OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 02, 2014, 06:55:31 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Roman Catholic conversion to Orthodox  (Read 6012 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,703



« Reply #360 on: August 18, 2014, 03:06:07 PM »

You have bishops but still went under the Communists and the bishops eventually fell into line. Your point?

People have free will.

Either we're too loose or we're a dictatorship because of the evil Pope. Get your story straight!

You have got to admit that one can be too lose and live in a dictatorship at the same time. Not logically of course, but in actual practice.  Wink
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #361 on: August 18, 2014, 03:15:22 PM »

Tangent: politically it happens. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was like that. No sharia; lots of personal freedom. Just don't criticize the government! Same in Belarus. Byelorussians don't pretend to be free politically but they've had the same local dictator, Alexander Lukashenko, since Soviet times because in practice they're free and they're happy with him.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #362 on: August 18, 2014, 03:18:07 PM »

once Nestorianism is swallowed as long as a supreme pontiff if recognized, modernists know there is no stopping.  As long as the pope in the Vatican is recognized, its a mass.

Nice try. First, chances are the Nestorians aren't really Nestorians.

Shown them an icon of the Holy Theotokos and refer to her as "Mother of God," and you'll get the same reaction you'll get from your average Baptist.
Second, everybody knows the Catholic Church considers the Council of Ephesus doctrine: where do you think the term "Mother of God" in Western culture came from, the Baptists? Third, Modernists HATE the Pope as he is. They want to hijack the papacy to give it the power to change doctrine, which you, I, and the church say is impossible. We're not nominalists or Erastians (being under the state: that's you guys).

Actually, since you claim that we should have followed the Emperor (e.g. the example of Michael Palaelogus cited by your Pope below, and in "Pastor Aeternus") in kissing the Vatican slipper, whose wearer inserted the filioque at Old Rome because the Germanic Emperor demanded it for his coronation, you're projecting your Caesaropapism there.

The Donation of Constantine first shows up in your Pope Leo IX using it as his proof text for his ultramontanist claims.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,40800.msg847040.html#msg847040

It's not "anything goes as long as it's under the Pope." The Pope is the servant of the church, of its teachings.
Ah, yes, "the Servant of the Servants of Christ"


God indeed has a sense of humor.

Cardinal Kasper can keep his ecclesiastical community, clowns and all-and its four patriarchs of Antioch.

First, next to no Catholics have done clown Masses for 40 years. These were behind-the-curve Episcopalians trying to be cool. Second, these things are liturgical abuses according to the current edition of the Roman Rite, not just my old version. Third, every word in the text of the new Mass is true. I went to it for the feast of the Assumption. So it's a Mass in spite of the abuses including any retro clown Masses.
Only if your Pope  is mentioned in it.  Your Pope said so. Read Ex Quo by your Pope  Benedict:
What is absurd is denying the obvious.  The Vatican's canons explicitly put the power "to approve or define the requirements for their validity" of the sacraments" into the lap of your Pope .  The Roman missal (and the Byzantine, etc. equivalents) are promulgated on his authority. As a sedevantist puts it very well:
Quote
In the many discussions which have taken place over the past fifteen years about the vacancy of the papal see since the time of the Vatican II “popes,” there has always been a “bottom line” which occurs in the Te Igitur of the Mass, which is the first prayer of the Canon. It is the passage in this prayer which requires the priest to pray for the reigning pope and bishop of the diocese in which the Mass if offered. If you pick up your missal, and turn to the Canon, you will see the phrase we are presently talking about: “...which in the first place we offer up to Thee for Thy holy Catholic Church, that it may please Thee to grant her peace, to protect, unite and govern throughout the world, together with Thy servant N. our Pope, N. our Bishop, and all true believers and professors of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.” In Latin the phrase together with is rendered by una cum. Because the rubrics instruct the priest to leave out the name of the pope or bishop if the see is vacant, i.e., when a pope dies and the new pope is not elected, the mention or non-mention of the name by the priest is a litmus test for the priest’s position about John Paul II and the New Church. If he thinks that John Paul II is the true Pope, successor of Saint Peter, then he must place his name in the Canon. If, on the other hand, he does not hold him to be a true Pope, but a false one, then the priest must not mention his name in the Canon. So this little phrase in the Mass, una cum, says it all: is he or isn’t he the Pope?

The position of the Society of Saint Pius X is quite clear: he is, and if you do not agree, then get out. If I am not mistaken, they take an omission of the name to be a schismatic act. This they maintain despite the fact that they seem to admit a gray area in the speculative order; many of them openly speak about doubt concerning John Paul II’s papacy. Fr. Schmidberger even stated that the Fraternity was not in communion with the ConciliarChurch which identifies itself with the Novus Ordo Missæ. How such non-communion would not include John Paul II is mysterious. How can they be so emphatic about breaking communion with the conciliarists, and yet at the same time insist that priests declare themselves in communion with the head of the conciliarists?

Actions speak louder than words, and the appearance of the odious name in the Canon of the Mass is an action which clearly states that the Fraternity is in communion with the ConciliarChurch.

What if, however, you are not in communion with the NewChurch, but the only traditional Mass available to you is one in which a public declaration of communion with the Heresiarch is made? Is it licit to attend such a Mass?
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=46&catname=12

you might want to argue with his holiness:
Quote
Pope Benedict XIV

“But whatever can be said about this controverted point of ecclesiastical learning, it is sufficient for us to be able to affirm that the commemoration of the Roman Pontiff in the Mass as well as the prayers said for him in the Sacrifice are considered to be, and are a certain declarative sign, by which the same Pontiff is recognized as the head of the Church, the Vicar of Christ, and the Successor of Saint Peter, and becomes of profession of a mind and will firmly adhering to Catholic unity; as Christian Lupus correctly indicates, writing on the councils (Tom. 4. Editionis Bruxell. pag. 422): This commemoration is the supreme and most distinguished kind of communion.” Nor is this any less proven by the authority of Ivo Flaviniacensis (in Chronicle, p. 228) where it reads: “Let him know that he separates himself from the communion of the whole world, whoever does not mention the name of the Pope in the Canon, for whatever reason of dissension; nor [by the authority of] the well-known Alcuin, who, in his book De Divinis Officiis (chap. 12) wrote this: “ It is certain, as Blessed Pelagius teaches, that those who, for whatever reason of dissension, do not observe the custom of mentioning the name of the Apostolic Pontiff in the sacred mysteries, are separated from the communion of the whole world.” This fact is further proven by a more severe statement of the Supreme Pontiff Pelagius II, who held the Apostolic throne in the sixth century of the Church, and who in his letter contained in the Labbeana Collectio Conciliorum (Tome 5, col 794 sq. and col 810)left this in writing concerning our subject: I am shocked at your separation from the whole Church, which I cannot tolerate; for when blessed Augustine, mindful of Our Lord’s words which placed the foundation of the Church in Apostolic Sees, says that he is in schism whosoever shall separate himself from the authority of or communion with those who preside in these same Sees, and who does not publicly profess that there is no other Church than that which is established in the pontifical roots of the Apostolic Sees, how can you not esteem yourselves to be cut off from the communion of the whole world, if you withhold the mention of my name in the sacred mysteries, as is the custom, in whom, though unworthy, you see at the present time the strength of the Apostolic See through the succession of the episcopate?”
The last part is actually how it works, the Orthodox diptychs, as it seems even the Vatican's authorities admit:
Quote
Fr. William J. O’Shea, S.S., D.D.

ˆ”There is one official who symbolizes and represents the unity of the Church in each diocese, and who has been placed there by the Holy Spirit to rule the Church of God: that is the bishop. Originally only the local bishop was mentioned: papa once meant any bishop, but was later restricted to the pope. Outside Rome the words “et antistite nostro N.” were added to avoid confusion; our Canon now prays both for the symbol and center of unity in the Church at large and in each diocese in particular. “Et omnibus...fidei cultoribus” is an ancient addition which refers not to the faithful but to the other bishops throughout the world, who are real “cultores fidei”: “maintainers of the catholic, apostolic and orthodox faith.” The faith is designated by its ancient titles: it is catholic, for the whole world; apostolic, coming from them and resting upon their teaching; orthodox, the true faith.[
William J.O’Shea, S.S., D.D.,The Worship of the Church (Westminster, Maryland: The Newman Press, 1958) p. 393.

I got the above quotes from the sedevantist site, but least you dismiss on that basis, here is the fuller version of your supreme pontiffs' words, taken from EWTN
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/B14EXQUO.HTM
Quote
EX QUO (On the Euchologion)  
Pope Benedict
 
Encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV promulgated on 1 March 1756.
To the Archbishops, Bishops and Other Clerics, Secular and Regular, of the Greek Rite Who Enjoy Favor and Communion with the Apostolic See.

Venerable Brothers and Beloved Sons, We Give You Greeting and Our Apostolic Blessing.

Ever since We first became Pope, We have proven Our fatherly love in embracing in Christ Our beloved eastern clergy and people, the Uniates as they are called, who are in agreement with Us and are free from the stain of schism. We have made every attempt to induce the schismatics to abandon their errors and join Us in Catholic unity. We do not intend to recall here all the measures We took for this purpose since the records of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith are filled with Our decrees on this subject and everyone can refer to Our apostolic letters and constitutions on eastern affairs in the volumes of Our Bullarium. Our present purpose is to inform you that the work of correcting the Greek Euchologion is now completed. It has already been printed by the press of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith following a lengthy scrutiny of every detail and most careful correction.

Consequently We exhort you to set aside previous editions which have been found to contain too many different errors, and to use this edition in sacred rites...

Four Admonitions

8. At the beginning of this most recent edition four admonitions are to be found. We want to explain briefly to you in this letter the reasons for the presence of these remarks.

First Admonition-Commemoration of Pontiff in the Mass

9. The first admonition is thus expressed: "It must be known that the priests who will use the Euchologion should be acquainted with the ecclesiastical canons of the holy Fathers and the Constitutions of the Catholic Church in order that they may avoid obvious mistakes in administering the divine Sacraments and performing their other duties. Therefore where commemorations are customarily made in the sacred liturgy, the Roman Pontiff should be first commemorated, then one's own bishop and patriarch, provided they are Catholic. But if either or both of them are schismatic or heretic they should by no means be commemorated." Certainly this is in full agreement with the decrees passed at the meeting of the Congregation on May 1, 1746, which We approved and confirmed. The following question was raised at that meeting: "whether the name of the supreme pontiff should be put into the prayers said by priest and deacon at the Offertory as well as in the other prayers, that is, For the supreme pontiff N." This response was given to that question: "In the instruction which is to be added at the start of the Euchologion, Greek priests should be advised to make a commemoration of the supreme pontiff and of their bishop or archbishop if he is in union with the Roman Catholic Church, and moreover a rubric should be put in the margin of the Liturgy referring them to the instruction." For it seemed best to add in this manner such matter as was missed in the text of the Euchologion itself.

This Practice is Long-Standing

10. We have Ourselves dealt with the commemoration of the Roman pontiff in the sacrifice of the Mass, and with the antiquity of this practice in Our treatise De Sacrificio Missae, sect. I, n. 219. But since the publication of this book, the same subject has been treated with many extraordinary observations by Dominicus Georgius (who in his lifetime was Our dear sacristan) in his De Liturgia Romani Pontificis, vol. 3, chap. 3, no. 14, where he writes: "It has ever been customary in the Catholic Church to recite the name of the Roman pontiff during the sacred mysteries." In no. 22 he adds: "All the ancient testimonies and the oldest copies of the sacred canon agree concerning the name of the supreme pontiff." Indeed, that such a commemoration had been made in the Mass is shown by the Ambrosian Liturgy, the Mozarabic Mass, and the Latin Mass which the Lutheran Flaccus Illyricus copied from one ancient manuscript and published. So also does the most ancient Liturgy which is found in the old manuscript on the Sacraments of the Roman Church which was published by Venerable Cardinal Thomasius. Finally, this is also shown in all the sacred canons of the Mass, whether printed or written by hand, as the prelate Niccolo Antonelli amply shows in the long and learned dissertation which he wrote as a necessary part of his duty as Secretary of the Congregation for the Correction of the Euchologion; he had it printed when a dispute on this subject arose among the Cardinals and Consultors. A reprint of this can also be I found in the Appendix to the old Lateran Monastic Missal in the Collectio Liturgica, vol. 1, made by Fr. Emanuele de Azevedo.

11. So far the testimonies mentioned relate to the Latin Church. As regards the Greek Church, Cardinal Bona says that it is not known whether in the early centuries it recalled the Roman pontiff in the sacrifice of the Mass: "But whether in the first centuries Orthodox Greece commemorated the Roman pontiff is unclear" (Rer. Liturgicar, bk. 2, chap. 11, no. 3). Moreover Isaac Habertus admits that among the records of the early age, he has found none to establish that it was customary in the Oriental Church to commemorate the Roman pontiff during the celebration of Mass: "I could wish it was done and if it had been done I would approve of it, but even so I do not read that it was done." But he says that the name of the Roman Pontiff had been added to that of the Patriarch in the time of Pope Nicholas I, that is about 858, since the following words are found in several ancient copies of the Holy Liturgy of John Chrysostom: "Long be the days of most holy Nicholas the universal pope" (Observationes ad Pontificale Graecorum, pt. 8, observ. 12).

But Antonelli, whom We have praised, argues in his dissertation that it was customary in the Greek Church to commemorate the Roman Pontiff during Mass long before the period assigned by Habertus. He proves his point especially by the fact reported by Nicephorus in his in Historia Ecclesiast., bk. 16, chap. 17, where he depends on the testimony of a more ancient and serious historian, Basilius Cilix. Acacius, bishop of Constantinople, a supporter of the Eutychian heresy, prevailed on the emperor Zeno to publish his ill-fated edict, the Henoticon, which rendered void the definition of the holy Council of Chalcedon which opposed the heresy of Eutyches. When Pope Felix III could not ignore this and therefore deprived Acacius of communion, he had the audacity in the year of the Lord 484 to erase the name of the Roman pontiff Felix from the sacred diptychs in a new and hitherto unheard-of excess of rashness. For this reason the memory of Acacius was then condemned. The Greek church accepted this condemnation in the time of Pope Hormisdas and Emperor Justin, although the two predecessors of Hormisdas, Anastasius 11 and Symmachus, had failed to win this acceptance. So in the great church of Constantinople (whose example was doubtless followed by the other lesser churches of the east) the name of the Roman pontiff was in the sacred diptychs; therefore it must be asserted that he was prayed for by name during the celebration of Masses. Acacius is described as the first to erase this name and his deed was on this account particularly punished since, without any precedent, he committed a new sort of outrage till then unheard of, even though in former times there had been no lack of offense and disagreements between the Roman pontiffs and the bishops of the imperial city. It is thus abundantly proved that long before the time of Acacius and so in the early centuries, the name of the Roman pontiff was written in the sacred diptychs of the Greeks and thus it was customary to pray for him during the celebration of Mass.
Then, as now, the names of all the autocephalous bishops are commorated in the ditpychs of their peers: despite what he goes on to say, the four patriarchs were commemorated by the Pope of Rome.
Quote
But however it may be with this disputed point of ecclesiastical learning, it suffices Us to be able to state that a commemoration of the supreme pontiff and prayers offered for him during the sacrifice of the Mass is considered, and really is, an affirmative indication which recognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter, and is the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity. This was rightly noticed by Christianus Lupus in his work on the Councils: "This commemoration is the chief and most glorious form of communion" (tome 4, p. 422, Brussels edition). This view is not merely approved by the authority of Ivo of Flaviniaca who writes: "Whosoever does not pronounce the name of the Apostolic one in the canon for whatever reason should realize that he is separated from the communion of the whole world" (Chronicle, p. 228); or by the authority of the famous Alcuin: "It is generally agreed that those who do not for any reason recall the memory of the Apostolic pontiff in the course of the sacred mysteries according to custom are, as the blessed Pelagius teaches, separated from the communion of the entire world" (de Divinis Officiis, bk. 1, chap. 12).

Pope Pelagius II who held the Apostolic See in the sixth century of the Church gives this weightier statement on Our present subject in his letter: "I am greatly astonished at your separation from the rest of the Church and I cannot equably endure it. For Augustine, mindful that the Lord established the foundation of the Church on the Apostolic sees, says that whosoever removes himself from the authority and communion of the prelates of those sees is in schism. He states plainly that there is no church apart from one which is firmly established on the pontifical bases of the Apostolic sees. Thus how can you believe that you are not separated from the communion of the whole world if you do not commemorate my name during the sacred mysteries, according to custom? For you see that the strength of the Apostolic See resides in me, despite my unworthiness, through episcopal succession at the present time" (Labbe, Conciliorum Collectione, vol. 5, col. 794f and 810). This letter of Pelagius has also been used by St. Agobard, the great archbishop of Lyons, in his treatise De comparatione utriusque regiminis. This is printed in the in Magna Bibliotheca Patrum (vol. 14, p. 315, no. 21, Lyons) and was reissued by Balutius with other writings of this saint (col. 2, p. 49).

13. Moreover it suffices Us to be able to affirm without peril that at whatever time the practice of praying by name for the Roman pontiff at Mass was finally accepted by the Greek Church, this practice was definitely in force in Greek churches many centuries before schism broke out, and was only broken off after the fatal separation. A letter dated 1053 of Peter, patriarch of Antioch, to Michael Cerularius, the well-known reviver of the Photian schism, survives. This letter is published in Greek and Latin by Joannes Baptista Cotelerius in the second volume of his Monument. Eccles. Graec. Michael had said that he was surprised that Peter of Antioch himself as well as the bishops of Alexandria and Jerusalem mentioned the Roman pontiff in the sacred diptychs (p. 140 of the above-mentioned volume). But Peter most sharply rebuked the rashness of the maddened man in showing that both at Antioch and at Constantinople, the commemoration of the Roman pontiff had never been omitted up to his time: "Of these matters I too am an unexceptionable witness, as are the many others who with me hold high office in the Church, that in the time of Lord John (patriarch of Antioch), the Pope at Rome, also called John, was included in the sacred diptychs. Furthermore, when I came to Constantinople forty-five years ago I found that under Patriarch Sergius the Pope was mentioned at holy Mass along with the other Patriarchs."

It is said in addition that no discussions on restoring unity were ever begun without the acceptance of the prior condition that the commemoration of the Roman pontiff should be included in the sacred liturgy, nor was a union which had been agreed on regarded as complete until the previous condition had actually been put into effect. The clear result of all this is that the Latin and Greek churches agree in recognizing and affirming that the commemoration implies a profession of due subjection to the Roman pontiff as head of the Church, and of a willingness to remain in the unity of the Church. On the other hand the omission of this commemoration signifies the intention of steadfastly espousing schism.

14. When Michael Palaeologus, Emperor of Constantinople, in 1263 and thereafter, affirmed his desire to return in company with his Greek subjects to unity and concord with the Roman Church, Urban IV aptly proposed the condition "that in sacred ceremonies from the diptychs, the name of the Pope should be commemorated together with the four patriarchs" (Nicetas, bk. 5, chap. 2). And when thereafter the negotiation of this union was again undertaken by Emperor Michael and Patriarch Giovanni Vecco and was seriously debated at the General Council of Lyons held in the year of the Lord 1274, the Pope, Blessed Gregory X, with the agreement of the assembled council fathers, first proposed several indispensable conditions for the effective negotiation of union. The first of these was "that the Pope be included in the diptych with the other four patriarchs and commemorated during the holy services" (Nicetas, as above). And Pachymeres (bk. 5, chap. 22) testifies that this condition was accepted by the Greeks and carried out in practice: "There were two immediate results of this arrival of the ambassadors who brought back word that peace had been made on the strength of the previous agreements: the deposition of the Patriarch and the public commemoration of the Pope in holy services."

15. His son Andronicus succeeded Michael Palaeologus as emperor, and was so extreme a supporter of the schism which had been condemned that he allowed his father's body to be buried beyond the sacred precinct because he had attempted to establish a union of the Greek Church with the Latin. Because the emperor could hardly hope for success in his intended revival of the schism while the Catholic patriarch, Giovanni Vecco, was leader of the church at Constantinople, he imposed as patriarch a certain Joseph who was tainted with the stain of heresy. As a result affairs began to deteriorate and a sincere reconciliation of the churches was no longer possible. Finally, at the meeting of the General Council of Ferrara, later transferred to Florence, in the year 1434, after proper deliberations of the issues by the Greek and Latin fathers, the wall of division was cast down which had for so long kept the one church apart from the other. To attest to everyone the reality of the enacted union John Palaeologus, emperor of the Greeks, gave orders that the name of the Pope be replaced in the sacred diptychs, as is testified even by the schismatic author Sylvester Sguropolus in his Historia Concilii Flor., sess. 10. chap. 2. Afterwards when the decree of established union had been brought to Philotheus, patriarch of Alexandria, he was careful to state in his answer to Pope Eugenius IV that he had also decided that the commemoration of the Roman pontiff in the sacrifice of the Mass should be placed before that of the other patriarchs: "Hence in company with our Egyptian bishops and other clergy, we decided that everywhere in all of Christ's churches during the sacrifice of the Mass, we should commemorate Your Blessedness before the other Patriarchs, as is provided for in the sacred canons." This passage may be found in the collection of the transactions of the Council of Florence made by Cardinal Justinianus (pt. 2, collect. 22, p. 323).

16. Constantine was the Greek emperor after John Palaeologus. When he sent ambassadors to Nicholas V to beseech help for his faltering fortunes, he was careful to profess that he would make every effort to implement as fully as could be desired the harmony which was agreed on at Florence, and that consequently he would see to it that the name of the Roman pontiff was restored to the sacred diptychs. This is attested by Ducas in his Historia Byzantina: The emperor had already sent to Rome to request reinforcements with the additional purpose of strengthening the harmony achieved at Florence and of having the Pope's name proclaimed from the sacred diptychs during the liturgies of the great church." The Pope showed himself ready to give him as much aid as he could and continued at the same time to exhort him to promulgate the decree of the union which had been agreed on at the Council of Florence. He urged him to see to it that the name of the Roman pontiff "was proclaimed in the diptychs and that the whole Greek church prayed for him expressly and by name, as was the former practice of men who were pleasing to God, both patriarchs of Constantinople and emperors" (Raynaldus, Annales, 1451 A.D., no. 2).

17. This is all We want to say on the first part of the first Admonition which deals with the obligation of celebrants to pray for the pope in the sacrifice of the Mass. Nothing further is to be added except that even before this Admonition, Catholic Greek Oriental bishops were careful to decree this very measure in their synods. We Ourselves did not neglect the publication of such suitable decrees for Italian Greeks. In 1720, a provincial synod was held at Zamoscia on the order of Pope Clement XI, under the presidency of Hieronymus Grimaldus. He was then the archbishop of Edessa and nuncio of the Apostolic See in the kingdom of Poland; later, he was raised to the honor of the Cardinalate by Pope Clement XII. In the decrees of this synod, which were confirmed after proper investigation by Pope Benedict XIII, the following words are found under the heading de fide Catholica: "For the same reason" - that is, to remove all suspicion of schism - "and to show a sincere union of the members with their head, it has decided and commanded under penalties to be applied at the judgment of the Ordinary that wherever a Roman pontiff is to be commemorated, especially at the Offertory of the Mass, it should be made in clear and definite words which can signify none other than the universal Bishop of Rome."

In agreement with this view are the fathers of the Synod of Lebanon which occurred in 1736 under the presidency of Joseph Simonius Assemanus, a prelate of the Roman curia and an Apostolic envoy. In the decrees of this council too, under the heading de Symbolo Fidei, ejusque professione, no. 12, these words are found: "Let us not neglect to repeat the commemoration of the most holy Roman pontiff, both in Masses and in the divine services, before the name of the most reverend lord patriarch, as has hitherto been our custom." After the strictest investigation, We confirmed this council with Apostolic authority, as may be seen in Our constitution Singularis (Bullarium, vol. I, no. 31). Peter Arcudius in his work de Concordia Ecclesiae Occidentalis et Orientalis, bk. 2, chap. 39, offers an admonition for Latin bishops with Greeks living in their dioceses to zealously impel them to commemorate the Roman pontiff in the Mass, to banish the last shade of suspicion of any inclination to schism: "The Latin bishops should see to it that the Greek priests subject to them are in Catholic unity and recognize the Supreme Pastor, and according to the ancient custom solemnly pray for him" in the sacrifice of the Mass - the subject under discussion in this passage. In agreement with this most just admonition, the following provision was made in Our constitution issued for the Italian Greeks, Etsi Pastoralis (Bullarium, vol. 1, 57, sect. 9, no. 4): "Next a commemoration should be made of the Supreme Roman Pontiff and of the Local Ordinary in Masses and divine services."
and, in contrast to the unconsecrated bishop elect confirmed by the Vatican's fiat, no consecrated bishop is to be commemorated if he does not submitt to the Vatican (called 'schismatic') or teach the Vatican's dogmas (called 'heretical'):
Quote
First Admonition-Commemoration of Bishop and Patriarch

18. Now follows the second part of this first admonition which, as was mentioned above, obliges the Greek priest during Mass, after praying for the Roman pontiff, to pray for his own bishop and his patriarch if they are Catholic. For if either is or both are schismatic or heretic, a commemoration should not be made.

21. Turning now to the Greeks, We consider first the Italian Greeks. These are entirely subject to the jurisdiction of the Latin bishop in whose diocese they live, in accordance with constitution 74, Romanus Pontifex, of Our predecessor, Pope Pius IV. This is to be found in volume two of the Bullar. Rom. and We have discussed it at length in Our treatise De Synodo Dioecesana, bk. 2, chap. 12, of the most recent Roman edition. Therefore these Italian Greek priests, in offering the sacrifice of the Mass, are required to follow the Latin practice and commemorate the Roman Pontiff and the local bishop. They should never commemorate eastern bishops or patriarchs even if they are Catholic, since these possess no jurisdiction in Italy and the adjacent islands, as has been discussed in Our constitution Etsi Pastoralis (Bullarium, vol. 1, const. 57, sect. 9 no. 4).

Of course in the Dictatus of Pope St. Gregory VII (can. 10) we find the dictum: "That the name of the Pope alone be pronounced in the church." This Dictatus is included in the collections of the councils (Royal Parisian, vol. 26; Labbe, vol. 6, pt. 1). Still We are well aware that there is a vigorous debate among scholars as to whether this is an authentic work of the holy pontiff or rather a forgery. Indeed Fr. Mabillon in his treatise De Studiis Monasticis has ranked this among the more difficult questions which professors of Church history can engage in solving. But laying aside this problem also - as to whether the Dictatus Papae is an authentic work of St. Gregory VII - the real and pertinent meaning of the Canon quoted is not that in the Latin Church the name of the diocesan bishop be removed from the Canon of the Mass, but that the name of Oriental Patriarchs should not be included there.

The Patriarchs indeed professed their agreement with the condition, that the name of the Roman Pontiff should be replaced in the Liturgy and that prayers should be offered for him in all the churches of the east, if in turn the Pope would consent to their names being pronounced in the Canon of the Mass by Latin priests of the Roman Church and of the other churches in the Patriarchate of Rome. Lupus wisely notes: "Purposing to abandon his schism, Michael (Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople) tried to have his name inscribed on the Roman tablets and he promised to restore the name of the Pope to the tablets of all of his churches. But Leo (Pope Leo IX) would not consent: for the reciprocal pronouncement of the names of Patriarchs was practiced only among the equal sister sees of the eastern patriarchs, but never by the Roman see. For this see is not only sister but also mother and head of the eastern sees and so has never pronounced any other name than the bishops" (ad Concilia, pt. 4, p. 437, Brussels edition). He continues in this way on the following page: "The names of the eastern patriarchs have never been pronounced by the Roman church nor for that matter by any Latin church."
An outright contradiction of himself, let alone a lie.
Quote
22. The foregoing discussion relates to the Italian Greeks. But as regards the rest of the Greeks and Orientals, the admonition in the preface of the Euchologion, which We are now considering, by no means prevents them from commemorating their metropolitans and patriarchs during the Mass, but merely forbids this if they should be schismatic or heretic. It is beyond dispute that the commemoration of patriarchs in the prayers of the Mass is an ancient custom in the Greek church. Theodorus Balsamon in his de Patriarcharum juribus has written: "It is established that in every church of God, whether on the Euphrates or on the edge of the Ocean, the names of the patriarchs are mentioned together." Goarius cites this as the established practice that in the Greek liturgy the priest prays for all the bishops and for the metropolitan (in Notis ad Rituale Graecorum, p. 63). Meratus, after establishing the fact that We mentioned earlier, that in the Latin church a commemoration of the archbishop is not made in the Mass even during a vacancy in a suffragan church, adds that: "This however is not the practice of the Greeks and other Orientals. These name the patriarch and the metropolitan" (in notis ad Gavantum, vol. 1, p. 539, Roman edition).

This practice is not absolutely forbidden to them in the admonition in question, but only in the cases when the metropolitan or patriarch is schismatic or heretic. This is in accordance with rules which were established and accepted before the correction of the Euchologion was undertaken. When this practice was dealt with in the Congregation of the Holy Office in 1673, the following decree was published: "At the General Congregation of the Holy Office on June 7, 1673, the question was posed whether a priest in the town of Lebanon during Mass might name the patriarch of the Armenians, who is schismatic, with the purpose of praying for him. The petition for this concession was made with great urgency in order by this means to attract that people to a greater friendship for the Latins. The Sacred Congregation responded that it could not be done and should be utterly forbidden. In the same Congregation on June 20, 1674, there was read a letter of the nuncio at Florence written on April 10, 1674, sent to the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith and forwarded by this Congregation to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office. It was decided that a reply should be sent to the nuncio informing him that on the subject of prayer in the liturgy for the patriarch of the Armenians, the Sacred Congregation abided by its decrees published in 1673, that is, that it could not be done and should be utterly forbidden."

23. In harmony with this decision is another very similar decree of the Congregation on the corrected edition of the Coptic Missal made in 1732. Among other disputed questions the following was proposed: "Whether, and in what way, the words in which the priest commemorates the patriarch, bishop, etc. are to be corrected." This was the answer which was given: "A rubric should be placed at the beginning of the missal to advise and inform the priest on points relating to the celebration of Mass. Here should be placed a special rubric on the commemoration of the Roman pontiff as well as of the patriarch and bishop, provided that they are in union with the Roman Church. This rubric should be consulted in its own place." Moreover heretics and schismatics are subject to the censure of major excommunication by the law of Can. de Ligur. 23, quest. 5, and Can. Nulli, 5, dist. 19. But the sacred canons of the Church forbid public prayer for the excommunicated as can be seen in chap. A nobis, 2, and chap. Sacris on the sentence of excommunication. Though this does not forbid prayer for their conversion, still such prayer must not take the form of proclaiming their names in the solemn prayer during the sacrifice of the Mass. This fully accords with the ancient practice, as may be seen in Estius in 4. Sententiar., dist. 12, sec. 15. For that purpose it is sufficient to beseech to lead back the wanderers to the way of salvation and to the bosom of holy Mother Church, as is expounded by Sylvius, in 3. part. D. Thomae, vol. 4, quest. 83, art. 1, qu. 9.

Here is the teaching of St. Thomas himself in 4. Sent., dist. 18, quest. 2, art. 1, in answer to the first difficulty: "Prayer can be offered for the excommunicated, although this should be done apart from prayers which are offered for members of the Church." This does not necessarily involve a confusion of the Church's laws which exclude from the roster of its faithful followers the names of those who have cut themselves off from it. In forbidding public prayers to be offered for them, the Church definitely rules out commemorating them in the celebration of Mass. Very relevant is the view of Ven. Card. Bellarmine: "Someone will ask whether at the present time it is permissible to offer the sacrifice of the Mass for the conversion of heretics or the infidels. The reason for doubt is that the entire liturgy of the Latin church, as it is now performed, relates to the faithful, as is clear from the prayers of the offertory both before and during the canon. I answer that I consider it permissible, provided that no addition is made to the Mass, but the sacrifice is applied to the conversion of the infidels or heretics only by the intention of the priest. For this is the practice of pious and learned men, with whom we cannot disagree, and it is not forbidden by the Church" (Controversarium, vol. 3, bk. 6, de Missae, chap. 6).
contrast this with the commemoration of infidel rulers:
Quote
27. But among the Oriental peoples this practice of commemorating the king in the sacred liturgy is common, as may be seen in the Liturgies of the Armenians, Copts, Ethiopians and Syrians. But if it should be asked how it can be endured where it is certain that the kings for whom they pray and whom they commemorate in the liturgy are infidels, Ven. Card. Bellarmine would reply (as in fact he replied in the chapter quoted above) that it is by no means forbidden by the nature of the object, as theologians say, to pray during Mass even for infidels since the sacrifice of the Cross has been offered for all men. And of course St. Thomas teaches that although St. Augustine wrote in his work de origine Animae that the sacrifice is offered only for those who are members of Christ, his statement must be understood to include both those who are already members of Christ and those who are able to become such (in 4. Sentent., dist. 12, quest. 2, art. 2, quest. 2, to the fourth). Therefore, the Cardinal adds that the whole question should be assessed in terms of what the Church has forbidden: "It is certain from the nature of the object that if the Church has not prohibited it, it is permissible to offer prayers for those men (i.e., the infidels)." Although there is such a prohibition against the excommunicated and so against heretics and schismatics, there is none against infidels and these are not bound by excommunication. This is enough, he says, to allow commemoration of them during Mass and even the offering of the sacrifice for them in accordance with the evident tradition in this matter and with the apostolic constitution. "But someone may ask whether it is permissible if the king is an infidel as in Greece, where the Turk is ruler, and as in India, Japan and China where pagans rule, for priests there to offer prayers expressly for the king. I answer that I consider it permissible provided that the king is not excommunicated as are heretic kings, but is a pagan. For this tradition, this constitution, is apostolic, as I showed just above. To my knowledge there is no clear prohibition of this by the Church." A useful addition to the present discussion is the text of Tertullian: "We offer sacrifice for the health of the Emperor but we offer it to our God and his in the prayerful way commanded by God. For God the Creator of the whole world has no need of honor or of anyone's blood" (ad Scapulam, chap. 2).

That's ecclesial community, which is what we call Protestants. Non-churches. As a good Orthodox you can believe that about us. I'll never believe it.
I hate to break it to you, but facts don't care whether you believe them or not.

We have more than one patriarch of Antioch because we are universal in breadth as well as teachings. Not stuck on one or two cultures.
The Lands of the Patriarchate of Antioch now have fewer cultures then when you tried to impose Paulinus on it. How is it that you have more patriarchs now?
You have Italo-Greeks and Italo-Albanians and Ambrosian/Milenese: where are their metropolitans of Rome? Where are the Spanish, Irish, German, Polish, Austrian, Croatian.....Patriarchs of Rome?

You have multiple primates of Antioch (and elsewhere) because of multiple occasions of bait and switch.


Ah. Unity.
I bought your line once. Thing is, as great as the Byzantine Rite is, anybody who's spiritual will tell you God can't be limited to one culture.

Certainly not I.  Hence the problem of the Tridentine Latin Mass, as opposed to the Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory.
So I can no more renounce the Mass on the left than cut a hand off. It is true; it has grace; it is a part of me. (Telling me to turn my back on my own people is something many normal born Orthodox rightly find horrifying.)

anyone supernaturally born of the Orthodox baptismal font should be horrified at apostasy from Orthodoxy.
As for the Mass on the right, see above. Unfortunate, maybe even an abuse, but in spite of those people, a Mass. Not just because they're under the Pope, but again: every word in the text is true.
If it were, the WRO DL of St. Gregory wouldn't have needed correction.
You have been warned for 30 days for using improper titles for the Roman Catholic Pope.  "Supreme Pontiff" is not a proper way to address the Pope.  
« Last Edit: Today at 01:00:41 AM by serb1389 » Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #363 on: August 18, 2014, 03:25:05 PM »

You have bishops but still went under the Communists and the bishops eventually fell into line. Your point?

People have free will.

Either we're too loose or we're a dictatorship because of the evil Pope. Get your story straight!

The Donation of Mussolini.

Stalin et alia never claimed to be sovereigns (hence the frequent elections).  They just acted like one.

The Churches under the Communists never espoused atheism, as Communism teaches.  The Soviet "Living Church" was quite stillborn and dead.  Your point?

« Last Edit: August 18, 2014, 03:27:08 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #364 on: August 18, 2014, 03:42:30 PM »

Quote
Certainly not I.  Hence the problem of the Tridentine Latin Mass, as opposed to the Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory.

The first part sounds like Catholic liberals (down with dead white males; let's have a black Third World lesbian Mass); the second nonsensical. So Orthodoxy wants me to throw away my Mass, the real culture of Western Europe, much of Eastern Europe, Latin America, and much of North America, and adopt an artificial byzantinized version? No, thank you. We accept your culture. You reject ours, your only reason for being a separate church. The hate is palpable; I don't see how a Westerner in his right mind can fall for it.

Beautiful picture of Pius XII crowned on his sedia gestatoria. Evviva il Papa! The finery is the church's, not the man's. Just like a Byzantine Rite bishop in full vestments, crown and all.

The church is apolitical. We work with monarchies, dictatorships, and republics. "Fascist" is not a dirty word. It doesn't necessarily mean "Nazi." Your side has supported similar regimes: Codreanu and the Iron Guard in Romania during World War II, for example. (The Romanian archbishop in America, Valerian Trifa, was deported for being a war criminal. Stripped of his citizenship for lying his way into our country.) Making a deal with Mussolini (a PR stunt for him, making peace with the church for Italy stealing the Papal States during its creation) didn't rip the church apart, the goal of satraps, petty Balkan princes, tsars, and Comrade First Secretaries.

No, your churchmen just turned people in to the government, such as by violating the seal of confession. That was SO much better.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2014, 03:57:07 PM by The young fogey » Logged

Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,861



« Reply #365 on: August 18, 2014, 04:20:28 PM »

Beautiful picture of Pius XII crowned on his sedia gestatoria. Evviva il Papa! The finery is the church's, not the man's. Just like a Byzantine Rite bishop in full vestments, crown and all.

Yeah, I thought it was weird that he was criticizing that since Orthodoxy in general is way more over the top with that stuff. Each bishop dresses like a Byzantine Emperor, for God's sake.

Also, Isa bringing up conspiring with evil governments? Orthodoxy has about the worst track record on that humanly possible. Patriarchates for sale to the highest bidder are appointed by the sultan, the Russian Patriarchate being abolished by the Czars and replaced by the Anglican system, etc. Orthodoxy is lost without government bosses telling them what to do, it seems.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,242


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #366 on: August 18, 2014, 04:34:47 PM »

Beautiful picture of Pius XII crowned on his sedia gestatoria. Evviva il Papa! The finery is the church's, not the man's. Just like a Byzantine Rite bishop in full vestments, crown and all.

Yeah, I thought it was weird that he was criticizing that since Orthodoxy in general is way more over the top with that stuff. Each bishop dresses like a Byzantine Emperor, for God's sake.

Also, Isa bringing up conspiring with evil governments? Orthodoxy has about the worst track record on that humanly possible. Patriarchates for sale to the highest bidder are appointed by the sultan, the Russian Patriarchate being abolished by the Czars and replaced by the Anglican system, etc. Orthodoxy is lost without government bosses telling them what to do, it seems.

I have to say that parsing the hot air excesses, Fogey and Isa have made interesting points today..but the grandstanding is too much. It's like watching David Ortiz stand and admire a long fly ball five times in one st bat. When he hits a home run, you've left for the bathroom with your kids....
Logged
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #367 on: August 18, 2014, 04:56:56 PM »

Orthodoxy is lost without government bosses telling them what to do, it seems.

Bingo.
Logged

ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 160



« Reply #368 on: August 18, 2014, 05:08:54 PM »



The person incensing directly behind the priest in this picture is me.

At that parish (my former home and where I converted to Roman Catholicism and then served as a Catechist for RCIA), there is a Mass every Sunday to suit every mood: things like that pictured, Life Teen, a Mass with children's church, a quiet Mass with no singing...
« Last Edit: August 18, 2014, 05:11:13 PM by ErmyCath » Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #369 on: August 18, 2014, 05:15:39 PM »



The person incensing directly behind the priest in this picture is me.

A thurifer in our midst. Well done, sir.

I don't mind the "Romper Room" Mass facing the people as long as it's the exception. I only see things like that when I go to the local parish church when I'm on vacation at the New Jersey shore. Every word in the text of the new Mass is true.

So be Greek Catholic if that rite's what God is calling you to, but please don't leave the church.

I think when Peter the Great abolished the Russian patriarchate, he based his new system on the Lutheran one in Germany rather than the Church of England. You had the bishops, then the Holy Synod, then on top, a layman with a German job title, Oberprokurator. Sort of like how the Secretary of Defense, a civilian, outranks all the generals. I guess you could say it was like the King and Parliament controlling the Church of England.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2014, 05:19:26 PM by The young fogey » Logged

Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Online Online

Faith: Miaphysite Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,256



« Reply #370 on: August 18, 2014, 05:16:07 PM »

First, next to no Catholics have done clown Masses for 40 years.

I think Circus Masses are close enough.
Logged
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #371 on: August 18, 2014, 05:22:37 PM »

First, next to no Catholics have done clown Masses for 40 years.

I think Circus Masses are close enough.

Oh, brother. Don't blame Rome. This breaks a bunch of rules.

Church liberals learned early on that clowns scare a lot of people.

Can't go to church; clown will eat me.
Logged

ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 160



« Reply #372 on: August 18, 2014, 05:25:12 PM »



The person incensing directly behind the priest in this picture is me.

A thurifer in our midst. Well done, sir.

. . .

So be Greek Catholic if that rite's what God is calling you to, but please don't leave the church.

. . .

Thank you. I believe this photo was for Annunciation. You can see the veiled statues, but the white vestments.

Honestly, I am much more fond of the Roman Rite (note that I do not consider the Novus Ordo as legitimately part of the Roman Rite) than the Byzantine Rite. It is not the Liturgy that pulls me away from Rome, although that is partly where I started to notice inconsistencies. For me to leave Rome is a purely theological decision fueled by historical and dogmatic study.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2014, 05:26:30 PM by ErmyCath » Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #373 on: August 18, 2014, 05:32:07 PM »



The person incensing directly behind the priest in this picture is me.

A thurifer in our midst. Well done, sir.

. . .

So be Greek Catholic if that rite's what God is calling you to, but please don't leave the church.

. . .

Thank you. I believe this photo was for Annunciation. You can see the veiled statues, but the white vestments.

Honestly, I am much more fond of the Roman Rite (note that I do not consider the Novus Ordo as legitimately part of the Roman Rite) than the Byzantine Rite. It is not the Liturgy that pulls me away from Rome, although that is partly where I started to notice inconsistencies. For me to leave Rome is a purely theological decision fueled by historical and dogmatic study.

Reasons not to do it:

The Anglicans made the same claim: "Strip away the accretions of the medieval papacy and have pure doctrine based on scripture, as we believe the church fathers believed." They came up with plenty of pretty little arguments too. Look where it got them.

If you prefer Roman Rite to Byzantine Rite, then a thousand times over, you do NOT want to become Orthodox. HOSTILE territory.
Logged

ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 160



« Reply #374 on: August 18, 2014, 05:38:23 PM »



The person incensing directly behind the priest in this picture is me.

A thurifer in our midst. Well done, sir.

. . .

So be Greek Catholic if that rite's what God is calling you to, but please don't leave the church.

. . .

Thank you. I believe this photo was for Annunciation. You can see the veiled statues, but the white vestments.

Honestly, I am much more fond of the Roman Rite (note that I do not consider the Novus Ordo as legitimately part of the Roman Rite) than the Byzantine Rite. It is not the Liturgy that pulls me away from Rome, although that is partly where I started to notice inconsistencies. For me to leave Rome is a purely theological decision fueled by historical and dogmatic study.

Reasons not to do it:

The Anglicans made the same claim: "Strip away the accretions of the medieval papacy and have pure doctrine based on scripture, as we believe the church fathers believed." They came up with plenty of pretty little arguments too. Look where it got them.

If you prefer Roman Rite to Byzantine Rite, then a thousand times over, you do NOT want to become Orthodox. HOSTILE territory.

I appreciate your thoughts (seriously, I'm not being flippant). However, knowing what I now know, especially about the historical developments leading to the papacy and the doctrinal inconsistencies over the centuries, I cannot remain Roman Catholic. Boy, have I tried to forget, but I cannot.

I do love a Solemn High Mass, though.

I've been inquiring at a Greek Orthodox Church for nearly 2 years now. No one is hostile to me. It was much more hostile being a Traditional Catholic in the dioceses in which I've lived -- being routinely called a heretic and a schismatic by priests is painful.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2014, 05:40:37 PM by ErmyCath » Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,047



« Reply #375 on: August 18, 2014, 05:39:00 PM »



The person incensing directly behind the priest in this picture is me.

A thurifer in our midst. Well done, sir.

. . .

So be Greek Catholic if that rite's what God is calling you to, but please don't leave the church.

. . .

Thank you. I believe this photo was for Annunciation. You can see the veiled statues, but the white vestments.

Honestly, I am much more fond of the Roman Rite (note that I do not consider the Novus Ordo as legitimately part of the Roman Rite) than the Byzantine Rite. It is not the Liturgy that pulls me away from Rome, although that is partly where I started to notice inconsistencies. For me to leave Rome is a purely theological decision fueled by historical and dogmatic study.

Reasons not to do it:

The Anglicans made the same claim: "Strip away the accretions of the medieval papacy and have pure doctrine based on scripture, as we believe the church fathers believed." They came up with plenty of pretty little arguments too. Look where it got them.

If you prefer Roman Rite to Byzantine Rite, then a thousand times over, you do NOT want to become Orthodox. HOSTILE territory.

It's not liturgy or Church corruption that demonstrates the truth of a claim. Just so both you and Isa are aware.
Logged

"Rationalists are admirable beings, rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of stock and stone, believing it to be God." (Mahatma Gandhi)
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #376 on: August 18, 2014, 05:44:38 PM »



The person incensing directly behind the priest in this picture is me.

A thurifer in our midst. Well done, sir.

. . .

So be Greek Catholic if that rite's what God is calling you to, but please don't leave the church.

. . .

Thank you. I believe this photo was for Annunciation. You can see the veiled statues, but the white vestments.

Honestly, I am much more fond of the Roman Rite (note that I do not consider the Novus Ordo as legitimately part of the Roman Rite) than the Byzantine Rite. It is not the Liturgy that pulls me away from Rome, although that is partly where I started to notice inconsistencies. For me to leave Rome is a purely theological decision fueled by historical and dogmatic study.

Reasons not to do it:

The Anglicans made the same claim: "Strip away the accretions of the medieval papacy and have pure doctrine based on scripture, as we believe the church fathers believed." They came up with plenty of pretty little arguments too. Look where it got them.

If you prefer Roman Rite to Byzantine Rite, then a thousand times over, you do NOT want to become Orthodox. HOSTILE territory.

It's not liturgy or Church corruption that demonstrates the truth of a claim. Just so both you and Isa are aware.

Indeed. Although liturgy contains both doctrine and grace. The new Mass is a chop job of the Roman Rite but again, every word in the English text is true.

It's about the body of beliefs we share: Trinity, hypostatic union, Mother of God, bishops, images (allowed but optional - requiring them is a cultural thing), the Mass/Real Presence.

Most of the East is too blinded by the cultural differences to see that. Exactly what the sultans, petty princes, tsars, and Comrade First Secretaries wanted: divide the church to get more power.
Logged

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

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #377 on: August 18, 2014, 05:50:51 PM »

I do love a Solemn High Mass, though.

We include the Orthodox. We recognize that they have bishops and the Mass. We have the unlatinized form of the Byzantine Rite at some Greek Catholic churches. They don't include us. They exist as a separate church to hate the West.

I remember the American Catholic Church in the '80s when what you describe was worse.

If you become Orthodox, you would be in communion with people in good standing in that church who believe that Solemn High Mass is a graceless fraud.

Can you really say that?
Logged

Raylight
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian.
Posts: 1,614


Lord Have Mercy on the victims of 9/11.


« Reply #378 on: August 18, 2014, 05:54:34 PM »

Anyone who leaves the Catholic Church just because he/she doesn't like the Mass, it really shows a very superficial type of thinking. It is exactly like when a husband leaves his wife just because she gained some weight. or a wife leaves her husband because he got some little Buddha belly.  Seriously!!

I don't deny that the mass is very important, it is at the core of the Church, because during the mass, we celebrate the Eucharist where Christ is present. But if you are a Catholic who likes the Latin-Mass, by all means go to a Latin Mass, day after day more and more parishes are celebrating the Latin Mass, thanks to Pope Benedict xvi. However, if you want to go to English-Mass, go for it. And if you like the Byzantine type of Mass, you have Eastern Catholic Churches to go to. and in all of these masses, Christ is there, blood and body in the Eucharist.


« Last Edit: August 18, 2014, 05:58:37 PM by Raylight » Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Online Online

Faith: Miaphysite Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,256



« Reply #379 on: August 18, 2014, 06:00:37 PM »

Herp derp culture, anti-West/anti-Rome, Orthodox r mean!

Gotta love those daily amateur sociology/psychology monologues.
Logged
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #380 on: August 18, 2014, 06:04:40 PM »

Anyone who leaves the Catholic Church just because he/she doesn't like the Mass, it really shows a very superficial type of thinking. It is exactly like when a husband leaves his wife just because she gained some weight. or a wife leaves her husband because he got some little Buddha belly.  Seriously!!

I don't deny that the mass is very important, it is at the core of the Church, because during the mass, we celebrate the Eucharist where Christ is present. But if you are a Catholic who likes the Latin-Mass, by all means go to a Latin Mass, day after day more and more parishes are celebrating the Latin Mass, thanks to Pope Benedict xvi. However, if you want to go to English-Mass, go for it. And if you like the Byzantine type of Mass, you have Eastern Catholic Churches to go to. and in all of these masses, Christ is there, blood and body in the Eucharist.

Pretty much, my friend. You may be new to all this but you understand this part.

When locally the abuses are so bad it's no longer a Mass, then you have a problem. Then Catholics have to resort to ad-hoc solutions outside the official church but not schismatic in principle; still spiritually risky. The old ceremonial is better, but not liking the ceremonial is not a reason to leave the church for a cult with the church's trappings, be they the old ceremonial, etc.

Quote
Herp derp culture, anti-West/anti-Rome, Orthodox r mean!

I've seen the Orthodox show live and up close. That's pretty much it.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #381 on: August 18, 2014, 06:11:58 PM »

Strictly speaking, in Orthodoxy, the Anglicans "went apostate" when the Orthodox say the Catholic Church did, whenever that was (Sometime in the Middle Ages? When the Russians repudiated Florence?), since there were no Anglicans then; before the mid-1500s, England was Catholic. So Anglicanism was just a move farther away from the Orthodox by a group already considered "apostate," with a line of succession but iffy grace (and in any event, not grace like Orthodox sacraments have grace). Even though the Anglicans' doctrine claims they were returning to the thought and practice of the church fathers, unspoiled by the papacy: just like the Orthodox.

So the Orthodox answer to "Is their priesthood valid, and are the congregations being served the Eucharist?" is probably not.

Some ex-Episcopalians do become Orthodox as parishes, just as some become Catholic.

Orthodoxy is very anti-Western

Quote
The West was fully Orthodox for a thousand years, and her venerable liturgy is far older than any of her heresies. +Saint John (Maximovitch)
http://www.antiochian.org/node/22416
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Western_Rite_Service_Books
http://www.antiochian.org/western-rite
Yeah, that's pretty rabidly anti-Western.
Not to mention this stuff

- its reason to exist apart from Catholicism is to hate the West.
Orthodoxy exists as Catholicism. In the East

in the West

north

south

(The sultans, tsars, Balkan princes, and Communists found it in their best interests to rip the church apart, to have state churches they could control. Hence Orthodoxy.)

Met. Sheptytskyi did sent a donation through his successor coadjucator Bp. Slipyi to Stalin and the Red Army, and Stalin recognized Met. Sheptytskyi (whereas the Vatican at the time did not) as primate of all the "Greek Catholics" in the Soviet Union.  The Soviets, not the UGCC, broke off that relationship.
Association of Catholic Clergy Pacem inTerris.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Catholic_Clergy_Pacem_in_Terris
Quote
Mor Ephrem
Quote
Quote from: The young fogey on August 15, 2014, 08:41:30 PM
The Orthodox are just minions of the state, and if the state isn't Orthodox, it is a minion of whoever is in charge, with a big dose of ethnocentrism mixed in. Not attractive in the modern world, but a good explanation why so many Orthodox have such a bad attitude about the Catholic Church and the Pope, reminders that the church isn't an ethnic club but is the company of the saints from all races and groups on earth.

How soon we forget.  Invoked as recently as 1903.[/size]
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,59966.msg1173360.html#msg1173360
Quote
Jus Exclusivæ (Latin for "right of exclusion"; sometimes called the papal veto) was the right claimed by several Catholic monarchs of Europe to veto a candidate for the papacy. At times the right was claimed by the French monarch, the Spanish monarch, the Holy Roman Emperor, and the Emperor of Austria.
Josephism (under "Eccelsiastical policy")
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08508b.htm
I understand that the Spanish and Portuguese Empires found the Inquisition in their best interests, as Casimir Vasa did to rip the Church apart to have a state church he could control. He didn't do so well with the Orthodox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmelnytsky_Uprising
The Orthodox taught the sultan a lesson as well

as they did the Tsar False Dmitry
Quote
In foreign policies, Dmitriy sought for an alliance with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and with the Roman Pontiff. He planned a war against the Ottoman Empire and had ordered the mass production of firearms. In his correspondence, he referred to himself as the "Emperor of Russia," a century before Tsar Peter I, though this title was not recognized at the time.

On 8 May 1606, Dmitriy married Marina Mniszech in Moscow. It was the usual practice that when a Russian Tsar married a woman of another faith, she would convert to Eastern Orthodox Christianity. It was rumored that Dmitriy had obtained the support of Polish King Sigismund III Vasa and Pope Paul V by promising to reunite the Russian Orthodox Church and the Holy See. It was allegedly for this reason that Tsarina Marina did not convert to the Orthodox faith.

This angered the Russian Orthodox Church, the boyars, and the population alike and increased the support of his enemies. The boyars, headed by Prince Vasily Shuisky, began to plot against him, accusing him of spreading Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, and sodomy. They gained popular support, especially as Dmitriy was guarded by Western European mercenaries. According to Russian chronicler Avraamy Palitsyn, Dmitriy further enraged many Muscovites by permitting his Catholic and Protestant soldiers, whom the Russian Church regarded as heretics, to pray inside of Orthodox churches...In the morning of 17 May 1606, ten days after his marriage to Tsarina Marina, a massive number of boyars and commoners stormed the Kremlin. Tsar Dmitriy tried to flee through a window but broke his leg in the fall. One of the plotters shot him dead on the spot. The body was put on display and then cremated, the ashes reportedly shot from a cannon towards Poland...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Dmitriy_I
The Habsbugs found the Serbian Orthodox loyal servants, but God's first, and hence they had to recognize the Serbian Patriarchate within their Empire. The Balkan princes did find a state church they could control.

So many/most Orthodox look down on the Antiochians' Orthodox Book of Common Prayer too. Whether by design or not, Western Rite Orthodoxy is byzantinizing much like Byzantine Catholicism self-latinized (Rome didn't tell them to).

The latest video I've seen of them reminds me of a Roman Rite priest with bi-ritual faculties stumbling through the Byzantine Rite. Byzantine-trained priests shaking a little Greek or Russian censer the Byzantine way, crossing oneself right to left, icons everywhere, and standing Communion. Many Western Rite convert parishes do switch.
Back to the top: You of course, for obvious reason, offer the date most Orthodox give for the apostasy of Orthodox England-the Norman Conquest, and the imposition of ultramontanism, the IC and the filioque that entailed.  Constantinople at the time and for some time thereafter still recruit Anglo-Saxons for the Varangian Guard (who had their own chapels and Churches), and the Rus' princes had been intermarrying with the Anglo-Saxon monarchy until it was snuffed out.  Anselm, brought in by the Normans, of course writing anti-Orthodox tracts as Archbishop of Canterbury.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2014, 06:40:01 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #382 on: August 18, 2014, 06:27:32 PM »

I do love a Solemn High Mass, though.

We include the Orthodox. We recognize that they have bishops and the Mass. We have the unlatinized form of the Byzantine Rite at some Greek Catholic churches. They don't include us. They exist as a separate church to hate the West.
quite an interesting mix of paranoia and projection spewing out of an identity crisis you got going on there.
I remember the American Catholic Church in the '80s when what you describe was worse.

If you become Orthodox, you would be in communion with people in good standing in that church who believe that Solemn High Mass is a graceless fraud.

Can you really say that?
rather interesting that you exist in your own little petite église to wonder about what statements-ipso facto unoffical-the Orthodox make on heterodox ecclesiastical communities.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #383 on: August 18, 2014, 06:38:10 PM »

Indeed. Although liturgy contains both doctrine and grace. The new Mass is a chop job of the Roman Rite but again, every word in the English text is true.

It's about the body of beliefs we share: Trinity, hypostatic union, Mother of God, bishops, images (allowed but optional - requiring them is a cultural thing)
saying that they are optional is a dogmatic thing, and you are coming up wanting.
the Mass/Real Presence.

Most of the East is too blinded by the cultural differences to see that. Exactly what the sultans, petty princes, tsars, and Comrade First Secretaries wanted: divide the church to get more power.
And what did Casimir Vasa want, especially when it cost his son the Russian Throne?

The Donation of Mussollni, an interesting trinity


Are the Papal States a ecclesiastical community exercising total state power, or a state power exercising total control of an ecclesiastical community?
« Last Edit: August 18, 2014, 06:40:36 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #384 on: August 18, 2014, 07:22:39 PM »



The person incensing directly behind the priest in this picture is me.

A thurifer in our midst. Well done, sir.

I don't mind the "Romper Room" Mass facing the people as long as it's the exception. I only see things like that when I go to the local parish church when I'm on vacation at the New Jersey shore. Every word in the text of the new Mass is true.

So be Greek Catholic if that rite's what God is calling you to, but please don't leave the church.
He's inquiring to enter the Church, and Greek Catholic to judge from his jurisdiction status "(inquiring with the GOA)"

I think when Peter the Great abolished the Russian patriarchate, he based his new system on the Lutheran one in Germany rather than the Church of England. You had the bishops, then the Holy Synod, then on top, a layman with a German job title, Oberprokurator. Sort of like how the Secretary of Defense, a civilian, outranks all the generals. I guess you could say it was like the King and Parliament controlling the Church of England.
Not quite:for one thing, the Act of Supremacy recognized no foreign authority in the Anglican Church.  Czar Peter had to get approval from the Patriarchs outside his jurisdiction.

Horrendous as the era of the Most Holy Governing Synod, it pales in comparison to the pornocracy papacy, coming as it did after the Byzantine papacy
Quote
The Byzantine Papacy was a period of Byzantine domination of the papacy from 537 to 752, when popes required the approval of the Byzantine Emperor for episcopal consecration, and many popes were chosen from the apocrisiarii (liaisons from the pope to the emperor) or the inhabitants of Byzantine Greece, Byzantine Syria, or Byzantine Sicily. Justinian I conquered the Italian peninsula in the Gothic War (535–554) and appointed the next three popes, a practice that would be continued by his successors and later be delegated to the Exarchate of Ravenna.

With the exception of Pope Martin I, no pope during this period questioned the authority of the Byzantine monarch to confirm the election of the bishop of Rome before consecration could occur; however, theological conflicts were common between pope and emperor in the areas such as monotheletism and iconoclasm...

Saeculum obscurum (Latin: the Dark Age) is a name given to a period in the history of the Papacy during the first half of the 10th century, beginning with the installation of Pope Sergius III in 904 and lasting for sixty years until the death of Pope John XII in 964. During this period, the Popes were influenced strongly by a powerful and corrupt aristocratic family, the Theophylacti, and their relatives...The Theophylacti family originated from Theophylactus. They held positions of increased importance in the Roman nobility such as Judex, vestararius, gloriosissimus dux, consul and senator, and magister militum. Theophylact's wife Theodora and daughter Marozia held a great influence over the papal selection and religious affairs in Rome through conspiracies, affairs, and marriages.

Marozia became the concubine of Pope Sergius III when she was 15 and later took other lovers and husbands. She ensured that her son John was seated as Pope John XI according to Antapodosis sive Res per Europam gestae (958–62), by Liutprand of Cremona (c. 920–72). Liutprand affirms that Marozia arranged the murder of her former lover Pope John X (who had originally been nominated for office by Theodora) through her then husband Guy of Tuscany possibly to secure the elevation of her current favourite as Pope Leo VI.[6] There is no record substantiating that Pope John X had definitely died before Leo VI was elected since John X was already imprisoned by Marozia and was out of public view.

Theodora and Marozia undoubtedly held great sway over the Popes during this time.[citation needed] In particular, as political rulers of Rome they had effective control over the election of new Popes. Much that is alleged about the saeculum obscurum comes from the histories of Liutprand, bishop of Cremona. Liutprand took part in the Assembly of Bishops which deposed Pope John XII and was a political enemy of the Roman aristocracy and its control over Papal elections...The Crescentii clan (in modern Italian Crescenzi) — if they were an extended family — essentially ruled Rome and controlled the Papacy from the middle of the 10th century until the nearly simultaneous deaths of their puppet pope Sergius IV and the patricius of the clan in 1012....The clan's triumph was in the later 10th century. They produced one pope from among their number— John XIII— and controlled most of the others, whom the leaders of the Crescentii installed as puppet popes. They held the secular offices such as praefectus by which Rome was technically still governed, and exacted large contributions and donations from the Papal treasury, in a thinly disguised extortion. From this power base within the city, they were able to influence even those popes who had not been their direct candidates......The Crescentii had another formidable enemy, whose power did not always extend to Rome, in the German kings and emperors of the Ottonian Saxon dynasty, notably Otto the Great and Henry II. Emperor Otto's intervention in Italian affairs in 961 was not in Crescentii interests. In February 962, the pope and the emperor ratified the Diploma Ottonianum, in which the emperor became the guarantor of the independence of the papal states....The forces of John XII, not yet 26 years of age, had been defeated in the war against Pandolfo Testa di Ferro of Capua, and at the same time many strongholds in the Papal States were occupied by Berengar of Ivrea, effectively if not completely legally King of Italy, and his son Adalbert. In this dilemma the pope had recourse to Otto who reappeared in Italy at the head of a powerful army, as he had in the previous decade, now ostensibly as a papal champion. Berengar, however, did not risk an encounter, but retired to his fortified castles.

Thus, without conclusive military encounters, on January 31, 962, Otto reached Rome. He took an oath to recognize John as pope and ruler of Rome; to issue no decrees without the pope's consent; and, in case he should deliver the command in Italy to any one else, to exact from such person an oath to defend to the utmost of his ability the pope and the Patrimony of Peter. The pope for his part swore to keep faith with Otto and to conclude no alliance with Berengar and Adalbert.

Consequently, on February 2 Otto was solemnly crowned Holy Roman Emperor by the pope. Ten days later at a Roman synod, John, at Otto's desire, founded the Archbishopric of Magdeburg and the Bishopric of Merseburg, bestowed the pallium on the Archbishop of Salzburg and Archbishop of Trier, and confirmed the appointment of Rother as Bishop of Verona. The next day, the emperor issued a decree, the famous Diploma Ottonianum, in which he confirmed the Roman Church in its possessions, particularly those granted by the Donation of Pepin and by Charlemagne, and provided at the same time that in future the popes should be elected in canonical form, though their consecration was to take place only after the necessary pledges had been given to the emperor or his ambassadors. In essence, the Emperor was to be the guarantor of papal independence, but to retain the right to confirm papal elections. Historians debate, in terms of power and prestige, whether the Diploma Ottonianum was a prestigious advantage for the papacy or a political triumph for the emperor.

On 14 February the emperor marched out of Rome with his army to resume the war against Berengar and Adalbert. The pope now quickly changed his mind, while Otto on his part pressed his imperial authority to excessive limits, and the brief alliance dissolved in wrangling. John sent envoys to the Magyars and the Byzantine Empire to form a league against Otto, who returned to Rome in November 963, and convened a synod of bishops that deposed John and crowned Pope Leo VIII, a layman, as pope.....After Sergius IV's death (1012), the Crescentii simply installed their candidate, Gregory, in the Lateran, without the assent of the cardinals. A struggle flared between the Crescentii and the rival Tusculani. The failure of their bold attempt and the pontificate of the Tusculan pope Benedict VIII, whose powerful protector was the King of the Germans, Henry II, whom he crowned Emperor in Rome in 1014 [and who demanded the pope of Old Rome insert the filioque into the Creed], forced the Crescentii out of Rome, retreating to the fortified strongholds. ...After several Crescentii family Popes up to 1012, the Theophylacti still occasionally nominated sons as Popes:...Pope Benedict IX went so far as to sell the Papacy to his religious Godfather, Pope Gregory VI (1045-46). He then changed his mind, seized the Lateran Palace and became Pope for the third time in 1047-48...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Papacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornocracy#10th-century_Popes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescentii
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diploma_Ottonianum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #385 on: August 18, 2014, 07:26:43 PM »

Anyone who leaves the Catholic Church just because he/she doesn't like the Mass, it really shows a very superficial type of thinking. It is exactly like when a husband leaves his wife just because she gained some weight. or a wife leaves her husband because he got some little Buddha belly.  Seriously!!
no, its like a spouse getting drunk and shaming themselves and their spouse, and then telling the spouse that they have to become a lush too.
Logged

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

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #386 on: August 18, 2014, 07:33:59 PM »

Somebody told me you're a teacher. I feel so sorry for that class.

Quote
The West was fully Orthodox for a thousand years, and her venerable liturgy is far older than any of her heresies. +Saint John (Maximovitch)

That gentleman's only legacies are a small counterfeit Catholic church in France not only out of communion with us but with you, and the cult of Seraphim (Rose). No, thanks.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2014, 07:37:17 PM by The young fogey » Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #387 on: August 18, 2014, 07:50:19 PM »

First, next to no Catholics have done clown Masses for 40 years.

I think Circus Masses are close enough.

Oh, brother. Don't blame Rome. This breaks a bunch of rules.

Church liberals learned early on that clowns scare a lot of people.

Can't go to church; clown will eat me.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,964


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #388 on: August 18, 2014, 07:53:19 PM »

Enough of this! This thread is locked until username! has a chance to review it.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.198 seconds with 57 queries.