is too far out on the fringe at all, and I am well aware that she is careful in her research and revisions of some very bad history,  or I'd not have been close for this many years.  She gets smacked now and then for falling off the party-line...She leaps off actually when it comes to choosing truth over comfort.

Again, this is a particular perspective that concerns you is not shared by all and not a part of Church teaching, so why does it figure so large in your mind?

Mary
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #38 on: March 21, 2011, 07:48:40 PM »

There's loads of stuff in this link:
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/catholicteaching/privaterevelation/russia.htm

This just one part of the whole:
Quote
It has also been claimed that the promised conversion meant the conversion to the schismatic Russian Orthodox Church.

"Of course Russia would not convert to Roman Catholicism. Their culture is rooted in Russian Orthodoxy and any conversion would need to be to that Church [sic]. The Vatican has been making progress in reconciliation with the Russia Orthodox."

While less preposterous than a "conversion" away from communism, this claim still lacks merit for several reasons. Until the onset of recent ecumenical confusion (which happened long after 1917), the Russian Orthodox were regarded by all in the Church as in need of conversion. Our Lady came with a message of Catholic doctrine for the world as a whole but primarily for the Catholic Pope and the Catholic Church. She spoke of purgatory, the papacy, the rosary and Her Immaculate Heart — all distinctly Catholic. She did not appear in Kiev with instructions for the Russian Orthodox patriarch in Moscow.

Again...why do you care?  Why read this junk? 

Read what the Church teaches.  Pay attention to your prayer discipline.  Read the saints and doctors of the Church.  Become a third order religious and forget all this stuff.  It isn't interesting in the main, it is not necessary.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,857



« Reply #39 on: March 21, 2011, 08:02:48 PM »

There's loads of stuff in this link:
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/catholicteaching/privaterevelation/russia.htm

This just one part of the whole:
Quote
It has also been claimed that the promised conversion meant the conversion to the schismatic Russian Orthodox Church.

"Of course Russia would not convert to Roman Catholicism. Their culture is rooted in Russian Orthodoxy and any conversion would need to be to that Church [sic]. The Vatican has been making progress in reconciliation with the Russia Orthodox."

While less preposterous than a "conversion" away from communism, this claim still lacks merit for several reasons. Until the onset of recent ecumenical confusion (which happened long after 1917), the Russian Orthodox were regarded by all in the Church as in need of conversion. Our Lady came with a message of Catholic doctrine for the world as a whole but primarily for the Catholic Pope and the Catholic Church. She spoke of purgatory, the papacy, the rosary and Her Immaculate Heart — all distinctly Catholic. She did not appear in Kiev with instructions for the Russian Orthodox patriarch in Moscow.

Again...why do you care?  Why read this junk? 

Read what the Church teaches.  Pay attention to your prayer discipline.  Read the saints and doctors of the Church.  Become a third order religious and forget all this stuff.  It isn't interesting in the main, it is not necessary.
If the Vatican wan't to swallow us, it is going to have to spit these folks out first.
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 #40 on: March 21, 2011, 08:07:27 PM »

There's loads of stuff in this link:
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/catholicteaching/privaterevelation/russia.htm

This just one part of the whole:
Quote
It has also been claimed that the promised conversion meant the conversion to the schismatic Russian Orthodox Church.

"Of course Russia would not convert to Roman Catholicism. Their culture is rooted in Russian Orthodoxy and any conversion would need to be to that Church [sic]. The Vatican has been making progress in reconciliation with the Russia Orthodox."

While less preposterous than a "conversion" away from communism, this claim still lacks merit for several reasons. Until the onset of recent ecumenical confusion (which happened long after 1917), the Russian Orthodox were regarded by all in the Church as in need of conversion. Our Lady came with a message of Catholic doctrine for the world as a whole but primarily for the Catholic Pope and the Catholic Church. She spoke of purgatory, the papacy, the rosary and Her Immaculate Heart — all distinctly Catholic. She did not appear in Kiev with instructions for the Russian Orthodox patriarch in Moscow.

Again...why do you care?  Why read this junk? 

Read what the Church teaches.  Pay attention to your prayer discipline.  Read the saints and doctors of the Church.  Become a third order religious and forget all this stuff.  It isn't interesting in the main, it is not necessary.
If the Vatican wan't to swallow us, it is going to have to spit these folks out first.

Nonsense. 

There's not intention of "swallowing" Orthodoxy in any event.

Jesus came for sinners, not the perfecti of any particular religion.

I have no intention of being in communion with anything but a perfectly complete and whole Orthodoxy!!
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #41 on: March 21, 2011, 08:13:36 PM »


Dear John,

You'd make far better use of your time reading this instead!

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2011/print2011/schall_benedictandbishops_mar2011.html
Logged

John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #42 on: March 21, 2011, 10:25:12 PM »

Ahhhh... You read Elena-Maria Vidal's website, do you?

She is a dear friend of many years.

Believe it or not, just a random google hit. Just wanted to find something on what Jesus was reputed to have said to the French visionary who popularized the devotion.

Quote
Again, this is a particular perspective that concerns you is not shared by all and not a part of Church teaching, so why does it figure so large in your mind?

So you can have a Catholicism with out Lourdes, the Sacred Heart, Fatima and can safely ignore the popes when they authenticate these sites?
« Last Edit: March 21, 2011, 10:38:00 PM by John Larocque » Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,330


WWW
« Reply #43 on: March 22, 2011, 12:56:22 AM »

Sacred Heart devotion apologists claim that the fall of the Bourbon monarchy, and the seismic events that began with the French Revolution, are directly related to France not consecrating itself to the Sacred Heart. And picking up where they left off, Fatima apparition devotees have been making the same claim about Russia, its errors, and the Immaculate Heart of Mary devotion. Some of the more ecumenically inclined Fatima followers view the Russian Orthodox church as the vehicle for Russia's conversion, but others within traditionalist circles won't be happy until Russia is Roman Catholic.

And we are supposed to pay attention to what a group of like-minded laity choose to do with their time and energies?    Smiley   All too Byzantine for this little Catholic!  Besides it has nothing to do with the Church's teaching.

Why does everything have to be too "byzantine" for you?  I would consider being stuck between 3 Churches to be equally as "byzantine."   Wink

 laugh laugh laugh

You just redeemed yourself in my eyes!!

THAT is funny...why?...cause it be true!!

At least I'm redeemed in the short term; Eventually, I'll upset you again and the first thing you do will be to curse the Byzantine Empire and Russia for leaving you stuck in a trichotomy.   Smiley
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #44 on: March 22, 2011, 09:27:32 AM »

Ahhhh... You read Elena-Maria Vidal's website, do you?

She is a dear friend of many years.

Believe it or not, just a random google hit. Just wanted to find something on what Jesus was reputed to have said to the French visionary who popularized the devotion.

Quote
Again, this is a particular perspective that concerns you is not shared by all and not a part of Church teaching, so why does it figure so large in your mind?

So you can have a Catholicism with out Lourdes, the Sacred Heart, Fatima and can safely ignore the popes when they authenticate these sites?

I safely ignored all of it except Lourdes for my entire life as a Roman rite Catholic.  I was drawn to Lourdes as a young girl and reformed Carmel as an adult.  Other than that my spirituality came from the Fathers, the saints and doctors of the west, and the liturgy of the hours.  I safely left the rest to those who were fed by other kinds of devotions.

We are not commanded to follow any private revelation.
Logged

Tags:
Pages: 1 2 »  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 0.241 seconds with 72 queries.