OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 01, 2014, 06:46:48 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Just got back from attending my first (and possibly last) mass...  (Read 16760 times) Average Rating: 1
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic/Universalist
Posts: 3,107


« Reply #225 on: August 17, 2011, 02:02:57 AM »

Ok.
Logged
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,317


« Reply #226 on: August 17, 2011, 02:07:49 AM »

Wouldn't #6 on the accept/restore list be accomplished by #5 of the same list?

Regarding pre-Tridentine forms of the liturgy, would this necessarily require the West to restrict itself to the few non-"Roman" (in terms of rite) liturgies that survived, in various ways, the imposition of particular Roman rite? (The Mozarabic, Galician, etc). I'm curious as to what this would mean in practice.

Thanks for the Ancient Faith Radio links, by the way. It's been a while since I've listened to this particular discussion. Fr. Andrew is still right on, of course.  Wink
Logged

stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #227 on: August 17, 2011, 11:42:21 AM »

... the Roman Catholic Church will have to make major changes if it wants reunion to occur.
Obviously, we know already about the objections to  the infallibility and Universal and Supreme jurisidiction of the Roman Pope, and to the sorry state of the present RC liturgy.  But as a  point of question, in your opinion, what other specific changes would be necessary for the RCC to make for reunion? Thanks.

This list is a bit old and I might make minor changes, but it is a list I had posted in a discussion on another forum...

Quote
Repudiate/Reject:
1. Papal Universal Jurisdiction
2. Papal Infallibility
3. Papal Petrine exclusivism (i.e., that only the Pope is Peter’s successor)
4. Development of Doctrine
5. The Filioque
6. Original Sin understood as guilt transmitted via “propagation”
7. The Immaculate Conception of Mary
8. Divine Simplicity
9. Merit and Satisfaction soteriology
10. Purgatory and Indulgences
11. Created grace
12. Painting of religious imagery contrary to the traditional forms. (For veneration and ecclesiastical use)
13. Gregorian Reforms, Vatican I, Vatican II, and almost every Post-Schism Council
14. Adoption of secular music into Liturgical worship.
15. Mandatory clerical celibacy
16. Use of Unleavened Bread
17. Self-Flagellation/Mortification of the Flesh
18. Adoration of images (vs. veneration)
19. Allowing Priests/Bishops who have fallen into fornication to celebrate Liturgy/Mass
20. Sitting during worship
21. Punishment of heretics by temporal/physical means
22. Legalistic theology
23. Use of instruments in worship
24. Faith built on science/reason
25. Satisfaction theory of atonement
26. Transubstantiation
27. Marriage as legal contract
28. Sacraments (vs. Mysteries)
29. Assumption of Mary (vs. Dormition)
30. Use of statues ecclesiastically
31. Kneeling/Prostrating on Sundays

Accept/Restore:
1. The authority of Ecumenical Councils over the Pope
2. The Essence/Energies distinction
3. Reconnect Confirmation/Chrismation back to Baptism rather than delaying it
4. Administer Holy Communion (both body & blood) to all Church members, including infants
5. Pre-Tridentine form(s) of Liturgy/Mass
6. Praying to the East
7. Traditional fasting, including Wed/Fri fasts and all fasting periods
8. Right-to-left Sign of the Cross
9. Canons as guide rather than law
10. Traditional method of dating Pascha/Easter[\quote]

Some comes from:

http://saintpaulemmaus.org/files/heterodoxy/02---Outline.pdf
Which is a file that serves as an outline for a podcast series titled "Orthodoxy & Heterodoxy", it's specifically for the program that discusses Orthodoxy & Roman Catholicism. (which is in two parts)
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/orthodoxyheterodoxy/orthodox_and_roman_catholic_differences
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/orthodoxyheterodoxy/orthodox_and_roman_catholic_differences_-part_2

Some from:
http://books.google.com/books?id=RJoRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA87&dq=LXV.+Held+1450&hl=en&ei=OTMETdK6NpXqnQfa5-HlDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=LXV.%20Held%201450&f=false

And lastly some from:
http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html





It is an interesting list which probably deserves its own thread, so that we could discuss these things one by one in detail. I would disagree with some of these and some of the others are just not going to happen.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 11:50:48 AM by stanley123 » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #228 on: August 17, 2011, 12:03:51 PM »

The discussion had lasted for over 2000 replies I think and so there are some things I'd change or remove from that list.

May I make a suggestion that you look up the definitions of canon and law while you are at it...

You would do much more for your Church if you began by learning first...even about the "other" Catholic Church.

Your ignorance of many things makes you a very very weak apologist.
Logged

88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,922



« Reply #229 on: August 17, 2011, 12:30:58 PM »

The discussion had lasted for over 2000 replies I think and so there are some things I'd change or remove from that list.

May I make a suggestion that you look up the definitions of canon and law while you are at it...

You would do much more for your Church if you began by learning first...even about the "other" Catholic Church.

Your ignorance of many things makes you a very very weak apologist.

elijahmaria, like I said in what you quoted... There are things I would change. The list was made in December, and the discussion lasted for many, many pages with constructive discussion between Orthodox & Roman Catholics. There are things in that list I would remove and alter.

I will probably create a thread on here with the list, but I'll have to revise it first, based on that earlier discussion on the other website.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 12:31:17 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
CoptoGeek
of Alexandria, the Christ-loving City
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,430



« Reply #230 on: August 17, 2011, 12:38:56 PM »

A lot of Protestant churches use that one too - there are a lot of different musical settings for the text.

It is a beautiful hymn - one of my favorites.  (In fact, not to toot my own horn, but my husband taped me singing it this past Pascha:  http://youtu.be/5jPZSokvOiQ )

But speaking as a former RC, I bet a lot of Massgoers would love to be able to sing some of the beautiful hymns to the Theotokos.

What a beautiful voice you have!
Logged

"Be oppressed, rather than the oppressor. Be gentle, rather than zealous. Lay hold of goodness, rather than justice." -St. Isaac of Nineveh

“I returned to the Coptic Orthodox Church with affection, finding in her our tormented and broken history“. -Salama Moussa
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #231 on: August 17, 2011, 03:04:08 PM »

The discussion had lasted for over 2000 replies I think and so there are some things I'd change or remove from that list.

May I make a suggestion that you look up the definitions of canon and law while you are at it...

You would do much more for your Church if you began by learning first...even about the "other" Catholic Church.

Your ignorance of many things makes you a very very weak apologist.

elijahmaria, like I said in what you quoted... There are things I would change. The list was made in December, and the discussion lasted for many, many pages with constructive discussion between Orthodox & Roman Catholics. There are things in that list I would remove and alter.

I will probably create a thread on here with the list, but I'll have to revise it first, based on that earlier discussion on the other website.
I am interested in your proposed thread. Thanks.
Logged
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,300



« Reply #232 on: August 17, 2011, 03:05:35 PM »

The discussion had lasted for over 2000 replies I think and so there are some things I'd change or remove from that list.

May I make a suggestion that you look up the definitions of canon and law while you are at it...

You would do much more for your Church if you began by learning first...even about the "other" Catholic Church.

Your ignorance of many things makes you a very very weak apologist.

elijahmaria, like I said in what you quoted... There are things I would change. The list was made in December, and the discussion lasted for many, many pages with constructive discussion between Orthodox & Roman Catholics. There are things in that list I would remove and alter.

I will probably create a thread on here with the list, but I'll have to revise it first, based on that earlier discussion on the other website.
I am interested in your proposed thread. Thanks.
It's here.
Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #233 on: August 17, 2011, 07:49:48 PM »

I would suspect any gathering of two or more who pray together and share the Eucharist would be considered a complete mass/divine liturgy, in the end.

The rest is more for our benefit, but does not preclude 'validity'.

I think I hear what you're saying but, in saying it, are you presupposing that such a two-or-more-gathered-in-His-name gathering occurs within the context of the Church? If not, are we not led inexorably to conclude that the bread and wine of the memorialist/symbolist confessions are truly the Lord's Precious Body and Blood?

Insisting that every element of the anaphora of St John's liturgy be present seems a bit ridiculous but, on the other hand, saying that all that is required is the say-so of the bishop seems to lead to equally strange places.

How so?

Well, let's take a look at an Orthodox religious service:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1qYQQEwPUU
Logged
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,922



« Reply #234 on: August 17, 2011, 07:50:55 PM »

I would suspect any gathering of two or more who pray together and share the Eucharist would be considered a complete mass/divine liturgy, in the end.

The rest is more for our benefit, but does not preclude 'validity'.

I think I hear what you're saying but, in saying it, are you presupposing that such a two-or-more-gathered-in-His-name gathering occurs within the context of the Church? If not, are we not led inexorably to conclude that the bread and wine of the memorialist/symbolist confessions are truly the Lord's Precious Body and Blood?

Insisting that every element of the anaphora of St John's liturgy be present seems a bit ridiculous but, on the other hand, saying that all that is required is the say-so of the bishop seems to lead to equally strange places.

How so?

Well, let's take a look at an Orthodox religious service:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1qYQQEwPUU

There is a big difference between those two. Absolutely no comparison whatsoever.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #235 on: August 17, 2011, 07:58:12 PM »

I would suspect any gathering of two or more who pray together and share the Eucharist would be considered a complete mass/divine liturgy, in the end.

The rest is more for our benefit, but does not preclude 'validity'.

I think I hear what you're saying but, in saying it, are you presupposing that such a two-or-more-gathered-in-His-name gathering occurs within the context of the Church? If not, are we not led inexorably to conclude that the bread and wine of the memorialist/symbolist confessions are truly the Lord's Precious Body and Blood?

Insisting that every element of the anaphora of St John's liturgy be present seems a bit ridiculous but, on the other hand, saying that all that is required is the say-so of the bishop seems to lead to equally strange places.

How so?

Well, let's take a look at an Orthodox religious service:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1qYQQEwPUU

There is a big difference between those two. Absolutely no comparison whatsoever.
No. First of all, did you say that nothing ever changes in the Orthodox Church? What about all that dancing and singing? And how many ladies did you see wearing headcovering in that Orthodox Church?
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,606



« Reply #236 on: August 17, 2011, 08:01:01 PM »

I would suspect any gathering of two or more who pray together and share the Eucharist would be considered a complete mass/divine liturgy, in the end.

The rest is more for our benefit, but does not preclude 'validity'.

I think I hear what you're saying but, in saying it, are you presupposing that such a two-or-more-gathered-in-His-name gathering occurs within the context of the Church? If not, are we not led inexorably to conclude that the bread and wine of the memorialist/symbolist confessions are truly the Lord's Precious Body and Blood?

Insisting that every element of the anaphora of St John's liturgy be present seems a bit ridiculous but, on the other hand, saying that all that is required is the say-so of the bishop seems to lead to equally strange places.

How so?

Well, let's take a look at an Orthodox religious service:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1qYQQEwPUU

LOL, I fail to see how people celebrating the resurrection of Christ with joyous dancing and singing is in any way comparable to a mass where the celebrant is a clown. For them, dancing and singing in that manner is not a novelty, it is part of their own cultural identity, and it is therefore a rather legitimate manner of praising God. Clowns and giant puppets are nothing more than novelties. Nobody in the West would seriously think that dressing up as a clown is a serious expression of praise for God.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,922



« Reply #237 on: August 17, 2011, 08:02:32 PM »

I would suspect any gathering of two or more who pray together and share the Eucharist would be considered a complete mass/divine liturgy, in the end.

The rest is more for our benefit, but does not preclude 'validity'.

I think I hear what you're saying but, in saying it, are you presupposing that such a two-or-more-gathered-in-His-name gathering occurs within the context of the Church? If not, are we not led inexorably to conclude that the bread and wine of the memorialist/symbolist confessions are truly the Lord's Precious Body and Blood?

Insisting that every element of the anaphora of St John's liturgy be present seems a bit ridiculous but, on the other hand, saying that all that is required is the say-so of the bishop seems to lead to equally strange places.

How so?

Well, let's take a look at an Orthodox religious service:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1qYQQEwPUU

There is a big difference between those two. Absolutely no comparison whatsoever.
No. First of all, did you say that nothing ever changes in the Orthodox Church? What about all that dancing and singing? And how many ladies did you see wearing headcovering in that Orthodox Church?

What is wrong with singing? And I never did say NOTHING ever changes. I've acknowledged that things change, but our idea of change is FAR FAR different than the Latins, as I've said, we don't bastardize our faith and practice like the Latins do.

As for instruments in worship, while it wasn't usually used in Byzantine worship (IE the rite of Hagia Sophia, which became uniform in much of the East), other Orthodox Churches did use instruments, and instruments were used in the Church prior to Christ's birth as well. Even organs and their ecclesiastical use date to the early days of Christianity.

What you see there is PROPER usage of such celebration, drums, etc... In an Orthodox Church. That is a difference of a local tradition. However, it is far different than what the Roman Catholic Church has done with the Novus Ordo, and what their Priests/Congregations are doing with it.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #238 on: August 17, 2011, 08:02:45 PM »

LOL, I fail to see how people celebrating the resurrection of Christ with joyous dancing and singing is in any way comparable to a mass where the celebrant is a clown. For them, dancing and singing in that manner is not a novelty, it is part of their own cultural identity, and it is therefore a rather legitimate manner of praising God. Clowns and giant puppets are nothing more than novelties. Nobody in the West would seriously think that dressing up as a clown is a serious expression of praise for God.

I didn't realize the EO was a charismatic church like the one shown in that video.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,606



« Reply #239 on: August 17, 2011, 08:08:17 PM »

LOL, I fail to see how people celebrating the resurrection of Christ with joyous dancing and singing is in any way comparable to a mass where the celebrant is a clown. For them, dancing and singing in that manner is not a novelty, it is part of their own cultural identity, and it is therefore a rather legitimate manner of praising God. Clowns and giant puppets are nothing more than novelties. Nobody in the West would seriously think that dressing up as a clown is a serious expression of praise for God.

I didn't realize the EO was a charismatic church like the one shown in that video.

Charismatic in what way? Certainly, the EOC is charismatic in its belief that the Holy Spirit is still active and still gifts people with blessings to the modern day. I doubt you'll see people rolling on the floor, babbling in inane tongues and in trances of "laughter of the spirit" as you would in some "Charismatic Churches".

What makes that service appear charismatic to you?
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #240 on: August 17, 2011, 08:09:56 PM »

LOL, I fail to see how people celebrating the resurrection of Christ with joyous dancing and singing is in any way comparable to a mass where the celebrant is a clown. For them, dancing and singing in that manner is not a novelty, it is part of their own cultural identity, and it is therefore a rather legitimate manner of praising God. Clowns and giant puppets are nothing more than novelties. Nobody in the West would seriously think that dressing up as a clown is a serious expression of praise for God.

I didn't realize the EO was a charismatic church like the one shown in that video.

Charismatic in what way? Certainly, the EOC is charismatic in its belief that the Holy Spirit is still active and still gifts people with blessings to the modern day. I doubt you'll see people rolling on the floor, babbling in inane tongues and in trances of "laughter of the spirit" as you would in some "Charismatic Churches".

What makes that service appear charismatic to you?

The jumping up and down singing, part.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #241 on: August 17, 2011, 08:11:35 PM »

LOL, I fail to see how people celebrating the resurrection of Christ with joyous dancing and singing is in any way comparable to a mass where the celebrant is a clown. For them, dancing and singing in that manner is not a novelty, it is part of their own cultural identity, and it is therefore a rather legitimate manner of praising God. Clowns and giant puppets are nothing more than novelties. Nobody in the West would seriously think that dressing up as a clown is a serious expression of praise for God.

I didn't realize the EO was a charismatic church like the one shown in that video.
Oh, but it is.  Take a look at this: (I am not sure if this is OO or EO).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAqsE334akY
And by the way, this Church has pews.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 08:13:41 PM by stanley123 » Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,606



« Reply #242 on: August 17, 2011, 08:18:39 PM »

LOL, I fail to see how people celebrating the resurrection of Christ with joyous dancing and singing is in any way comparable to a mass where the celebrant is a clown. For them, dancing and singing in that manner is not a novelty, it is part of their own cultural identity, and it is therefore a rather legitimate manner of praising God. Clowns and giant puppets are nothing more than novelties. Nobody in the West would seriously think that dressing up as a clown is a serious expression of praise for God.

I didn't realize the EO was a charismatic church like the one shown in that video.

Charismatic in what way? Certainly, the EOC is charismatic in its belief that the Holy Spirit is still active and still gifts people with blessings to the modern day. I doubt you'll see people rolling on the floor, babbling in inane tongues and in trances of "laughter of the spirit" as you would in some "Charismatic Churches".

What makes that service appear charismatic to you?

The jumping up and down singing, part.

Was David a charismatic when he danced in praise of God? Your point is silly. You complain that it's like a charismatic service, yet the underlying service is still the Divine Liturgy, even if the hymns are done in a different fashion. Comparing the two is disingenuous, just as comparing the NO of the mass to protestant services because of similar externals of worship is disingenuous.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #243 on: August 17, 2011, 08:23:52 PM »

LOL, I fail to see how people celebrating the resurrection of Christ with joyous dancing and singing is in any way comparable to a mass where the celebrant is a clown. For them, dancing and singing in that manner is not a novelty, it is part of their own cultural identity, and it is therefore a rather legitimate manner of praising God. Clowns and giant puppets are nothing more than novelties. Nobody in the West would seriously think that dressing up as a clown is a serious expression of praise for God.

I didn't realize the EO was a charismatic church like the one shown in that video.

Charismatic in what way? Certainly, the EOC is charismatic in its belief that the Holy Spirit is still active and still gifts people with blessings to the modern day. I doubt you'll see people rolling on the floor, babbling in inane tongues and in trances of "laughter of the spirit" as you would in some "Charismatic Churches".

What makes that service appear charismatic to you?

The jumping up and down singing, part.

Was David a charismatic when he danced in praise of God? Your point is silly. You complain that it's like a charismatic service, yet the underlying service is still the Divine Liturgy, even if the hymns are done in a different fashion. Comparing the two is disingenuous, just as comparing the NO of the mass to protestant services because of similar externals of worship is disingenuous.

Was David in a Divine Liturgy?

It's not silly, at all. The Liturgy shown is not the solemn liturgy that the original Divine Liturgy and Mass are. The point is not to say "look at the atrocity!", but the contrary, that some criticism of the NO liturgy is ill formed and hypocritical.

You complain

I'm not complaining. I'm discussing and contrasting.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,606



« Reply #244 on: August 17, 2011, 08:35:46 PM »

LOL, I fail to see how people celebrating the resurrection of Christ with joyous dancing and singing is in any way comparable to a mass where the celebrant is a clown. For them, dancing and singing in that manner is not a novelty, it is part of their own cultural identity, and it is therefore a rather legitimate manner of praising God. Clowns and giant puppets are nothing more than novelties. Nobody in the West would seriously think that dressing up as a clown is a serious expression of praise for God.

I didn't realize the EO was a charismatic church like the one shown in that video.

Charismatic in what way? Certainly, the EOC is charismatic in its belief that the Holy Spirit is still active and still gifts people with blessings to the modern day. I doubt you'll see people rolling on the floor, babbling in inane tongues and in trances of "laughter of the spirit" as you would in some "Charismatic Churches".

What makes that service appear charismatic to you?

The jumping up and down singing, part.

Was David a charismatic when he danced in praise of God? Your point is silly. You complain that it's like a charismatic service, yet the underlying service is still the Divine Liturgy, even if the hymns are done in a different fashion. Comparing the two is disingenuous, just as comparing the NO of the mass to protestant services because of similar externals of worship is disingenuous.

Was David in a Divine Liturgy?

It's not silly, at all. The Liturgy shown is not the solemn liturgy that the original Divine Liturgy and Mass are. The point is not to say "look at the atrocity!", but the contrary, that some criticism of the NO liturgy is ill formed and hypocritical.

You complain

I'm not complaining. I'm discussing and contrasting.


I wouldn't say that the Divine Liturgy is a purely solemn service. We believe that we literally enter the kingdom of God during each DL. While that certainly is a solemn mystery to reflect on, it is also a joyous one. I personally find nothing wrong with such a celebration. We cannot assume that they are not celebrating with equal solemnity just because their music and dance appears to be inappropriately joyous to us. And really, the clip comes from the end of the service (they are handing out the antidoron, or so it appears), when technically the liturgy has ended already. We can make no assumptions that the entire liturgy was done this way, but even if it was, what's the big deal? Should we ban Russian four part harmony simply because the Greeks prefer chant with two parts? Again, this is a very silly point you're trying to make.

With that being said, if you find criticisms of the NO mass to be so hypocritical and disingenuous, why sink to the level of the hypocrites? If you allow the hypocrisy of others to poison you, then you have lost.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #245 on: August 17, 2011, 08:39:34 PM »

With that being said, if you find criticisms of the NO mass to be so hypocritical and disingenuous, why sink to the level of the hypocrites? If you allow the hypocrisy of others to poison you, then you have lost.

What?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #246 on: August 17, 2011, 08:40:41 PM »

LOL, I fail to see how people celebrating the resurrection of Christ with joyous dancing and singing is in any way comparable to a mass where the celebrant is a clown. For them, dancing and singing in that manner is not a novelty, it is part of their own cultural identity, and it is therefore a rather legitimate manner of praising God. Clowns and giant puppets are nothing more than novelties. Nobody in the West would seriously think that dressing up as a clown is a serious expression of praise for God.

I didn't realize the EO was a charismatic church like the one shown in that video.

Charismatic in what way? Certainly, the EOC is charismatic in its belief that the Holy Spirit is still active and still gifts people with blessings to the modern day. I doubt you'll see people rolling on the floor, babbling in inane tongues and in trances of "laughter of the spirit" as you would in some "Charismatic Churches".

What makes that service appear charismatic to you?

The jumping up and down singing, part.

Was David a charismatic when he danced in praise of God? Your point is silly. You complain that it's like a charismatic service, yet the underlying service is still the Divine Liturgy, even if the hymns are done in a different fashion. Comparing the two is disingenuous, just as comparing the NO of the mass to protestant services because of similar externals of worship is disingenuous.

Was David in a Divine Liturgy?

It's not silly, at all. The Liturgy shown is not the solemn liturgy that the original Divine Liturgy and Mass are. The point is not to say "look at the atrocity!", but the contrary, that some criticism of the NO liturgy is ill formed and hypocritical.

You complain

I'm not complaining. I'm discussing and contrasting.


I wouldn't say that the Divine Liturgy is a purely solemn service. We believe that we literally enter the kingdom of God during each DL. While that certainly is a solemn mystery to reflect on, it is also a joyous one. I personally find nothing wrong with such a celebration. We cannot assume that they are not celebrating with equal solemnity just because their music and dance appears to be inappropriately joyous to us. And really, the clip comes from the end of the service (they are handing out the antidoron, or so it appears), when technically the liturgy has ended already. We can make no assumptions that the entire liturgy was done this way, but even if it was, what's the big deal? Should we ban Russian four part harmony simply because the Greeks prefer chant with two parts? Again, this is a very silly point you're trying to make.

With that being said, if you find criticisms of the NO mass to be so hypocritical and disingenuous, why sink to the level of the hypocrites? If you allow the hypocrisy of others to poison you, then you have lost.
I thought he was pointing out that it would not make sense to criticise the Catholic NO for singing, clapping and swaying to and fro during the Mass, when this is done in Orthodox Churches also.
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,606



« Reply #247 on: August 17, 2011, 08:45:04 PM »

LOL, I fail to see how people celebrating the resurrection of Christ with joyous dancing and singing is in any way comparable to a mass where the celebrant is a clown. For them, dancing and singing in that manner is not a novelty, it is part of their own cultural identity, and it is therefore a rather legitimate manner of praising God. Clowns and giant puppets are nothing more than novelties. Nobody in the West would seriously think that dressing up as a clown is a serious expression of praise for God.

I didn't realize the EO was a charismatic church like the one shown in that video.

Charismatic in what way? Certainly, the EOC is charismatic in its belief that the Holy Spirit is still active and still gifts people with blessings to the modern day. I doubt you'll see people rolling on the floor, babbling in inane tongues and in trances of "laughter of the spirit" as you would in some "Charismatic Churches".

What makes that service appear charismatic to you?

The jumping up and down singing, part.

Was David a charismatic when he danced in praise of God? Your point is silly. You complain that it's like a charismatic service, yet the underlying service is still the Divine Liturgy, even if the hymns are done in a different fashion. Comparing the two is disingenuous, just as comparing the NO of the mass to protestant services because of similar externals of worship is disingenuous.

Was David in a Divine Liturgy?

It's not silly, at all. The Liturgy shown is not the solemn liturgy that the original Divine Liturgy and Mass are. The point is not to say "look at the atrocity!", but the contrary, that some criticism of the NO liturgy is ill formed and hypocritical.

You complain

I'm not complaining. I'm discussing and contrasting.


I wouldn't say that the Divine Liturgy is a purely solemn service. We believe that we literally enter the kingdom of God during each DL. While that certainly is a solemn mystery to reflect on, it is also a joyous one. I personally find nothing wrong with such a celebration. We cannot assume that they are not celebrating with equal solemnity just because their music and dance appears to be inappropriately joyous to us. And really, the clip comes from the end of the service (they are handing out the antidoron, or so it appears), when technically the liturgy has ended already. We can make no assumptions that the entire liturgy was done this way, but even if it was, what's the big deal? Should we ban Russian four part harmony simply because the Greeks prefer chant with two parts? Again, this is a very silly point you're trying to make.

With that being said, if you find criticisms of the NO mass to be so hypocritical and disingenuous, why sink to the level of the hypocrites? If you allow the hypocrisy of others to poison you, then you have lost.
I thought he was pointing out that it would not make sense to criticise the Catholic NO for singing, clapping and swaying to and fro during the Mass, when this is done in Orthodox Churches also.

If he had a point to make, then he should have just made his point from the get go, instead of taking three posts to make his intent clear.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #248 on: August 17, 2011, 08:48:53 PM »

LOL, I fail to see how people celebrating the resurrection of Christ with joyous dancing and singing is in any way comparable to a mass where the celebrant is a clown. For them, dancing and singing in that manner is not a novelty, it is part of their own cultural identity, and it is therefore a rather legitimate manner of praising God. Clowns and giant puppets are nothing more than novelties. Nobody in the West would seriously think that dressing up as a clown is a serious expression of praise for God.

I didn't realize the EO was a charismatic church like the one shown in that video.

Charismatic in what way? Certainly, the EOC is charismatic in its belief that the Holy Spirit is still active and still gifts people with blessings to the modern day. I doubt you'll see people rolling on the floor, babbling in inane tongues and in trances of "laughter of the spirit" as you would in some "Charismatic Churches".

What makes that service appear charismatic to you?

The jumping up and down singing, part.

Was David a charismatic when he danced in praise of God? Your point is silly. You complain that it's like a charismatic service, yet the underlying service is still the Divine Liturgy, even if the hymns are done in a different fashion. Comparing the two is disingenuous, just as comparing the NO of the mass to protestant services because of similar externals of worship is disingenuous.

Was David in a Divine Liturgy?

It's not silly, at all. The Liturgy shown is not the solemn liturgy that the original Divine Liturgy and Mass are. The point is not to say "look at the atrocity!", but the contrary, that some criticism of the NO liturgy is ill formed and hypocritical.

You complain

I'm not complaining. I'm discussing and contrasting.


I wouldn't say that the Divine Liturgy is a purely solemn service. We believe that we literally enter the kingdom of God during each DL. While that certainly is a solemn mystery to reflect on, it is also a joyous one. I personally find nothing wrong with such a celebration. We cannot assume that they are not celebrating with equal solemnity just because their music and dance appears to be inappropriately joyous to us. And really, the clip comes from the end of the service (they are handing out the antidoron, or so it appears), when technically the liturgy has ended already. We can make no assumptions that the entire liturgy was done this way, but even if it was, what's the big deal? Should we ban Russian four part harmony simply because the Greeks prefer chant with two parts? Again, this is a very silly point you're trying to make.

With that being said, if you find criticisms of the NO mass to be so hypocritical and disingenuous, why sink to the level of the hypocrites? If you allow the hypocrisy of others to poison you, then you have lost.
I thought he was pointing out that it would not make sense to criticise the Catholic NO for singing, clapping and swaying to and fro during the Mass, when this is done in Orthodox Churches also.

If he had a point to make, then he should have just made his point from the get go, instead of taking three posts to make his intent clear.

I did. Read it again.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Xenia1918
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Praying for Divine guidance
Posts: 569



« Reply #249 on: August 17, 2011, 08:54:38 PM »

LOL Protestant hymns?

I swear the RCC is a complete mess.

That it is. While the authentic Roman Catholic Church does still exist, it is hard to locate in many areas, esp. mine.

To the OP, if you would like to experience a genuine Roman Catholic Mass, please consult:

http://www.traditio.com and find one in your area. Hint: It most likely won't be in a diocesan church, they seem to detest anything authentically Roman Catholic.
Logged

"O God, enlarge within us the sense of fellowship with all living things, our brothers the animals to whom Thou gavest the earth as their home in common with us..." (from the Prayer of St Basil the Great)

REAL RC: http://www.traditionalmass.org
REAL OC: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,606



« Reply #250 on: August 17, 2011, 08:55:01 PM »

If he had a point to make, then he should have just made his point from the get go, instead of taking three posts to make his intent clear.

I did. Read it again.

I didn't realize the EO was a charismatic church like the one shown in that video.

The jumping up and down singing, part.

Was David in a Divine Liturgy?

It's not silly, at all. The Liturgy shown is not the solemn liturgy that the original Divine Liturgy and Mass are. The point is not to say "look at the atrocity!", but the contrary, that some criticism of the NO liturgy is ill formed and hypocritical.

You complain

I'm not complaining. I'm discussing and contrasting.


Which of these three brilliant pearls of wisdom contain your point? If your point is contained within the first or second post, then you are the type of hypocrite which you mention in your third post. If your point is contained within your third post, then you could have cut the nonsense of the first two posts and cut straight to the point you were trying to make.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Xenia1918
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Praying for Divine guidance
Posts: 569



« Reply #251 on: August 17, 2011, 08:57:19 PM »

But most of the hymns seemed to be Protestant in origin.

Yeah, that's one of the things that really irritates me - they claim they consider us Eastern Catholics to be equal to them.  Yet they will use hymns from every church, no matter how marginally Christian or even non-Christian, except the Eastern Churches!  Angry

Read the book, "AA-1025" by Marie Carre, to find out what happened to your church, and why.Another good one is "School of Darkness" by Bella Dodd (available online to read).
Logged

"O God, enlarge within us the sense of fellowship with all living things, our brothers the animals to whom Thou gavest the earth as their home in common with us..." (from the Prayer of St Basil the Great)

REAL RC: http://www.traditionalmass.org
REAL OC: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #252 on: August 17, 2011, 09:04:29 PM »

If he had a point to make, then he should have just made his point from the get go, instead of taking three posts to make his intent clear.
Why ? Isn't he Orthodox?  Orthodox generally give long winded explanations, rather than in abbreviated scholastic form.
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,606



« Reply #253 on: August 17, 2011, 09:10:23 PM »

If he had a point to make, then he should have just made his point from the get go, instead of taking three posts to make his intent clear.
Why ? Isn't he Orthodox?  Orthodox generally give long winded explanations, rather than in abbreviated scholastic form.

Quote
Question 52. The angels in relation to place
Article 2. Whether an angel can be in several places at once?
Objection 1. It would seem that an angel can be in several places at once. For an angel is not less endowed with power than the soul. But the soul is in several places at once, for it is entirely in every part of the body, as Augustine says (De Trin. vi). Therefore an angel can be in several places at once.

Objection 2. Further, an angel is in the body which he assumes; and, since the body which he assumes is continuous, it would appear that he is in every part thereof. But according to the various parts there are various places. Therefore the angel is at one time in various places.

Objection 3. Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii) that "where the angel operates, there he is." But occasionally he operates in several places at one time, as is evident from the angel destroying Sodom (Genesis 19:25). Therefore an angel can be in several places at the one time.

On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii) that "while the angels are in heaven, they are not on earth."

I answer that, An angel's power and nature are finite, whereas the Divine power and essence, which is the universal cause of all things, is infinite: consequently God through His power touches all things, and is not merely present in some places, but is everywhere. Now since the angel's power is finite, it does not extend to all things, but to one determined thing. For whatever is compared with one power must be compared therewith as one determined thing. Consequently since all being is compared as one thing to God's universal power, so is one particular being compared as one with the angelic power. Hence, since the angel is in a place by the application of his power to the place, it follows that he is not everywhere, nor in several places, but in only one place.

Some, however, have been deceived in this matter. For some who were unable to go beyond the reach of their imaginations supposed the indivisibility of the angel to be like that of a point; consequently they thought that an angel could be only in a place which is a point. But they were manifestly deceived, because a point is something indivisible, yet having its situation; whereas the angel is indivisible, and beyond the genus of quantity and situation. Consequently there is no occasion for determining in his regard one indivisible place as to situation: any place which is either divisible or indivisible, great or small suffices, according as to his own free-will he applies his power to a great or to a small body. So the entire body to which he is applied by his power, corresponds as one place to him.

Neither, if any angel moves the heavens, is it necessary for him to be everywhere. First of all, because his power is applied only to what is first moved by him. Now there is one part of the heavens in which there is movement first of all, namely, the part to the east: hence the Philosopher (Phys. vii, text 84) attributes the power of the heavenly mover to the part which is in the east. Secondly, because philosophers do not hold that one separate substance moves all the spheres immediately. Hence it need not be everywhere.

So, then, it is evident that to be in a place appertains quite differently to a body, to an angel, and to God. For a body is in a place in a circumscribed fashion, since it is measured by the place. An angel, however, is not there in a circumscribed fashion, since he is not measured by the place, but definitively, because he is in a place in such a manner that he is not in another. But God is neither circumscriptively nor definitively there, because He is everywhere.

From this we can easily gather an answer to the objections: because the entire subject to which the angelic power is immediately applied, is reputed as one place, even though it be continuous.

Yes, scholasticism is very concise—as concise as it is not inane.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 09:12:12 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #254 on: August 17, 2011, 09:11:28 PM »

If he had a point to make, then he should have just made his point from the get go, instead of taking three posts to make his intent clear.
Why ? Isn't he Orthodox?  Orthodox generally give long winded explanations, rather than in abbreviated scholastic form.

Quote
Question 52. The angels in relation to place
Article 2. Whether an angel can be in several places at once?
Objection 1. It would seem that an angel can be in several places at once. For an angel is not less endowed with power than the soul. But the soul is in several places at once, for it is entirely in every part of the body, as Augustine says (De Trin. vi). Therefore an angel can be in several places at once.

Objection 2. Further, an angel is in the body which he assumes; and, since the body which he assumes is continuous, it would appear that he is in every part thereof. But according to the various parts there are various places. Therefore the angel is at one time in various places.

Objection 3. Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii) that "where the angel operates, there he is." But occasionally he operates in several places at one time, as is evident from the angel destroying Sodom (Genesis 19:25). Therefore an angel can be in several places at the one time.

On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii) that "while the angels are in heaven, they are not on earth."

I answer that, An angel's power and nature are finite, whereas the Divine power and essence, which is the universal cause of all things, is infinite: consequently God through His power touches all things, and is not merely present in some places, but is everywhere. Now since the angel's power is finite, it does not extend to all things, but to one determined thing. For whatever is compared with one power must be compared therewith as one determined thing. Consequently since all being is compared as one thing to God's universal power, so is one particular being compared as one with the angelic power. Hence, since the angel is in a place by the application of his power to the place, it follows that he is not everywhere, nor in several places, but in only one place.

Some, however, have been deceived in this matter. For some who were unable to go beyond the reach of their imaginations supposed the indivisibility of the angel to be like that of a point; consequently they thought that an angel could be only in a place which is a point. But they were manifestly deceived, because a point is something indivisible, yet having its situation; whereas the angel is indivisible, and beyond the genus of quantity and situation. Consequently there is no occasion for determining in his regard one indivisible place as to situation: any place which is either divisible or indivisible, great or small suffices, according as to his own free-will he applies his power to a great or to a small body. So the entire body to which he is applied by his power, corresponds as one place to him.

Neither, if any angel moves the heavens, is it necessary for him to be everywhere. First of all, because his power is applied only to what is first moved by him. Now there is one part of the heavens in which there is movement first of all, namely, the part to the east: hence the Philosopher (Phys. vii, text 84) attributes the power of the heavenly mover to the part which is in the east. Secondly, because philosophers do not hold that one separate substance moves all the spheres immediately. Hence it need not be everywhere.

So, then, it is evident that to be in a place appertains quite differently to a body, to an angel, and to God. For a body is in a place in a circumscribed fashion, since it is measured by the place. An angel, however, is not there in a circumscribed fashion, since he is not measured by the place, but definitively, because he is in a place in such a manner that he is not in another. But God is neither circumscriptively nor definitively there, because He is everywhere.

From this we can easily gather an answer to the objections: because the entire subject to which the angelic power is immediately applied, is reputed as one place, even though it be continuous.

Yes, scholasticism is very concise.
Good rebuttal!
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #255 on: August 17, 2011, 09:11:47 PM »

If he had a point to make, then he should have just made his point from the get go, instead of taking three posts to make his intent clear.

I did. Read it again.

I didn't realize the EO was a charismatic church like the one shown in that video.

The jumping up and down singing, part.

Was David in a Divine Liturgy?

It's not silly, at all. The Liturgy shown is not the solemn liturgy that the original Divine Liturgy and Mass are. The point is not to say "look at the atrocity!", but the contrary, that some criticism of the NO liturgy is ill formed and hypocritical.

You complain

I'm not complaining. I'm discussing and contrasting.


Which of these three brilliant pearls of wisdom contain your point? If your point is contained within the first or second post, then you are the type of hypocrite which you mention in your third post. If your point is contained within your third post, then you could have cut the nonsense of the first two posts and cut straight to the point you were trying to make.


I don't know what you're rocketing off into space about.

However, for your gratification.. or something...

The first post expresses, albeit passively and condescendingly, yet hopefully not beyond grasp (I assume English is your first language), a comment with the understanding that the contrary is normal. In short, "sarcasm".

You either didn't understand what I'm referring, and/or misunderstand the term "charismatic", and still question my comment.

Continued, I use a third post to fully outline the thought, which seems to me, though not direct, still clear in point. Since someone else understood this, I will assure myself that point was carried. In that third post, I state clearly that to criticize the NO and not criticize these Divine Liturgy is to be hypocritical.

I'm not sure what logic you use to insist my hypocrisy, but due to your rapid anger, words, and lack of similar 'mental model', I will assume you either still don't understand the post, or do not know the word hypocrite.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,606



« Reply #256 on: August 17, 2011, 09:19:41 PM »

If he had a point to make, then he should have just made his point from the get go, instead of taking three posts to make his intent clear.

I did. Read it again.

I didn't realize the EO was a charismatic church like the one shown in that video.

The jumping up and down singing, part.

Was David in a Divine Liturgy?

It's not silly, at all. The Liturgy shown is not the solemn liturgy that the original Divine Liturgy and Mass are. The point is not to say "look at the atrocity!", but the contrary, that some criticism of the NO liturgy is ill formed and hypocritical.

You complain

I'm not complaining. I'm discussing and contrasting.


Which of these three brilliant pearls of wisdom contain your point? If your point is contained within the first or second post, then you are the type of hypocrite which you mention in your third post. If your point is contained within your third post, then you could have cut the nonsense of the first two posts and cut straight to the point you were trying to make.


I don't know what you're rocketing off into space about.

However, for your gratification.. or something...

The first post expresses, albeit passively and condescendingly, yet hopefully not beyond grasp (I assume English is your first language), a comment with the understanding that the contrary is normal. In short, "sarcasm".

You either didn't understand what I'm referring, and/or misunderstand the term "charismatic", and still question my comment.

Continued, I use a third post to fully outline the thought, which seems to me, though not direct, still clear in point. Since someone else understood this, I will assure myself that point was carried. In that third post, I state clearly that to criticize the NO and not criticize these Divine Liturgy is to be hypocritical.

I'm not sure what logic you use to insist my hypocrisy, but due to your rapid anger, words, and lack of similar 'mental model', I will assume you either still don't understand the post, or do not know the word hypocrite.

That's quite presumptuous of you. I understood your point perfectly fine, and to be frank, I agree, but I disliked your delivery method, as it involved engaging (temporarily albeit) in the very same behavior which you were criticizing.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Xenia1918
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Praying for Divine guidance
Posts: 569



« Reply #257 on: August 17, 2011, 09:26:23 PM »

Those disgusting, weird, clown and demon masks are repulsive...and they keep scrolling down the thread!

Looks like the communists who infiltrated the RCC in the 1930s courtesy of Bella Dodd and Company have done their nefarious job well.
Logged

"O God, enlarge within us the sense of fellowship with all living things, our brothers the animals to whom Thou gavest the earth as their home in common with us..." (from the Prayer of St Basil the Great)

REAL RC: http://www.traditionalmass.org
REAL OC: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #258 on: August 17, 2011, 09:27:33 PM »

If he had a point to make, then he should have just made his point from the get go, instead of taking three posts to make his intent clear.

I did. Read it again.

I didn't realize the EO was a charismatic church like the one shown in that video.

The jumping up and down singing, part.

Was David in a Divine Liturgy?

It's not silly, at all. The Liturgy shown is not the solemn liturgy that the original Divine Liturgy and Mass are. The point is not to say "look at the atrocity!", but the contrary, that some criticism of the NO liturgy is ill formed and hypocritical.

You complain

I'm not complaining. I'm discussing and contrasting.


Which of these three brilliant pearls of wisdom contain your point? If your point is contained within the first or second post, then you are the type of hypocrite which you mention in your third post. If your point is contained within your third post, then you could have cut the nonsense of the first two posts and cut straight to the point you were trying to make.


I don't know what you're rocketing off into space about.

However, for your gratification.. or something...

The first post expresses, albeit passively and condescendingly, yet hopefully not beyond grasp (I assume English is your first language), a comment with the understanding that the contrary is normal. In short, "sarcasm".

You either didn't understand what I'm referring, and/or misunderstand the term "charismatic", and still question my comment.

Continued, I use a third post to fully outline the thought, which seems to me, though not direct, still clear in point. Since someone else understood this, I will assure myself that point was carried. In that third post, I state clearly that to criticize the NO and not criticize these Divine Liturgy is to be hypocritical.

I'm not sure what logic you use to insist my hypocrisy, but due to your rapid anger, words, and lack of similar 'mental model', I will assume you either still don't understand the post, or do not know the word hypocrite.

That's quite presumptuous of you. I understood your point perfectly fine, and to be frank, I agree, but I disliked your delivery method, as it involved engaging (temporarily albeit) in the very same behavior which you were criticizing.

In what way?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #259 on: August 17, 2011, 09:38:18 PM »

To Xenia1918:
You say at the bottom of your post:
"Real Roman Catholicism: http://www.traditio.com   "
But who are the priests at Traditio? Who is Father Morrison, who is known as Father Moderator? Is he a validly ordained Catholic priest, or just a layman?
Logged
augustin717
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,634



« Reply #260 on: August 17, 2011, 10:01:50 PM »

Those disgusting, weird, clown and demon masks are repulsive...and they keep scrolling down the thread!

Looks like the communists who infiltrated the RCC in the 1930s courtesy of Bella Dodd and Company have done their nefarious job well.
Well, don't bl;ame it on communists. Communists infiltrated the various OChurches in even larger numbers, yet we haven't seen a liturgical revolution.
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,592


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #261 on: August 17, 2011, 10:03:42 PM »

Before I comment, I have to check which thread I am in. Is it the one where I am bashing RCs or defending them . . .

Oh, yeah. Again the discussion like always has gotten away from the OP.

There is ZERO point in an EO coming on an EO internet board and trumpeting of his swearing off RC masses due to his final straw. Especially afflicted with a manner the Greeks would have called wandering-uteroitis or something like that. My Greek is terrible.

It is worse, when we have many lovely RCs here who obviously show his experience is not theirs.

Again, it would be more (at least) interesting and instructive to hear an EO come here and discuss problems in his own backyard.

I'll gladly starts throwing certain parishes under the bus and jurisdictions with pointed and accurate comments and we'll see how it feels.

But at least it would make some sense, this being an EO board.



I never said I wouldn't go back because I thought it sucked. I just probably won't go back for the same reason I don't attend many Protestant services anymore, they aren't Orthodox and my conscious is a little bit concerned about Ecumenism. Not to mention there isn't any reason for me to want to attend when we have the fullness of the faith in our church.
I was invited to this service, and I wanted to investigate to see if its a good alternative for a relative to join. (this relative currently doesn't attend church, and is also a freemason & a shriner)

I posted on here to give my reflections about what I experienced. It simply blew up into a big fight because things I said didn't sit well with some people.

I think the point is that it's not exactly good form to go to another's church and crow about how far off track you thought it was. It'd be one thing if  you were relating a pre-Orthodox experience as one of the reasons you became Orthodox (oh, the banal mega-church rock band services!) it's quite a different thing to go to a church you have no real experience with and then do so.

 I don't need you to tell me an Episcopal Church is blasphemous and heretical and recites the Creed "Mother, Daughter and Sophia" I used to be Episcopalian and know this happens from experience. I don't need you to tell me the Baptists are kind of crazy and they serve grape juice in shot glasses. It does me no good, and makes me feel sad for my former coreligionists, and all it does is make us look bad to any visiting Episcopalians and Baptists.

Sorry if I'm just kind of sick and tired of seeing people trying to trumpet the Roman Catholic Church as being "so similar" in many ways to our church... In my mind, every Orthodox needs to realize that we aren't so similar to the West, and for the most part, we need to separate ourselves from them as much as possible.

I'm also doing it against the very small minority in the church that would possibly like to see similar changes occur to our church. People need to realize that this is absolutely not an option for us, and that the Roman Catholic Church will have to make major changes if it wants reunion to occur.

I know a few Catholic converts to Orthodoxy who consider themselves to be REFUGEES in Orthodoxy.
For them, untold to their confessors, Orthodoxy is only a temporary home until they can return to Rome.
In fact, one such convert recently left Orthodoxy for a sedevacant Catholic Church.

These former Catholics are hoping and praying that the Vatican will miraculously turn around and become more Orthodox.
They also believe in Our Lady of Fatima and are praying for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
In fact, there is a recently published novel that shares this sentiment. This book, Russian Sunrise, has been written by Dr. Bruce W. Walters, M.D. to give hope to Catholics who are disgusted with the Novus Ordo and the continual reforms of the reforms.

Why does the Catholic Church need one reform after another? Why can't they return to the Faith of our Fathers?

What scares these former Catholics, and also scares me to be honest, is that there are Greek Orthodox Priests (whom I will NOT name) who have told me that they have personal friends in high places in the Catholic Church, like the Benedictine Master General in Rome (Superior over all the Benedictines). These Greek Orthodox Priests want reunion, and they want it soon. They are allowing Catholic-Orthodox interfaith couples to have both a Catholic and an Orthodox Godparent for their babies at Baptism. And they know that these babies will grow up receiving Holy Communion in both the Catholic and the Orthodox Church. This is currently happening in California as I know the Catholic Godparents who take the Greek Orthodox Child to the Catholic Church Novus Ordo for Holy Communion. Sadly, some Orthodox parents in Orthodox-Catholic marriages have become Catholics because of this arrangement. They grow comfortable attending the Novus Ordo; they like the vernacular as their children do not understand Greek; and they love guitar masses because they enjoy swinging to the popular tunes.

These same Greek Orthodox Priests are those who are working on translations that are very similar to the NO. In their creeds, they have borrowed from the ICEL translation: seen and unseen, instead of visible and invisible, and like the ICEL, these Greek Orthodox Priests avoid the use of "who for us men."

And then these same Greek Orthodox priests say that there is really nothing wrong with the NO, and that it is a valid Mass. When I have mentioned the abuses I have seen, they counter saying that there are only a few priests who are committing these abuses. Well, in all the Los Angeles parishes which I have visited while I was a Catholic, abuses were everywhere. Apparently, nothing much has changed since Cardinal Mahoney has retired. His orchestrated abuses are now so commonplace that they are considered NORMAL.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 10:10:45 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,606



« Reply #262 on: August 17, 2011, 10:08:54 PM »

If he had a point to make, then he should have just made his point from the get go, instead of taking three posts to make his intent clear.

I did. Read it again.

I didn't realize the EO was a charismatic church like the one shown in that video.

The jumping up and down singing, part.

Was David in a Divine Liturgy?

It's not silly, at all. The Liturgy shown is not the solemn liturgy that the original Divine Liturgy and Mass are. The point is not to say "look at the atrocity!", but the contrary, that some criticism of the NO liturgy is ill formed and hypocritical.

You complain

I'm not complaining. I'm discussing and contrasting.


Which of these three brilliant pearls of wisdom contain your point? If your point is contained within the first or second post, then you are the type of hypocrite which you mention in your third post. If your point is contained within your third post, then you could have cut the nonsense of the first two posts and cut straight to the point you were trying to make.


I don't know what you're rocketing off into space about.

However, for your gratification.. or something...

The first post expresses, albeit passively and condescendingly, yet hopefully not beyond grasp (I assume English is your first language), a comment with the understanding that the contrary is normal. In short, "sarcasm".

You either didn't understand what I'm referring, and/or misunderstand the term "charismatic", and still question my comment.

Continued, I use a third post to fully outline the thought, which seems to me, though not direct, still clear in point. Since someone else understood this, I will assure myself that point was carried. In that third post, I state clearly that to criticize the NO and not criticize these Divine Liturgy is to be hypocritical.

I'm not sure what logic you use to insist my hypocrisy, but due to your rapid anger, words, and lack of similar 'mental model', I will assume you either still don't understand the post, or do not know the word hypocrite.

That's quite presumptuous of you. I understood your point perfectly fine, and to be frank, I agree, but I disliked your delivery method, as it involved engaging (temporarily albeit) in the very same behavior which you were criticizing.

In what way?

Well for one, I think that the comparison is false. This is allowing the locals to integrate aspects of their own worship into the local liturgy (which is not a new concept in Christianity). It really is quite different from clown masses and puppet masses.

What I mainly object to, however, is that you put forth two rather flawed arguments in order to show how flawed some arguments against the NO mass are. Why not explain what your intent is first, then pose the arguments as hypothetical examples of what weak arguments would look like if they were turned around on the Orthodox Christians making similarly weak arguments against the NO mass? Doing it the other way around, with the hypothetical arguments first and the explanation last, makes less sense.

Can we just go back to talking about Diablo? I liked that conversation much better. Cheesy
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 10:19:50 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #263 on: August 17, 2011, 10:15:31 PM »


Why does the Catholic Church need one reform after another? Why can't they return to the Faith of our Fathers?


I think you mean the Church of the Councils:  primarily because the Church of the Fathers was pretty darn messy!!
Logged

Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,606



« Reply #264 on: August 17, 2011, 10:16:49 PM »


Why does the Catholic Church need one reform after another? Why can't they return to the Faith of our Fathers?


I think you mean the Church of the Councils:  primarily because the Church of the Fathers was pretty darn messy!!

The Church of the Councils wasn't messy too? Wink
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 10:17:12 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #265 on: August 17, 2011, 10:19:44 PM »


Why does the Catholic Church need one reform after another? Why can't they return to the Faith of our Fathers?


I think you mean the Church of the Councils:  primarily because the Church of the Fathers was pretty darn messy!!

The Church of the Councils wasn't messy too? Wink

heh!!...you caught me out!!
Logged

Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,592


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #266 on: August 17, 2011, 10:29:32 PM »

Those disgusting, weird, clown and demon masks are repulsive...and they keep scrolling down the thread!

Looks like the communists who infiltrated the RCC in the 1930s courtesy of Bella Dodd and Company have done their nefarious job well.

I agree.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #267 on: August 17, 2011, 10:34:51 PM »

Oh, but it is.  Take a look at this: (I am not sure if this is OO or EO).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAqsE334akY
And by the way, this Church has pews.

Ah, they arent following our Western customs of liturgy...they are heretics!

Give me a break.
Logged

Forgive my sins.
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,317


« Reply #268 on: August 17, 2011, 10:36:10 PM »

What do the Coptic Orthodox churches in Africa (that's what the video in Kenya was in post 241, Stanley; not EO) have to do with the RC or the EO?

Furthermore, there have been some complaints about the church in Kenya from Copts elsewhere (that such things as what you've posted are not acceptable within Orthodoxy), though I don't know how widespread they are. The answers I always hear are something like what Cavaradossi has given: In an expression of local culture, dancing is integral in the worship of God. I'm not entirely sure how much I buy that with regard to sub-Saharan Africa in general (particularly when there are examples like this Paschal doxology from South Africa in the local language -- as well as Coptic, Arabic and English -- but without clapping), but at least the Orthodox, both EO and OO, are being consistent in the defense of a solidly Christian principle: The nativization of liturgy. This is something that RC agrees with, is it not?

If it does, then don't criticize the EO or OO. If it doesn't, then the RC is in even bigger trouble than I thought. (I know it does, though.  Smiley)

As an aside: isiXhosa/isiZulu-accented Coptic sounds amazing! Grin
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 10:37:14 PM by dzheremi » Logged

stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #269 on: August 17, 2011, 10:37:28 PM »

Oh, but it is.  Take a look at this: (I am not sure if this is OO or EO).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAqsE334akY
And by the way, this Church has pews.

Ah, they arent following our Western customs of liturgy...they are heretics!

Give me a break.
Yes. And give those who attend the Catholic NO, with its pews, its clapping of hands, and its swaying to and fro while singing,  a break also.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »   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 0.222 seconds with 72 queries.