Author Topic: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..  (Read 18252 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline christiane777

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 342
  • and drinketh water of the raine of heauen
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: God
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #225 on: January 06, 2016, 06:41:05 PM »
The real problem with the Novus Ordo isn't that it's heretical compared to the Tridentine mass, but that it is a lot less aesthetically pleasing and far less sublime. Nixing a lot of organically grown liturgical traditions is meh as well.

The real problem with the Novus Ordo is that it was taken almost word by word from the Lutheran Hymnal of 1904.  My husband and I were able to take that book home and study it for about two weeks. We had bookmarked several pages, and when our confessor saw those pages, he refused to say the Novus Ordo from that point on. After viewing those pages, the priest tossed that book into the burning fireplace.

Catholics, in effect, have protestantized their liturgy.
One would have to establish what is a Protestant liturgy.  Since Protestants descend from the Roman tradition it should not be surprising that the liturgies resemble one another.  The Protestant liturgies I am familiar with have the Kyrie, Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, Institution Narrative, Lord's Prayer, just like the Roman Rite modern and old.  Of course, since Protestants object to certain Catholic dogmas these references are removed from their prayers, not so the Novus Ordo.  Of the prayers actually removed from the Novus Ordo most were Gallican additions or private devotional prayers of the priest that crept in.

The Lutheran and Anglican Masses are very very close and I say this as a Catholic.  I once accidentally sat through an Anglican service in Ireland thinking I was in a Catholic Church.   :)
I was in the spirit on the Lords day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

Offline Deacon Lance

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,731
  • Faith: Byzantine Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #226 on: January 06, 2016, 07:43:55 PM »
The real problem with the Novus Ordo isn't that it's heretical compared to the Tridentine mass, but that it is a lot less aesthetically pleasing and far less sublime. Nixing a lot of organically grown liturgical traditions is meh as well.

The real problem with the Novus Ordo is that it was taken almost word by word from the Lutheran Hymnal of 1904.  My husband and I were able to take that book home and study it for about two weeks. We had bookmarked several pages, and when our confessor saw those pages, he refused to say the Novus Ordo from that point on. After viewing those pages, the priest tossed that book into the burning fireplace.

Catholics, in effect, have protestantized their liturgy.
One would have to establish what is a Protestant liturgy.  Since Protestants descend from the Roman tradition it should not be surprising that the liturgies resemble one another.  The Protestant liturgies I am familiar with have the Kyrie, Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, Institution Narrative, Lord's Prayer, just like the Roman Rite modern and old.  Of course, since Protestants object to certain Catholic dogmas these references are removed from their prayers, not so the Novus Ordo.  Of the prayers actually removed from the Novus Ordo most were Gallican additions or private devotional prayers of the priest that crept in.

The Lutheran and Anglican Masses are very very close and I say this as a Catholic.  I once accidentally sat through an Anglican service in Ireland thinking I was in a Catholic Church.   :)
So is the Novus Ordo Protestant or Lutheran and Anglican service more Catholic?  If one looks at the uses of the Carthusians and Dominicans one can see what was added to the Tridentine use.  A lot of what SSPXers complain about the Novus Ordo removing are missing there as well.  To Protestantize the Mass, one would have to alter the prayers like Protestants have done, remove: reference to the Mass being a Sacrifice, intercession of the Saints, prayer for the dead.  None of this was done in the NO.
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.

Offline christiane777

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 342
  • and drinketh water of the raine of heauen
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: God
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #227 on: January 06, 2016, 07:55:53 PM »
The real problem with the Novus Ordo isn't that it's heretical compared to the Tridentine mass, but that it is a lot less aesthetically pleasing and far less sublime. Nixing a lot of organically grown liturgical traditions is meh as well.

The real problem with the Novus Ordo is that it was taken almost word by word from the Lutheran Hymnal of 1904.  My husband and I were able to take that book home and study it for about two weeks. We had bookmarked several pages, and when our confessor saw those pages, he refused to say the Novus Ordo from that point on. After viewing those pages, the priest tossed that book into the burning fireplace.

Catholics, in effect, have protestantized their liturgy.
One would have to establish what is a Protestant liturgy.  Since Protestants descend from the Roman tradition it should not be surprising that the liturgies resemble one another.  The Protestant liturgies I am familiar with have the Kyrie, Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, Institution Narrative, Lord's Prayer, just like the Roman Rite modern and old.  Of course, since Protestants object to certain Catholic dogmas these references are removed from their prayers, not so the Novus Ordo.  Of the prayers actually removed from the Novus Ordo most were Gallican additions or private devotional prayers of the priest that crept in.

The Lutheran and Anglican Masses are very very close and I say this as a Catholic.  I once accidentally sat through an Anglican service in Ireland thinking I was in a Catholic Church.   :)
So is the Novus Ordo Protestant or Lutheran and Anglican service more Catholic?  If one looks at the uses of the Carthusians and Dominicans one can see what was added to the Tridentine use.  A lot of what SSPXers complain about the Novus Ordo removing are missing there as well.  To Protestantize the Mass, one would have to alter the prayers like Protestants have done, remove: reference to the Mass being a Sacrifice, intercession of the Saints, prayer for the dead.  None of this was done in the NO.

I am about as far from a SSPXer as one can get (mainly by background but also choice) so unfortunately I don't know if I can help you.  I am what you might call a post Vatican II happy camper, but leaning strongly conservative (doctrinal more than political).  I didn't know the SSPX existed until about two years ago. 

My sense, and I am guessing here, is that the Anglicans are probably closer to the Catholic Mass.  I believe High Anglicans accept the Mass being a Sacrifice (?) and I would be surprised if they did not also accept intercession of the Saints. 

My point was simply that a Catholic is surprisingly comfortable with the flow and liturgy of a High Anglican or Lutheran Mass - a few hiccups as you point out above (and of course many do not see them as simply "hiccups").  (God save me here, but I do.)
« Last Edit: January 06, 2016, 08:04:23 PM by christiane777 »
I was in the spirit on the Lords day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,386
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #228 on: January 06, 2016, 09:19:11 PM »
just in case there are novus order catholics here that go to the novus order mass,I'll resurrect this thread, been a couple of years since I posted here

Don't worry, I'm sure Wandile is working furiously on writing a hasty attempt to refute your posts as we speak.

Lol nah I'm not too interested in ultra trads and whatever they get up to or think. I will say though that a Pope can over turn a decree of a previous pope and that is exactly what Pope Paul VI did. The only decrees that can't be overturned are doctrinal ones that are binding on the church. Decrees on the liturgy are not doctrine or dogma. But trades would have you think so.

Doesn't the principle of Lex orandi, lex credendi make that a false dichotomy, though?

Not at all, Lex orandi, lex credendi  speaks yo thebtule of prayer/how we worship as a testament for what our faith is. This does not presuppose that liturgy can't change, only that the liturgy still reflects our faith in its prayers through song or spoken prayer.

But couldn't a sufficiently motivated individual stretch that broad definition to fit anything from the 1568 Breviary to clown masses? At least the Trads have something concrete that they can point to as reflecting their faith, even if it does seem a bit arbitrary.

Yes but then one has to consider if a clown mass follows the rule of prayer for prayer is respectful and non-sacrilegious. Clown masses are at the very least disrespectful and unbefitting of the mass.

Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2016, 09:19:41 PM by Volnutt »
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Online Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,097
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #229 on: January 07, 2016, 11:46:40 AM »
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds. 
Please don't project meta-debates onto me.

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline christiane777

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 342
  • and drinketh water of the raine of heauen
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: God
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #230 on: January 07, 2016, 02:27:01 PM »
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

Just saw this - way to go, dude. 
I was in the spirit on the Lords day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,386
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #231 on: January 07, 2016, 05:34:15 PM »
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #232 on: January 07, 2016, 06:40:10 PM »
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.
The same God who commands us to serve the poor also gave us detailed commandments on how to worship Him. Those commands don't invite us to skimp.
Not all who wander are lost.

Online Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,097
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #233 on: January 07, 2016, 06:53:43 PM »
The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.

Go tell them that. 
Please don't project meta-debates onto me.

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #234 on: January 07, 2016, 10:59:32 PM »
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.
that sounds exactly like the 21st century version of Judas Iscariot
God bless!

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,386
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #235 on: January 07, 2016, 11:05:56 PM »
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.
that sounds exactly like the 21st century version of Judas Iscariot

Judas Iscariot or St. John Chrysostom? And it isn't as though the context of that passage explicitly ties it to Christ's impeding death or anything...
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,396
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #236 on: January 08, 2016, 01:32:41 AM »
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.

It sounds to me as tho you yourself need to decide whether you worship Mammon or worship God. Money is not a savior, in itself does not bring value, certainly not peace, love, or joy. The saints in heaven do not need it, and the saints on earth should learn everything we can from their condition. Have you read the Sermon on the Mount recently? Christ says such things as, "Behold the lilies of the field, behold the birds of the air -- your Father will take care of you better even than he does them, and they have no need of savings or gains. Lay up any treasures in heaven."
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,386
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #237 on: January 08, 2016, 02:08:39 AM »
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.

It sounds to me as tho you yourself need to decide whether you worship Mammon or worship God. Money is not a savior, in itself does not bring value, certainly not peace, love, or joy. The saints in heaven do not need it, and the saints on earth should learn everything we can from their condition. Have you read the Sermon on the Mount recently? Christ says such things as, "Behold the lilies of the field, behold the birds of the air -- your Father will take care of you better even than he does them, and they have no need of savings or gains. Lay up any treasures in heaven."

Quote
Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right;
But when asked how 'bout something to eat
They will answer with voices so sweet:

    You will eat, bye and bye,
    In that glorious land above the sky;
    Work and pray, live on hay,
    You'll get pie in the sky when you die.

If you don't love your neighbor in this life, then you have no love for him as regards the next.
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,386
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #238 on: January 08, 2016, 02:10:34 AM »
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.
The same God who commands us to serve the poor also gave us detailed commandments on how to worship Him. Those commands don't invite us to skimp.

If your concept of God winds up perfectly supporting the status quo then there's likely something wrong with your concept of God.
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #239 on: January 08, 2016, 02:44:02 AM »
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.
The same God who commands us to serve the poor also gave us detailed commandments on how to worship Him. Those commands don't invite us to skimp.

If your concept of God winds up perfectly supporting the status quo then there's likely something wrong with your concept of God.
When did I ever say anything about supporting the status quo?

Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,386
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #240 on: January 08, 2016, 03:46:04 AM »
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.
The same God who commands us to serve the poor also gave us detailed commandments on how to worship Him. Those commands don't invite us to skimp.

If your concept of God winds up perfectly supporting the status quo then there's likely something wrong with your concept of God.
When did I ever say anything about supporting the status quo?

The status quo- there are people starving in the world because of the depredations of capitalism. You would rather see the poor give their money to create material finery rather than to seeing this reality changed.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2016, 03:47:06 AM by Volnutt »
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #241 on: January 08, 2016, 09:43:39 AM »
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.

It sounds to me as tho you yourself need to decide whether you worship Mammon or worship God. Money is not a savior, in itself does not bring value, certainly not peace, love, or joy. The saints in heaven do not need it, and the saints on earth should learn everything we can from their condition. Have you read the Sermon on the Mount recently? Christ says such things as, "Behold the lilies of the field, behold the birds of the air -- your Father will take care of you better even than he does them, and they have no need of savings or gains. Lay up any treasures in heaven."

Quote
Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right;
But when asked how 'bout something to eat
They will answer with voices so sweet:

    You will eat, bye and bye,
    In that glorious land above the sky;
    Work and pray, live on hay,
    You'll get pie in the sky when you die.

If you don't love your neighbor in this life, then you have no love for him as regards the next.
This is a clear false dilemma fallacy. Just because a parish creates a beautiful temple does not mean it is neglecting the poor. The tabernacle and all of the temples were also very beautiful edifices. Certainly we are not to neglect the poor, but that doesn't mean that the height of Christian spirituality resides in a strip mall worship center that someone got a good deal on the rent for.
God bless!

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,386
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #242 on: January 08, 2016, 10:21:25 AM »
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.

It sounds to me as tho you yourself need to decide whether you worship Mammon or worship God. Money is not a savior, in itself does not bring value, certainly not peace, love, or joy. The saints in heaven do not need it, and the saints on earth should learn everything we can from their condition. Have you read the Sermon on the Mount recently? Christ says such things as, "Behold the lilies of the field, behold the birds of the air -- your Father will take care of you better even than he does them, and they have no need of savings or gains. Lay up any treasures in heaven."

Quote
Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right;
But when asked how 'bout something to eat
They will answer with voices so sweet:

    You will eat, bye and bye,
    In that glorious land above the sky;
    Work and pray, live on hay,
    You'll get pie in the sky when you die.

If you don't love your neighbor in this life, then you have no love for him as regards the next.
This is a clear false dilemma fallacy. Just because a parish creates a beautiful temple does not mean it is neglecting the poor. The tabernacle and all of the temples were also very beautiful edifices. Certainly we are not to neglect the poor, but that doesn't mean that the height of Christian spirituality resides in a strip mall worship center that someone got a good deal on the rent for.

Resources are limited, especially when you're talking about poor immigrants as Mor was. Saying that "we can just spend equal money on both" is unrealistic. Why should objects be valued over people?
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #243 on: January 08, 2016, 10:34:09 AM »
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.
The same God who commands us to serve the poor also gave us detailed commandments on how to worship Him. Those commands don't invite us to skimp.

If your concept of God winds up perfectly supporting the status quo then there's likely something wrong with your concept of God.
When did I ever say anything about supporting the status quo?

The status quo- there are people starving in the world because of the depredations of capitalism. You would rather see the poor give their money to create material finery rather than to seeing this reality changed.
You're putting words into my mouth. Stop it.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #244 on: January 08, 2016, 10:42:57 AM »
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.

It sounds to me as tho you yourself need to decide whether you worship Mammon or worship God. Money is not a savior, in itself does not bring value, certainly not peace, love, or joy. The saints in heaven do not need it, and the saints on earth should learn everything we can from their condition. Have you read the Sermon on the Mount recently? Christ says such things as, "Behold the lilies of the field, behold the birds of the air -- your Father will take care of you better even than he does them, and they have no need of savings or gains. Lay up any treasures in heaven."

Quote
Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right;
But when asked how 'bout something to eat
They will answer with voices so sweet:

    You will eat, bye and bye,
    In that glorious land above the sky;
    Work and pray, live on hay,
    You'll get pie in the sky when you die.

If you don't love your neighbor in this life, then you have no love for him as regards the next.
This is a clear false dilemma fallacy. Just because a parish creates a beautiful temple does not mean it is neglecting the poor. The tabernacle and all of the temples were also very beautiful edifices. Certainly we are not to neglect the poor, but that doesn't mean that the height of Christian spirituality resides in a strip mall worship center that someone got a good deal on the rent for.

Resources are limited, especially when you're talking about poor immigrants as Mor was. Saying that "we can just spend equal money on both" is unrealistic. Why should objects be valued over people?
Is creating iconography valuing objects over people? Is constructing a church valuing objects over people? Do you have this same existential angst every time you eat a steak or buy a video game?
God bless!

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #245 on: January 08, 2016, 10:48:55 AM »
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.

It sounds to me as tho you yourself need to decide whether you worship Mammon or worship God. Money is not a savior, in itself does not bring value, certainly not peace, love, or joy. The saints in heaven do not need it, and the saints on earth should learn everything we can from their condition. Have you read the Sermon on the Mount recently? Christ says such things as, "Behold the lilies of the field, behold the birds of the air -- your Father will take care of you better even than he does them, and they have no need of savings or gains. Lay up any treasures in heaven."

Quote
Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right;
But when asked how 'bout something to eat
They will answer with voices so sweet:

    You will eat, bye and bye,
    In that glorious land above the sky;
    Work and pray, live on hay,
    You'll get pie in the sky when you die.

If you don't love your neighbor in this life, then you have no love for him as regards the next.
This is a clear false dilemma fallacy. Just because a parish creates a beautiful temple does not mean it is neglecting the poor. The tabernacle and all of the temples were also very beautiful edifices. Certainly we are not to neglect the poor, but that doesn't mean that the height of Christian spirituality resides in a strip mall worship center that someone got a good deal on the rent for.

Resources are limited, especially when you're talking about poor immigrants as Mor was. Saying that "we can just spend equal money on both" is unrealistic. Why should objects God be valued over people?
FTFY to show just how absurd your reasoning is. Mor didn't say anything about people valuing objects over other people. He talked about people who valued their worship of God over their own well-being and comfort, just as the widow did with her mite. He talked about people who were willing to give of their own meager resources, even to the point of self-sacrifice, just to make sure God first had a beautiful home in their midst.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2016, 10:54:53 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,386
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #246 on: January 08, 2016, 11:14:54 AM »
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.

It sounds to me as tho you yourself need to decide whether you worship Mammon or worship God. Money is not a savior, in itself does not bring value, certainly not peace, love, or joy. The saints in heaven do not need it, and the saints on earth should learn everything we can from their condition. Have you read the Sermon on the Mount recently? Christ says such things as, "Behold the lilies of the field, behold the birds of the air -- your Father will take care of you better even than he does them, and they have no need of savings or gains. Lay up any treasures in heaven."

Quote
Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right;
But when asked how 'bout something to eat
They will answer with voices so sweet:

    You will eat, bye and bye,
    In that glorious land above the sky;
    Work and pray, live on hay,
    You'll get pie in the sky when you die.

If you don't love your neighbor in this life, then you have no love for him as regards the next.
This is a clear false dilemma fallacy. Just because a parish creates a beautiful temple does not mean it is neglecting the poor. The tabernacle and all of the temples were also very beautiful edifices. Certainly we are not to neglect the poor, but that doesn't mean that the height of Christian spirituality resides in a strip mall worship center that someone got a good deal on the rent for.

Resources are limited, especially when you're talking about poor immigrants as Mor was. Saying that "we can just spend equal money on both" is unrealistic. Why should objects be valued over people?
Is creating iconography valuing objects over people? Is constructing a church valuing objects over people? Do you have this same existential angst every time you eat a steak or buy a video game?

Depends on how cheaply you do it and yes I do, but to a slightly lesser extent because I blame myself and my hypocrisy and am not being asked to consider steak and video games to be a holy and blessed activity that I should sacrifice for.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2016, 11:16:20 AM by Volnutt »
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,386
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #247 on: January 08, 2016, 11:15:38 AM »
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.
The same God who commands us to serve the poor also gave us detailed commandments on how to worship Him. Those commands don't invite us to skimp.

If your concept of God winds up perfectly supporting the status quo then there's likely something wrong with your concept of God.
When did I ever say anything about supporting the status quo?

The status quo- there are people starving in the world because of the depredations of capitalism. You would rather see the poor give their money to create material finery rather than to seeing this reality changed.
You're putting words into my mouth. Stop it.

I'm not. I'm interpreting the implications of your words.
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,386
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #248 on: January 08, 2016, 11:26:09 AM »
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.

It sounds to me as tho you yourself need to decide whether you worship Mammon or worship God. Money is not a savior, in itself does not bring value, certainly not peace, love, or joy. The saints in heaven do not need it, and the saints on earth should learn everything we can from their condition. Have you read the Sermon on the Mount recently? Christ says such things as, "Behold the lilies of the field, behold the birds of the air -- your Father will take care of you better even than he does them, and they have no need of savings or gains. Lay up any treasures in heaven."

Quote
Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right;
But when asked how 'bout something to eat
They will answer with voices so sweet:

    You will eat, bye and bye,
    In that glorious land above the sky;
    Work and pray, live on hay,
    You'll get pie in the sky when you die.

If you don't love your neighbor in this life, then you have no love for him as regards the next.
This is a clear false dilemma fallacy. Just because a parish creates a beautiful temple does not mean it is neglecting the poor. The tabernacle and all of the temples were also very beautiful edifices. Certainly we are not to neglect the poor, but that doesn't mean that the height of Christian spirituality resides in a strip mall worship center that someone got a good deal on the rent for.

Resources are limited, especially when you're talking about poor immigrants as Mor was. Saying that "we can just spend equal money on both" is unrealistic. Why should objects God be valued over people?
FTFY to show just how absurd your reasoning is. Mor didn't say anything about people valuing objects over other people. He talked about people who valued their worship of God over their own well-being and comfort, just as the widow did with her mite. He talked about people who were willing to give of their own meager resources, even to the point of self-sacrifice, just to make sure God first had a beautiful home in their midst.

God's home is first and foremost in the human heart. Without material objects, He still has us. Without us, the whole thing is pointless. Sacrificing one's well-being for that which is nice but comparatively superfluous is wrong. I'm not even blaming the lay people who do this, I'm blaming the theological and political ideologies that encourage them to do so.

And to anticipate an objection, this has nothing to do with fasting. Fasting is about one's relationship with God, something that still exists without an expensive altar. If you spend your Social Security check on the altar, then you might not be alive to fast later.
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Online Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,097
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #249 on: January 08, 2016, 12:45:44 PM »
This is a clear false dilemma fallacy. Just because a parish creates a beautiful temple does not mean it is neglecting the poor. The tabernacle and all of the temples were also very beautiful edifices. Certainly we are not to neglect the poor, but that doesn't mean that the height of Christian spirituality resides in a strip mall worship center that someone got a good deal on the rent for.

Resources are limited, especially when you're talking about poor immigrants as Mor was. Saying that "we can just spend equal money on both" is unrealistic. Why should objects be valued over people?

The example I raised was of poor people, precisely the sort of people you are supporting, spending their own time, talents, and treasure (such as they had) on "objects".  Of all people, they had the most incentive not to do such things, but they did it.  I don't believe they are an isolated group of human-hating, object-serving wackjobs either.  My great-grandfather was killed when a gust of wind knocked him off his feet, causing him to fall from the church roof he was constructing.  He was not rich.  Neither were any of the other people who were building that church.  I don't need to tell you that this is a widespread phenomenon.     

It's all well and good to speak up on behalf of the poor, but often it comes across as non-predatory rich (white?) people projecting their own selfishness onto the poor without the slightest idea of (and/or concern for) what the poor think and believe, without an appreciation of what other angles there are to this issue, etc.     
Please don't project meta-debates onto me.

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #250 on: January 08, 2016, 01:08:35 PM »
This is a clear false dilemma fallacy. Just because a parish creates a beautiful temple does not mean it is neglecting the poor. The tabernacle and all of the temples were also very beautiful edifices. Certainly we are not to neglect the poor, but that doesn't mean that the height of Christian spirituality resides in a strip mall worship center that someone got a good deal on the rent for.

Resources are limited, especially when you're talking about poor immigrants as Mor was. Saying that "we can just spend equal money on both" is unrealistic. Why should objects be valued over people?

The example I raised was of poor people, precisely the sort of people you are supporting, spending their own time, talents, and treasure (such as they had) on "objects".  Of all people, they had the most incentive not to do such things, but they did it.  I don't believe they are an isolated group of human-hating, object-serving wackjobs either.  My great-grandfather was killed when a gust of wind knocked him off his feet, causing him to fall from the church roof he was constructing.  He was not rich.  Neither were any of the other people who were building that church.  I don't need to tell you that this is a widespread phenomenon.     

It's all well and good to speak up on behalf of the poor, but often it comes across as non-predatory rich (white?) people projecting their own selfishness onto the poor without the slightest idea of (and/or concern for) what the poor think and believe, without an appreciation of what other angles there are to this issue, etc.     
Don't worry, brown person. We will tell you how your should live out your faith. Massa knows best.
God bless!

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,022
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #251 on: January 08, 2016, 01:37:22 PM »
so what are your thoughts on the following

In his famous Bull Quo Primum, Pope St. Pius V forbade changing the traditional Latin Mass.


Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum Tempore, July 14, 1570:
“Now, therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by Us… Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition.  Should any venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”[2

I think very little of it given that that is boilerplate used at the end of virtually every papal bull. The very same pontiff used basically identical wording in Quod a nobis of 1568 to forbid changes to the Roman Breviary. Changes were forthcoming almost immediately, and continued apace until Pius X made radical changes to the distribution of the psalter in 1911. Pius XII and John XXIII continued to hack away at the Breviary through 1960.

Good points

If there is one thing that is constant in the Roman Church, it is change.

However, Orthodox Christians are quick to quote that our unchanging Faith and Traditions (including the Divine Liturgy) were given to us by Christ to His Apostles for all times and for all peoples.

The Roman Liturgy has had dramatic changes ever since 300 AD, and it became so bad that Pope St. Gregory had to standardize the Mass. Then within a few hundred years, by 800 AD, it had undergone many changes among them the deletion of the Trisagion in all but the Holy Friday Service. Also there were changes allowing the use of unleavened bread, the giving of the "Body" only to the laity, the forbidding of young children to approach the chalice "until the age of reason," and the insertion of the filioque to the Nicene Creed.  Then, by the mid 1960s, the Trisagion in the Good Friday service was totally deleted.

Ok?
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today


You are welcome to send me private messages but I don't post publicly anymore

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #252 on: January 08, 2016, 02:21:53 PM »
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.
The same God who commands us to serve the poor also gave us detailed commandments on how to worship Him. Those commands don't invite us to skimp.

If your concept of God winds up perfectly supporting the status quo then there's likely something wrong with your concept of God.
When did I ever say anything about supporting the status quo?

The status quo- there are people starving in the world because of the depredations of capitalism. You would rather see the poor give their money to create material finery rather than to seeing this reality changed.
You're putting words into my mouth. Stop it.

I'm not. I'm interpreting the implications of your words.
No, you're projecting those implications into my words. You're reading between the lines. IOW, you're putting words into my mouth.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #253 on: January 08, 2016, 02:29:27 PM »
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.

It sounds to me as tho you yourself need to decide whether you worship Mammon or worship God. Money is not a savior, in itself does not bring value, certainly not peace, love, or joy. The saints in heaven do not need it, and the saints on earth should learn everything we can from their condition. Have you read the Sermon on the Mount recently? Christ says such things as, "Behold the lilies of the field, behold the birds of the air -- your Father will take care of you better even than he does them, and they have no need of savings or gains. Lay up any treasures in heaven."

Quote
Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right;
But when asked how 'bout something to eat
They will answer with voices so sweet:

    You will eat, bye and bye,
    In that glorious land above the sky;
    Work and pray, live on hay,
    You'll get pie in the sky when you die.

If you don't love your neighbor in this life, then you have no love for him as regards the next.
This is a clear false dilemma fallacy. Just because a parish creates a beautiful temple does not mean it is neglecting the poor. The tabernacle and all of the temples were also very beautiful edifices. Certainly we are not to neglect the poor, but that doesn't mean that the height of Christian spirituality resides in a strip mall worship center that someone got a good deal on the rent for.

Resources are limited, especially when you're talking about poor immigrants as Mor was. Saying that "we can just spend equal money on both" is unrealistic. Why should objects God be valued over people?
FTFY to show just how absurd your reasoning is. Mor didn't say anything about people valuing objects over other people. He talked about people who valued their worship of God over their own well-being and comfort, just as the widow did with her mite. He talked about people who were willing to give of their own meager resources, even to the point of self-sacrifice, just to make sure God first had a beautiful home in their midst.

God's home is first and foremost in the human heart.
And yet even the Apostles and the first Christians thought it important to have a place to worship God, whether that place be the Temple or, after the Temple was destroyed, converted synagogues or local churches of their own construction. Never has there been a sense that worship can be separated totally from some kind of a temple. I think, therefore, that you're voicing nothing more than your own opinions, opinions that have no basis in either the Scriptures or Tradition.

Without material objects, He still has us. Without us, the whole thing is pointless. Sacrificing one's well-being for that which is nice but comparatively superfluous is wrong.
Sacrificing one's well-being for that which is necessary is praiseworthy. In the light of Tradition, you have the burden to prove that a place of worship is superfluous.

I'm not even blaming the lay people who do this, I'm blaming the theological and political ideologies that encourage them to do so.
The fact that you're blaming anyone reveals that you're judging, judging by your own opinions of right and wrong, opinions not based in anything but you and your reasoning.

And to anticipate an objection, this has nothing to do with fasting.
I hadn't made that connection and wasn't going to bring it up, so thanks for the projection. ::)
« Last Edit: January 08, 2016, 02:30:15 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,396
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #254 on: January 08, 2016, 05:25:21 PM »
... Why should objects be valued over people?

The problem here is that you are valuing people as tho they are objects. People have deep unconscious needs that underlie and give direction to most of the needs you as outside observer can see. The Church provides a complex and profound culture or nurture for those deepest needs. Yes, it does so with the use of objects as, yes, the human being inhabits and partakes in physical existence. Hospitals, jails, and soup lines are symptoms not, as we nowadays tend to imagine, cures. Christ and his Church is the cure.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 502
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #255 on: January 08, 2016, 07:56:19 PM »
so what are your thoughts on the following

In his famous Bull Quo Primum, Pope St. Pius V forbade changing the traditional Latin Mass.


Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum Tempore, July 14, 1570:
“Now, therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by Us… Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition.  Should any venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”[2

I think very little of it given that that is boilerplate used at the end of virtually every papal bull. The very same pontiff used basically identical wording in Quod a nobis of 1568 to forbid changes to the Roman Breviary. Changes were forthcoming almost immediately, and continued apace until Pius X made radical changes to the distribution of the psalter in 1911. Pius XII and John XXIII continued to hack away at the Breviary through 1960.
you think very little of it but maybe you should rethink
When the New Mass came out in 1969, Cardinals Ottaviani, Bacci, and some other theologians wrote to Paul VI about it.  Keep in mind that what they said about the New Mass concerns the Latin Version, the so-called “most pure” version of the New Mass.  Their study is popularly known as The Ottaviani Intervention.  It states:

“The Novus Ordo [the New Order of Mass] represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent.”[4]

They could clearly see that the Latin version of the New Mass was a striking departure from the teaching of the Council of Trent.  Of the twelve offertory prayers in the Traditional Mass, only two are retained in the New Mass.  The deleted offertory prayers are the same ones that the Protestant heretics Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer eliminated.  The New Mass was promulgated by Paul VI with the help of six Protestant Ministers.

The six Protestant Ministers who helped design the New Mass were: Drs. George, Jasper, Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith and Thurian.

Paul VI even admitted to his good friend Jean Guitton that his intention in changing the Mass was to make it Protestant.


Jean Guitton (an intimate friend of Paul VI) wrote: “The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the [New] Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy.  There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass.”[5]

Paul VI removed what was too Catholic in the Mass in order to make the Mass a Protestant service.

To be clear, I actually sympathize with the essential argument of the Ottaviani Intervention, i.e., that the Novus Ordo is a protestantized service and at least implicitly downplays Catholic doctrine. What I disagree with is the legal argument that the NO was illegal based on Quo Primum.

I agree with the following




Lets us not forget that when Pius V wrote "in perpetuum," he knew exactly what he meant by those words:

"By declaring Ex Cathedra that Quo Primum can never be revoked or modified, St. Pius V infallibly defined that Quo Primum is of itself irreformable. --Fr. Paul L. Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.B., M.Div., A Theological Vindication of Roman (Nazareth, India: Apostle Publications, 1997).

Further is the fact that this issue can be compare with the Gelasian decree in which the fourth century Pope attempted to name for all time which books constituted scripture and which did not. Was he attempting to bind all his successors to the same set of Biblical books? (Of course he was!) Could a later pope validly change that list by adding new books to scripture, or deleting any long accepted New Testament writings? (Of course not!)

The Mass is not simply an ecclesiastical law, a matter of discipline for the Latin (Western) Church, as even laymen are familiar with the principle enunciated by Pope St. Celestine I to the bishops of Gaul (422): "Legem credendi, lex statuit supplicandi" [the law of praying has established the law of believing], often shortened to "Lex orandi, lex credendi" [the law of praying (is) the law of believing]. In other words, it is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that teaches us our theology, not the other way around. The Mass comprises the Apostolic Tradition of faith and morals in its very essence. Every doctrine essential to the faith is taught in the text of the Mass. The notion that one pope can "overrule" his predecessors in such a matter is in implicit denial of the credal dogma that the Church is Apostolic

Offline MalpanaGiwargis

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 448
  • Māran etraḥam 'lay!
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #256 on: January 08, 2016, 08:05:24 PM »
so what are your thoughts on the following

In his famous Bull Quo Primum, Pope St. Pius V forbade changing the traditional Latin Mass.


Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum Tempore, July 14, 1570:
“Now, therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by Us… Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition.  Should any venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”[2

I think very little of it given that that is boilerplate used at the end of virtually every papal bull. The very same pontiff used basically identical wording in Quod a nobis of 1568 to forbid changes to the Roman Breviary. Changes were forthcoming almost immediately, and continued apace until Pius X made radical changes to the distribution of the psalter in 1911. Pius XII and John XXIII continued to hack away at the Breviary through 1960.
you think very little of it but maybe you should rethink
When the New Mass came out in 1969, Cardinals Ottaviani, Bacci, and some other theologians wrote to Paul VI about it.  Keep in mind that what they said about the New Mass concerns the Latin Version, the so-called “most pure” version of the New Mass.  Their study is popularly known as The Ottaviani Intervention.  It states:

“The Novus Ordo [the New Order of Mass] represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent.”[4]

They could clearly see that the Latin version of the New Mass was a striking departure from the teaching of the Council of Trent.  Of the twelve offertory prayers in the Traditional Mass, only two are retained in the New Mass.  The deleted offertory prayers are the same ones that the Protestant heretics Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer eliminated.  The New Mass was promulgated by Paul VI with the help of six Protestant Ministers.

The six Protestant Ministers who helped design the New Mass were: Drs. George, Jasper, Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith and Thurian.

Paul VI even admitted to his good friend Jean Guitton that his intention in changing the Mass was to make it Protestant.


Jean Guitton (an intimate friend of Paul VI) wrote: “The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the [New] Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy.  There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass.”[5]

Paul VI removed what was too Catholic in the Mass in order to make the Mass a Protestant service.

To be clear, I actually sympathize with the essential argument of the Ottaviani Intervention, i.e., that the Novus Ordo is a protestantized service and at least implicitly downplays Catholic doctrine. What I disagree with is the legal argument that the NO was illegal based on Quo Primum.

I agree with the following




Lets us not forget that when Pius V wrote "in perpetuum," he knew exactly what he meant by those words:

"By declaring Ex Cathedra that Quo Primum can never be revoked or modified, St. Pius V infallibly defined that Quo Primum is of itself irreformable. --Fr. Paul L. Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.B., M.Div., A Theological Vindication of Roman (Nazareth, India: Apostle Publications, 1997).

Further is the fact that this issue can be compare with the Gelasian decree in which the fourth century Pope attempted to name for all time which books constituted scripture and which did not. Was he attempting to bind all his successors to the same set of Biblical books? (Of course he was!) Could a later pope validly change that list by adding new books to scripture, or deleting any long accepted New Testament writings? (Of course not!)

The Mass is not simply an ecclesiastical law, a matter of discipline for the Latin (Western) Church, as even laymen are familiar with the principle enunciated by Pope St. Celestine I to the bishops of Gaul (422): "Legem credendi, lex statuit supplicandi" [the law of praying has established the law of believing], often shortened to "Lex orandi, lex credendi" [the law of praying (is) the law of believing]. In other words, it is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that teaches us our theology, not the other way around. The Mass comprises the Apostolic Tradition of faith and morals in its very essence. Every doctrine essential to the faith is taught in the text of the Mass. The notion that one pope can "overrule" his predecessors in such a matter is in implicit denial of the credal dogma that the Church is Apostolic

And yet you and Fr. Kramer ignore that Quod a nobis thundered the same solemn language and the Breviary was changed again and again, and fairly radically by Pius X. For that matter, the Missal was changed over and over, too, both in additions to the Propers, changes to the rubrics, etc.

The NO is a problem and a rupture, not because of Quo primum, but because it departs from the Catholic understanding of the Mass. To hang all of this on Quo primum is to adopt the idea that something can only be regarded as "Catholic" if the pope says so, and implicitly that Tradition can't stand on its own. That's a problematic position to take for a sedevacantist...

But this is a bit off-topic from the thread, so I will pass on further descent into this particular rabbit hole. It has been unconvincingly repeated ad nauseam on countless websites and forums.
Woe is me, that I have read the commandments,
   and have become learned in the Scriptures,
and have been instructed in Your glories,
   and yet I have become occupied in shameful things!

(Giwargis Warda, On Compunction of Soul)

Offline ZealousZeal

  • Cosmic Knowledge Fish
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,980
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #257 on: January 08, 2016, 08:06:30 PM »
The status quo- there are people starving in the world because of the depredations of capitalism. You would rather see the poor give their money to create material finery rather than to seeing this reality changed.

How did you land at this conclusion?
You want your belt to buckle, not your chair.

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 502
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #258 on: January 08, 2016, 08:21:25 PM »
so what are your thoughts on the following

In his famous Bull Quo Primum, Pope St. Pius V forbade changing the traditional Latin Mass.


Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum Tempore, July 14, 1570:
“Now, therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by Us… Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition.  Should any venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”[2

I think very little of it given that that is boilerplate used at the end of virtually every papal bull. The very same pontiff used basically identical wording in Quod a nobis of 1568 to forbid changes to the Roman Breviary. Changes were forthcoming almost immediately, and continued apace until Pius X made radical changes to the distribution of the psalter in 1911. Pius XII and John XXIII continued to hack away at the Breviary through 1960.
you think very little of it but maybe you should rethink
When the New Mass came out in 1969, Cardinals Ottaviani, Bacci, and some other theologians wrote to Paul VI about it.  Keep in mind that what they said about the New Mass concerns the Latin Version, the so-called “most pure” version of the New Mass.  Their study is popularly known as The Ottaviani Intervention.  It states:

“The Novus Ordo [the New Order of Mass] represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent.”[4]

They could clearly see that the Latin version of the New Mass was a striking departure from the teaching of the Council of Trent.  Of the twelve offertory prayers in the Traditional Mass, only two are retained in the New Mass.  The deleted offertory prayers are the same ones that the Protestant heretics Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer eliminated.  The New Mass was promulgated by Paul VI with the help of six Protestant Ministers.

The six Protestant Ministers who helped design the New Mass were: Drs. George, Jasper, Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith and Thurian.

Paul VI even admitted to his good friend Jean Guitton that his intention in changing the Mass was to make it Protestant.


Jean Guitton (an intimate friend of Paul VI) wrote: “The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the [New] Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy.  There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass.”[5]

Paul VI removed what was too Catholic in the Mass in order to make the Mass a Protestant service.

To be clear, I actually sympathize with the essential argument of the Ottaviani Intervention, i.e., that the Novus Ordo is a protestantized service and at least implicitly downplays Catholic doctrine. What I disagree with is the legal argument that the NO was illegal based on Quo Primum.

I agree with the following




Lets us not forget that when Pius V wrote "in perpetuum," he knew exactly what he meant by those words:

"By declaring Ex Cathedra that Quo Primum can never be revoked or modified, St. Pius V infallibly defined that Quo Primum is of itself irreformable. --Fr. Paul L. Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.B., M.Div., A Theological Vindication of Roman (Nazareth, India: Apostle Publications, 1997).

Further is the fact that this issue can be compare with the Gelasian decree in which the fourth century Pope attempted to name for all time which books constituted scripture and which did not. Was he attempting to bind all his successors to the same set of Biblical books? (Of course he was!) Could a later pope validly change that list by adding new books to scripture, or deleting any long accepted New Testament writings? (Of course not!)

The Mass is not simply an ecclesiastical law, a matter of discipline for the Latin (Western) Church, as even laymen are familiar with the principle enunciated by Pope St. Celestine I to the bishops of Gaul (422): "Legem credendi, lex statuit supplicandi" [the law of praying has established the law of believing], often shortened to "Lex orandi, lex credendi" [the law of praying (is) the law of believing]. In other words, it is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that teaches us our theology, not the other way around. The Mass comprises the Apostolic Tradition of faith and morals in its very essence. Every doctrine essential to the faith is taught in the text of the Mass. The notion that one pope can "overrule" his predecessors in such a matter is in implicit denial of the credal dogma that the Church is Apostolic

And yet you and Fr. Kramer ignore that Quod a nobis thundered the same solemn language and the Breviary was changed again and again, and fairly radically by Pius X. For that matter, the Missal was changed over and over, too, both in additions to the Propers, changes to the rubrics, etc.

The NO is a problem and a rupture, not because of Quo primum, but because it departs from the Catholic understanding of the Mass. To hang all of this on Quo primum is to adopt the idea that something can only be regarded as "Catholic" if the pope says so, and implicitly that Tradition can't stand on its own. That's a problematic position to take for a sedevacantist...

But this is a bit off-topic from the thread, so I will pass on further descent into this particular rabbit hole. It has been unconvincingly repeated ad nauseam on countless websites and forums.
I agree with you that we can't hang all of this on Quo Primum

St. Pius V also wrote the Bull Quod a nobis fixing the Breviary and the Divine Office, and at the end of it he issued penalties analogous to those in the Quo primum directed to anyone who would dare to change those norms. Notwithstanding, St. Pius X changed them without any problem. This means, once again, that St. Pius V did not include the future Popes under his condemnations.

 There is no contradiction in the picture; St. Pius V knew that he could not do something that goes beyond his power.

 The next paragraph of Mediator Dei confirms this interpretation when it reaffirms that the Pope's power is limited only by the orthodoxy of doctrine – “provided only that the integrity of her [the Church's] doctrine be safeguarded” (n. 59).

 Therefore, the interpretation of the cited texts of Mediator Dei harmonizes perfectly with the past of the Church. This is how we interpret them.

 We realize that, considered from the perspective of what has happened in the last four decades, those texts of Mediator Dei also can be interpreted today, as you do, as a preparation for the progressivist reforms of Vatican II. But this problem does not refer to the power of the Pope, but the fidelity he must have toward the established doctrine.

 Actually, is not a secret to anyone that Pius XII paid tribute to Progressivism in the last phase of his pontificate. It is known that during his reign he oscillated between the anti-progressivist influence of Fr. Robert Leiber, SJ, his personal secretary, and the progressivist influence of Fr. Agostino Bea, SJ, his spiritual director. This fluctuation continued until around 1950 – Humani generis – when the anti-progressivist attitudes of Pius XII practically disappeared. With Pius XII’s approval, Fr. Bea became the main precursor of ecumenism and one of the chief architects of Vatican II.

2. Quo primum and the Novus Ordo Mass 

 In our opinion, Paul VI greatly crossed the limits of his powers when he established the New Mass at complete variance with the Catholic doctrine reflected in Quo primum. We do not believe that it is legitimate for a Pope to undo all the anti-Protestant points stressed in the Tridentine Mass as established by St. Pius V. This opinion can be defended from different points of view:

A. Regarding the power of teaching, a Pope does not have the right to revoke the liturgical tradition of the Church. Indeed, Quo primum was a codification of around 1500 years of the Latin Rite’s customs in worshiping God, which were formulated as a counter-attack against Protestantism. From the time of Trent, almost 500 years passed and enriched that same Tradition.

 Now then, since lex orandi, lex credendi est [the law of prayer is the law of belief], it was not possible to have that Mass for almost 500 years without a special assistance of the Holy Ghost confirming the Church in her Faith and giving the doctrine reflected in that Mass a note of infallibility.

 When Paul VI tried to destroy this legacy, he committed an action that went beyond his power. As pointed out before, a Pope cannot change the established Catholic doctrine. For this reason, that action was illegitimate, and it must be resisted until it disappears from the entire Church.

B. Still regarding the power of teaching, the deliberate intent of Paul VI to establish a Mass that would please the Protestants – the practical denial of its sacrificial character, dissimulation of the real significance of the Eucharist, elimination of the difference between the celebrant and the congregation, dethroning God and enthroning the people, etc – is diametrically opposed to the intent of both Pope St. Pius V and the Council of Trent. This New Mass clearly has the flavor of heresy, the same heresy the Tridentine Mass intended to extinguish. For this aggravating reason, it is illegitimate and it must be resisted until it no longer exists.

C. Regarding the power of jurisdiction, certainly a Pope can revoke any positive law made by another Pope to rule on this or that particular need of the Church. Positive law here is understood as a human law to govern the human needs of the Church. This can apply to liturgy and the divine worship within the limits explained before.

 This power, however, does not seem to allow the unprecedented revocation of the Mass, whicht Paul VI made for the two mentioned reasons: It was anti-Protestant and reflected the Tradition of the Church. He banned the Tridentine Mass and replaced it with the New Mass. We believe a Pope does not have the right to forbid a form of worship that had been used by the Church for close to 500 years. His action is illegitimate and must be resisted.

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,707
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #259 on: January 08, 2016, 08:31:14 PM »
Has nobody mentioned that in perpetuum as a legal term didn't mean what it means now, but simply that a law, treaty or edict was without a sunset clause?
« Last Edit: January 08, 2016, 08:41:20 PM by Cyrillic »

Offline MalpanaGiwargis

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 448
  • Māran etraḥam 'lay!
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #260 on: January 08, 2016, 08:39:50 PM »
Has nobody mentioned that in perpetuum as a legal term doesn't mean what it means now, but simply that a law, treaty or edict is without a sunset clause?

Not explicitly, but I suspect it will have little effect...
Woe is me, that I have read the commandments,
   and have become learned in the Scriptures,
and have been instructed in Your glories,
   and yet I have become occupied in shameful things!

(Giwargis Warda, On Compunction of Soul)

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,386
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #261 on: January 09, 2016, 11:09:22 AM »
And yet even the Apostles and the first Christians thought it important to have a place to worship God, whether that place be the Temple or, after the Temple was destroyed, converted synagogues or local churches of their own construction. Never has there been a sense that worship can be separated totally from some kind of a temple. I think, therefore, that you're voicing nothing more than your own opinions, opinions that have no basis in either the Scriptures or Tradition.

Without material objects, He still has us. Without us, the whole thing is pointless. Sacrificing one's well-being for that which is nice but comparatively superfluous is wrong.
Sacrificing one's well-being for that which is necessary is praiseworthy. In the light of Tradition, you have the burden to prove that a place of worship is superfluous.

I never said that these things were absolutely unimportant, only comparatively so. I'm arguing for austerity, not iconoclasm. To bring this back around to the RC, I think that Pope Francis has taken a good first step by toning down the Papal bling.

I'm not even blaming the lay people who do this, I'm blaming the theological and political ideologies that encourage them to do so.
The fact that you're blaming anyone reveals that you're judging, judging by your own opinions of right and wrong, opinions not based in anything but you and your reasoning.

So, judging ideologies is the same as judging people now? ???

And I'm judging based on the Gospel. Something that you don't seem willing to do.

And to anticipate an objection, this has nothing to do with fasting.
I hadn't made that connection and wasn't going to bring it up, so thanks for the projection. ::)

I didn't say you did. It was in case you or anyone else was going to.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2016, 11:14:41 AM by Volnutt »
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,386
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #262 on: January 09, 2016, 11:25:42 AM »
The status quo- there are people starving in the world because of the depredations of capitalism. You would rather see the poor give their money to create material finery rather than to seeing this reality changed.

How did you land at this conclusion?

He was the one who said that God won't let people skimp. It would be great if we lived in some kind of moneyless utopia in which nobody went hungry or homeless and every Church had a solid gold iconostasis (yes, I know most Churches aren't like that now, I'm using hyperbole). I would be totally on board with being as lavish as possible in that case. But I seriously doubt that's going to happen this side of the eschaton.

So as it stands, when God can bless even vestments made out of ordinary linens, I don't see how spending money on the finest fabrics can be justified when it could be put to saving the temples of the Holy Spirit who are dying all around us.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2016, 11:36:08 AM by Volnutt »
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,386
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #263 on: January 09, 2016, 11:45:35 AM »
This is a clear false dilemma fallacy. Just because a parish creates a beautiful temple does not mean it is neglecting the poor. The tabernacle and all of the temples were also very beautiful edifices. Certainly we are not to neglect the poor, but that doesn't mean that the height of Christian spirituality resides in a strip mall worship center that someone got a good deal on the rent for.

Resources are limited, especially when you're talking about poor immigrants as Mor was. Saying that "we can just spend equal money on both" is unrealistic. Why should objects be valued over people?

The example I raised was of poor people, precisely the sort of people you are supporting, spending their own time, talents, and treasure (such as they had) on "objects".  Of all people, they had the most incentive not to do such things, but they did it.  I don't believe they are an isolated group of human-hating, object-serving wackjobs either.  My great-grandfather was killed when a gust of wind knocked him off his feet, causing him to fall from the church roof he was constructing.  He was not rich.  Neither were any of the other people who were building that church.  I don't need to tell you that this is a widespread phenomenon.     

It's all well and good to speak up on behalf of the poor, but often it comes across as non-predatory rich (white?) people projecting their own selfishness onto the poor without the slightest idea of (and/or concern for) what the poor think and believe, without an appreciation of what other angles there are to this issue, etc.     

Your point rightly cuts me like a knife (and yes, I'm white). The poor deserve to make their own choices (to the extent that anybody really has a choice in the face of overwhelming ideology) and I would never want to poopoo them for wanting to do so. I should be confining my critique to the comparatively wealthy and the ideologies of consumption. The onus is on us to spread the wealth around, and it seems like we aren't doing that when we spend more than the bare minimum on church finery (little c because I'm hardly sparing Protestant churches here).
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #264 on: January 10, 2016, 03:08:38 AM »
And yet even the Apostles and the first Christians thought it important to have a place to worship God, whether that place be the Temple or, after the Temple was destroyed, converted synagogues or local churches of their own construction. Never has there been a sense that worship can be separated totally from some kind of a temple. I think, therefore, that you're voicing nothing more than your own opinions, opinions that have no basis in either the Scriptures or Tradition.

Without material objects, He still has us. Without us, the whole thing is pointless. Sacrificing one's well-being for that which is nice but comparatively superfluous is wrong.
Sacrificing one's well-being for that which is necessary is praiseworthy. In the light of Tradition, you have the burden to prove that a place of worship is superfluous.

I never said that these things were absolutely unimportant, only comparatively so. I'm arguing for austerity, not iconoclasm. To bring this back around to the RC, I think that Pope Francis has taken a good first step by toning down the Papal bling.

I'm not even blaming the lay people who do this, I'm blaming the theological and political ideologies that encourage them to do so.
The fact that you're blaming anyone reveals that you're judging, judging by your own opinions of right and wrong, opinions not based in anything but you and your reasoning.

So, judging ideologies is the same as judging people now? ???
Did I say anything about you judging either ideologies or people? ??? The point you're missing is not that you're judging, but rather the basis by which you're judging. Whatever or whomever it is you're judging, you're judging by your own opinions of right and wrong, opinions not based in anything but you and your reasoning.

And I'm judging based on the Gospel. Something that you don't seem willing to do.
Once again with your lousy projections. ::) Nowhere in the Gospel do we read of Jesus telling anyone to skimp on their worship of His Father just so they can redistribute the money spent on worship to the poor. In fact, the one person we see suggesting such an idea is Judas Iscariot, not Jesus. The dichotomy between liturgy and service, whereby we set one up against the other and say that one is so much more important than the other, is nowhere to be found in the Gospel. This is something you made up. The truth is that liturgy and service are equally important, and neither should be sacrificed for the other.

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength." What better way to do this than by giving Jesus the fullest and richest worship we can? Where in this first of the greatest commandments do you see any exhortation to skimp on our worship?

And to anticipate an objection, this has nothing to do with fasting.
I hadn't made that connection and wasn't going to bring it up, so thanks for the projection. ::)

I didn't say you did. It was in case you or anyone else was going to.
But nobody showed that they were even going to. ISTM that you love setting up and tearing down straw men so much that you build them out of thin air without even waiting for someone to present to you an argument for you to misinterpret.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline byhisgrace

  • AOCB
  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,243
  • Memory Eternal to my Younger Brother
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOARCH
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #265 on: January 10, 2016, 06:04:03 AM »
So as it stands, when God can bless even vestments made out of ordinary linens, I don't see how spending money on the finest fabrics can be justified when it could be put to saving the temples of the Holy Spirit who are dying all around us.
I'm sure that spending more than necessary on finery is a problem for Orthodox as it is for everyone. We are all sinners who need to change.

However, if you are arguing that we should not have any degree of finery in our icons and vestments, then to be coherent, you would have to condemn all the OT Jews for building the Temple and all its decorations, where every single detail was directed by God.

Also consider that "finest" is a relative term. If the best Priest robe was only somewhat decorated, that would be considered "finest." How much money can we spend on icons, Priest vestments, Church building, and parish maintenance in order to meet your standard?

And most importantly, we are in no position to make a sweeping generalization of how well the Church distributes its wealth on charity and liturgy. At most, judgment can only be done on a case-by-case parish-by-parish basis, and even then, you would have to know that parish's budget.   
« Last Edit: January 10, 2016, 06:17:24 AM by byhisgrace »
Oh Holy Apostle, St. John, pray for us

Offline byhisgrace

  • AOCB
  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,243
  • Memory Eternal to my Younger Brother
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOARCH
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #266 on: January 10, 2016, 06:14:35 AM »
Once again with your lousy projections. ::) Nowhere in the Gospel do we read of Jesus telling anyone to skimp on their worship of His Father just so they can redistribute the money spent on worship to the poor. In fact, the one person we see suggesting such an idea is Judas Iscariot, not Jesus. The dichotomy between liturgy and service, whereby we set one up against the other and say that one is so much more important than the other, is nowhere to be found in the Gospel. This is something you made up. The truth is that liturgy and service are equally important, and neither should be sacrificed for the other.

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength." What better way to do this than by giving Jesus the fullest and richest worship we can? Where in this first of the greatest commandments do you see any exhortation to skimp on our worship?
I don't think Volnutt is criticizing the existence of liturgies and place of worship, but the degree to which we spend money on decorating Icons, Priestly vestments, etc. That said, I have no idea how much money is spent on making these things, so I'm in no position to judge. 
Oh Holy Apostle, St. John, pray for us

Offline Indocern

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,351
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #267 on: January 10, 2016, 08:41:03 AM »
So as it stands, when God can bless even vestments made out of ordinary linens, I don't see how spending money on the finest fabrics can be justified when it could be put to saving the temples of the Holy Spirit who are dying all around us.
I'm sure that spending more than necessary on finery is a problem for Orthodox as it is for everyone. We are all sinners who need to change.

However, if you are arguing that we should not have any degree of finery in our icons and vestments, then to be coherent, you would have to condemn all the OT Jews for building the Temple and all its decorations, where every single detail was directed by God.

Also consider that "finest" is a relative term. If the best Priest robe was only somewhat decorated, that would be considered "finest." How much money can we spend on icons, Priest vestments, Church building, and parish maintenance in order to meet your standard?

And most importantly, we are in no position to make a sweeping generalization of how well the Church distributes its wealth on charity and liturgy. At most, judgment can only be done on a case-by-case parish-by-parish basis, and even then, you would have to know that parish's budget.   

Maybe we all are sinners, there are very few righteous men who are in the right way.

Online Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,097
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #268 on: January 10, 2016, 03:19:48 PM »
Once again with your lousy projections. ::) Nowhere in the Gospel do we read of Jesus telling anyone to skimp on their worship of His Father just so they can redistribute the money spent on worship to the poor. In fact, the one person we see suggesting such an idea is Judas Iscariot, not Jesus. The dichotomy between liturgy and service, whereby we set one up against the other and say that one is so much more important than the other, is nowhere to be found in the Gospel. This is something you made up. The truth is that liturgy and service are equally important, and neither should be sacrificed for the other.

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength." What better way to do this than by giving Jesus the fullest and richest worship we can? Where in this first of the greatest commandments do you see any exhortation to skimp on our worship?
I don't think Volnutt is criticizing the existence of liturgies and place of worship, but the degree to which we spend money on decorating Icons, Priestly vestments, etc. That said, I have no idea how much money is spent on making these things, so I'm in no position to judge.

I suppose if all you are concerned about is how much money is spent on non-essentials when people are starving, we'd have to criticise a lot more than just ecclesiastical expenditures.  For instance, that complaint--and really, all posts in this thread and on OCNet as a whole--was posted here by means of some piece of technology, big or small, costing hundreds of dollars at a minimum.  Why should we use technology at all if it costs us so much money to use, money we could use to support the poor?  Are we absolved of such hypocrisy by hurling out some obligatory condemnations of people with more money than we have?

I'm not convinced that everyone who uses a computer or a smartphone has made a conscious decision to rob the poor in order to sustain a lavish lifestyle.  More likely, we (those of us who are conscious of the poor at all, anyway) have resigned ourselves to the fact that even if we gave our bodies as food to the poor, we could not help them all, and so we do what we can with what we are blessed to have, and we use what we have in order to keep helping them as we can.  Are there better uses for our time, talent, and treasure at any given moment?  Sure, but that's a challenge to our conscience to make sure we don't become complacent.  I'm not sure the sort of radical charity Volnutt demands of churches is sustainable in the long run for anyone or any institution. 

Returning to the subject of ecclesiastical furnishings, one thing that is often forgotten is that these things are not usually made by some "predatory rich" corporation the way our technology is.  Furnishings, vestments, icons, vessels, etc. are often made by craftsmen who are not rich at all (many are just surviving) and this is how they earn their living.  Why shouldn't they be reimbursed for their work?  Why should we rob them of their livelihood because we've decided to "help the poor"?  When I commission vestments for a church or a cleric, I have one or two people I go to, each of whom employs a couple of people in his shop.  None of these people are rich.  If I stop patronising them because I want to use the money to help the poor, they are a group of actual poor people who will not be helped, but rather harmed, by my love for the poor. 

Maybe some would say they should find another line of work, but then we're going to have to ask what work is legitimate and what work is unnecessary and wasteful.  Somehow, I think we're all going to agree that the Chinese people who work so hard to meet our demand for new phones that they're literally killing themselves at work are doing a most essential service to mankind while we argue over the necessity of the work of a few low caste Hindus who happen to know how to stitch Orthodox vestments the opulence of which offends our selfishness. 
Please don't project meta-debates onto me.

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,386
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
« Reply #269 on: January 10, 2016, 04:34:09 PM »
This is making me increasingly depressed so I think I'm going to bow out. You guys make some good points that I probably didn't think enough about and I'm sorry if I hurt anybody's feelings.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2016, 04:46:56 PM by Volnutt »
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things