OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 24, 2014, 08:55:37 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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Second Vatican Council and it's Outcome  (Read 4343 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« on: August 07, 2005, 04:38:23 PM »

Hey everyone. We all know of the 2nd Vat. council which changed everything in the Roman Church about 4 decades ago. I wanted to know what were people's reactions to this? (specifically Catholics). I was told that ethnic orthodox churches like the GOC refused to do services in English because they were horrified at the changes made by Vat II.

Were people really shocked or really happy about this change? I mean, didn't some Catholics kind of find it weird when all of a sudden one sunday the priest is facing you and there's no more chanting or latin? And wasn't there any immediate opposition to such sudden changes?

And why did that Pope change the vestments of priests and nuns? When I was in high school last year, our chaplain was Sister Ursula and so when I was looking to see her, I was shocked to see that she wore navy pants, a flowery short-sleeved top, and ear rings. I asked her like 3 times if she was really a nun and she affirmed to me that she was. I only really beleived her when during Mass, she wore her tiny altar veil which barely touched her shoulders.

To me its like the Pope is taking out the trash but inside the garbage bag, its filled with the treasures of the church...all for what-modernization.

The church across my school is so plain now. Before it would have had statues and icons and tall candles. Now there is only an altar and a huge crucifix with a small candle on the altar. No wonder some Catholics are fed up.
Logged
SeanMc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


« Reply #1 on: August 07, 2005, 05:55:36 PM »

The main problem with Vatican 2 is that it is all fuzzy and ambiguous.

Modernists used the fuzzy and ambigous parts to change things and then took it even farther by making stuff up.

Like I read a Canadian Catholic missal once (you know, the magazine kind) and it went something like this: "Everyone knows Vatican 2 ordered all the services to be done in the vernacular." When in reality, Vatican II allowed vernacular with the larger parts in Latin, while still maintaining Latin as the primary liturgical language of the Church.

Logged
BrotherAidan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,568

OC.net


« Reply #2 on: August 08, 2005, 01:51:52 PM »

I have a very good friend who goes to the Latin mass church (not a Fe Febvre or Mel Gibson church, it's still RC), but his wife is in the final two months of preganancy and it's been record hot and humid here and the bldg. is not air conditioned so they are going to the neighborhood parish RC "new order" church and heÂÂ  hit the nail on the head when he described the priest's sermon as his "three sentence homily." In it the priest actually referred to the immaculate conception as the immaculate RECEPTION (yes it was a church here in Pittsburgh and that is what Franco Harris's catch in 1972 vs. the Raiders is referred to) - he wasn't joking - it was a "freudian slip!" To make matters worse, he wasn't referring to the Blessed Virgin's conception but to Christ's (so he should have been referring to the Virgin Birth, NOT the immaculate conception).

Any way I had had occassion to attend a Catholic mass recently and our conversation came up because I mentioned to him that my sister's Presbyterian church service is more dignified and has more "liturgy" than a new order RC mass does. He agrees and thjinks the RC church in the US is unravelling fast.

All this is simply to point out the protestantizing of the mass post-Vatican II.

So in 40 years 1900 years of tradition was erased.

« Last Edit: August 08, 2005, 01:54:34 PM by BrotherAidan » Logged
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #3 on: August 08, 2005, 03:20:21 PM »

I've been to Catholic Mass in Hawaii, New York, Virginia and Florida in the past 3 years. All of the Churches used the proper liturgical rubrics. The homilies varied from priest in their quality some minimal some great. Most of the time the congregations have been involved in the Mass and properly reverent with the usual exception of a few who obviously wished they were doing something else.
I don't see the abuses you have mentioned and I assume that they are few. I certainly don't see the Church unraveling...
Logged

Peace
BrotherAidan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,568

OC.net


« Reply #4 on: August 08, 2005, 05:07:21 PM »

Sorry, I'm just reporting what my RC friend thinks is a trend.

But I will stick with thinking the Presbyterian service is more dignified than the "low" mass I witnessed.
Logged
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #5 on: August 09, 2005, 03:46:30 PM »

My outcome is that I am now Orthodox Catholic after some 50+ years in the RCC.

JoeS  Cool
Logged
Armando
Dead among the living
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 187

I gave up dreaming a long time ago...


« Reply #6 on: August 13, 2005, 07:55:51 AM »

 As a former-Greek Orthodox Christian and current Roman Catholic I realise the importance of
an Oecumenical Council (such as the 2nd Vatican Council) and feel happy about it. I love the Novus Ordo Mass.
I consider myself conservative on matters of faith, doctrine and morals but not narrow-minded. These two are not the same.
The Greek Orthodox are narrow minded because they believe that a Mass in Modern Greek or English would be like betraying their tradition. I hear all the time about the Statues being heretic and the azymes to be against the Church tradition (the Early Church) and still I find out that there are Western-rite Orthodox churches. I asked a Greek Orthodox priest about Catholic confession and he told me it was the same thing as speaking to a psychologist... No sins were forgiven! (which is like saying Catholics have no apostolic succesion). I hear stuff like: "You believe Pope is God, right?" and "You don't believe in the Holy Ghost...". I even heard that the Orthodox never attended the Council of Florence (we all remember what happened there, now don't we? Grin).
I read somewhere that the Orthodox Church seems to us Catholics, chaotic because we don't understand that believing in the same thing without having a spiritual leader is possible... Still, from 20 Orthodox priests I've asked, 5 agree that the Novus Ordo mass is valid, 5 don't believe in stigmata, 3 agree that the Holy Light is not a miracle but a trick, 2 believe the Pope is the Antichrist and 3 say that the Holy See is vacant since 1054 and awaits for a Greek Orthodox Bishop to take over Sicely and Rome and Nazi stuff like that.
I mean, God! Is this unity? Everyone says whatever he thinks is right and whatever he believes.

That's all... No offence, right?

P.S. Personally I love the "ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM" of the Vatican II Oecumenical Council.

P.S. 2ÂÂ  Still I don't know why the Orthodox don't accept the Council of Constantinople which condemned Photius.

P.S. 3ÂÂ  All I know is that in our family is an Orthodox Archbishop, two priests and a nun (All Greek Orthodox) and I am RC.  Cool
« Last Edit: August 13, 2005, 07:57:56 AM by Armando » Logged

Ten years have passed, the girl I loved
is now a woman, but I am still a child...
-Sad-ending fairytale, Miltos Paschalidis
jlerms
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 826


O sweet Jesus, cleanse my soul.


« Reply #7 on: August 13, 2005, 10:59:00 AM »

I grew up in the RC and was shocked by the changes of Vat. II.  Even though I was a toddler when Vat. II occured,  my parish did not institute any changes in the mass until many years later.  Apparantly, this was common because it was difficult for many priests and parishoners to accept the change.  I remember thinking...what is going on here??  The mass seemed to me to be getting "informal" and less reverent.  Mind you, I was still a kid, but to me if "felt" wrong.   My sister is still a devout RCatholic and I recently visited her church (my spiritual father said I could go one time out of love for her).  I was very saddened by the experience.  Her church was devoid of icons.  It  is a very modern building whose interior was so sterile looking.  I realize that the church is the faithful (and not the building itself) however I feel that there should be more reminders of Jesus Christ,  the virgin Mary, and all the saints.
   just my opinion,   Juliana
Logged
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #8 on: August 13, 2005, 01:03:39 PM »

Armando,

"The Greek Orthodox are narrow minded because they believe that a Mass in Modern Greek or English would be like betraying their tradition. I hear all the time about the Statues being heretic and the azymes to be against the Church tradition (the Early Church) and still I find out that there are Western-rite Orthodox churches."

I would have to agree with you there. the Greek Orthodox and many other ethnic orthodox churches find that to speak the language of the people in the new world would be to give up tradition...whereas this is really not the case. The history of Orthodoxy is such that wherever it travelled, the liturgy and bible was translated in their language, NOT in Greek, Russian or Arabic.
Whereas the Roman Catholic Church demanded that all liturgical prayer be in Latin even when most people in Europe could no longer understand ancient Latin any longer. Even Catholic churches in Africa and Asia had to have services in Latin until Vatican II.

The Orthodox church is slowly opening and adapting to North American culture and language but it's better from going strictly Latin to an almost complete desesetion of Holy Tradition like the Catholic church has done. Today in amny Greek american churches, lots of the chanting is done in english, even though many still do most of it in greek. Progress is slow but there...

" I asked a Greek Orthodox priest about Catholic confession and he told me it was the same thing as speaking to a psychologist... No sins were forgiven! (which is like saying Catholics have no apostolic succesion). I hear stuff like: "You believe Pope is God, right?" and "You don't believe in the Holy Ghost...". I even heard that the Orthodox never attended the Council of Florence (we all remember what happened there, now don't we? )"

Well the Orthodox church believes that the Catholic Church is of Apostolic origin as history proves it. From one point of view, the Seat of Rome is occupied, but not by an orthodox pope.

The Novus Ordo Mass is valid in that the bread and wine presented still undergo transformation (what you call transubstantation sp..) but the reasons (and there are no good enough reason) for destroying the Tradition and Rite of the Roman Church is definitely not valid.

On a side note, the Catholic doctrine of transubstantation (ugh..spelling), is that every neuron, every piece of flesh and blood is present in the host and wine. Now, I love the Catholic church but thats just rediculous and I find it disgusting. If christ wanted us to taste flesh and blood literally then it would not be under the form of bread and wine. Since it is under the form of bread and wine, the Orthodox bellief leaves it that it somehow mystically becomes for us partaking Christ himself by the action of the Holy Spirit. Period, no further explanation necessary.

If a priest does not believe that the miracle of the holy fire is indeed a "Megala thavma" great miracle then  I don't see how he can  believe that the bread and wine is truly the Body and Blood of our Lord.


"P.S. 2  Still I don't know why the Orthodox don't accept the Council of Constantinople which condemned Photius."

I will look this up and try to post on this.

"P.S. 3  All I know is that in our family is an Orthodox Archbishop, two priests and a nun (All Greek Orthodox) and I am RC. "

Wow, Po po po, thavmasio.

H Panagia mazi sou,
                           Timos
Logged
Mo the Ethio
Proud Capitalist
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ορθοδοξία ή θάνατος!
Posts: 453



« Reply #9 on: August 13, 2005, 05:15:34 PM »



I even heard that the Orthodox never attended the Council of Florence (we all remember what happened there, now don't we? Grin).
. The Council of Florence was in fact boycotted by a majority of Orthodox Patriachs and bishops who ( and rightly so ) would never entertain the thought of reunion with Rome. Why? It had nothing to do with the higher ideals of a united Christian church . The Emperor of Constantinople was ready to to anything to secure military aid from the west including bowing to the pope. The pope basically said " if you can inforce the Council of Florence amongst the greeks ( none of the laity supported the councils` decisions) then I will send you aid to defend yourselves against the onslaught of the Turks. Therefore, the Patriarchs and bishops are to be commended for not abandoning the faith...even if it meant the fall of Constantinople


.

P.S. 2  Still I don't know why the Orthodox don't accept the Council of Constantinople which condemned Photius.
 Photius is a Saint in the Orthodox church because he resisted the decision of this Council and what Orthodox consider to be overweening monarchical aspirations on the part of Rome`s patriarch. The Orthodox consider the council of Constantinople to have been a robber council and instead recognizes the reunion council held at Constantinople ( 879-880) as the Eight Ecumenical Council. This latter council was originally accepted and fully endorsed by Rome ( whose legates were present) , who by the 11th century repudiated it. Rome retroactively regarded the council of 869-870 to be ecumenical. The council of 879-880 restored Photius to his see and anathematized any who altered the Nicene-Constantinoplitian Creed ( thus condemning the Filioque).


Logged

"Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names."
- John F. Kennedy (1917-1963)
Armando
Dead among the living
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 187

I gave up dreaming a long time ago...


« Reply #10 on: August 13, 2005, 05:42:27 PM »



This wondrous Event took place in the 8th century A.D. in the little Church of St. Legontian, as a divine response to a Basilian monk doubt about Jesus' Real Presence in the Eucharist.

During Holy Mass, after the two-fold consecration, the host was changed into live Flesh and the wine was changed into live Blood.

 The Host-Flesh, since 1713 has been reserved in an artistic silver Ostentorium, at the top, and as can be very distinctly observed today, has the same dimensions as the large host used today in the Latin church; it is light brown and appears rose-colored when lighted from the back.

The Blood is enclosed in a rich and very old cup, at the bottom, made of Rock-crystal. It has an earthy color resembling the yellow of ochre, and coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size.

Science has given a sure and exhaustive response concerning the authenticity of the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano.

In 1970-71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.

The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs.

    - The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood, and belong to the human species.

    - The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart. In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.
Histological studies on the flesh

    - The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB. Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin.

    - In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.
        There were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.
Blood: Microscopic studies- Microchemical- Electrophoresis- Blood Group- Mineral Content- Immunological
    The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.

    In conclusion, it may be said that Science, when called upon to testify, has given a certain and thorough response as regards the authenticity of the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano.
Logged

Ten years have passed, the girl I loved
is now a woman, but I am still a child...
-Sad-ending fairytale, Miltos Paschalidis
Armando
Dead among the living
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 187

I gave up dreaming a long time ago...


« Reply #11 on: August 13, 2005, 05:50:10 PM »

+++Emperor Valentinian III, AD 445

"The primacy of the Apostolic See having been established by the merit of the Apostle Peter, by the dignity of the city of Rome, and by the authority of the holy Synod, no pretended power shall arrogate to itself anything against the authority of that See. For peace can be universally preserved only when the whole Church acknowledges its ruler. "
 

+++Emperor Justinian I, AD 520-533

"Nor do we allow that any of these things, concerning ecclesiastical institution, should fail to be brought before his Holiness, as being the head of all the holy Priests of God.... "
 

+++Emperor Justinian I, AD 520-533

"For we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all holy churches. "

 

+++Pope Pelagius II, circa AD 579-590

"Since the authority of convoking General Synods by a singular privilege has been delivered to the Apostolic See of Blessed Peter, and we do not read that any synod was ever considered ratified which was not supported by Apostolic authority."

 

+++St. Maximus the Confessor, of Constantinople, AD 650,

"The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from there the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell never prevail against her, that she has the keys of orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. "

 

+++St. Maximus the Confessor, of Constantinople, AD 650,

"For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world. "

 

+++St. Pope Agatho, AD 680,

"This Apostolic Church never turned away from the way of truth nor held any kind of error. This is the rule of faith. All who wish to please God must study to conform the Apostolic rule of the primitive faith founded on the rock Peter, and kept by him from error."

 

+++St. Theodore of Studios to the Emperor Michael and Constantinople, circa AD 800,

"Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, as was the custom by the tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O Emperor, is the highest of the Churches of God, in which first Peter held the chair.... "

 

+++St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, AD 758-828

"Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Roman Pontiffs) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles."

 

+++The Council of Africa AD 646

"No one can doubt that there is in the Apostolic See a great unfailing fountain, pouring forth waters for all Christians; whence rich streams proceed, bountifully irrigating the whole Christian World; to which See also, in honour of blessed Peter, the decrees of the Fathers gave special veneration in searching out the things of God, which ought by all means to be carefully examined; and above all, and justly, by the Apostolic Head of Bishops, whose care from of old it is, as well to condemn evils as to commend the things that are to be praised. For by the ancient discipline it is ordained that whatsoever be done, even in provinces remote and afar off, shall neither be treated of nor accepted, unless it be first brought to the knowledge of your August See, so that a just sentence may be confirmed by its authority, and that the other Churches may thence receive the original preaching as from its native source, and that the mysteries of saving faith may remain in uncorrupt purity throughout the various regions of the world. "

P.S Agapite Timo, ontos ine thavmasio... Idika otan mathoun oti skeftomai na gino catholicos iereas... Tongue Mallon tha xekiniso to ieratio me dio tris kidies (htipa xilo) apo to shock. ha ha
Logged

Ten years have passed, the girl I loved
is now a woman, but I am still a child...
-Sad-ending fairytale, Miltos Paschalidis
dantxny
OC.net Mineshaft gap
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian
Posts: 769



« Reply #12 on: August 13, 2005, 09:15:50 PM »

It may just be me, but I really get tired of seeing these quotes thrown around every few months.  Here's my suggestion.  Try reading them without comming with the forgon conclusion.  Part of the reason Catholic apologetics are so easy to subscribe to is that most people read them already with their conclusion.  But read as a true academian and in their proper context and as they were written in the time period, very few of them prove to be convincing.

Futhermore, the questions that you asked these priests have several fallicies.  First, to the best of my understanding they're theologuma (sp?) and not dogmas set in stone.  Personally, I find the Novus Ordo invalid and an abhorent way to celebrate the liturgy (at least the Traditional mass showed some respect and theology in it), believe in the Holy Fire, and I'm not really convinced by the stigmata.  Big deal!  To dissagree or agree on these issues doesn't mean a thing.  For every Orthodox priest you talk to they will agree that God became incarnated as man, Christ died under Pontius Pilate and rose again Three Days later, That the ressurection of the dead will come.  That's what matters and you see more aggreements on this than in the Roman Church.  For there, I've seen priests deny the Resurrection, deny hell or the afterlife, deny Communion, and many dogmas held by the Vatican.  Sorry, but that's a very poor example as it doesn't go anywhere.
Logged

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen Clarke
I think the French may be on to something here.
dantxny
OC.net Mineshaft gap
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian
Posts: 769



« Reply #13 on: August 13, 2005, 09:19:54 PM »

Back to the topic though, I myself have wondered the original ideas posted by Timos.  For exampe, I've heard Paul VI and John XIII been discribed as Saints and Greats on one end and the antichrists and heretics on the other.  It'd be interesting to read what people at that time thought.

One suggestion though Timos is reading the bookPriest where is Thy Mass, Mass where is Thy Priest.  It was recently published by Angelus Press, the publishing arm of SSPX.  It is very interesting and some of those interviewed priests offer their thoughts at that time, especially those that originally went along with the modernizations.
Logged

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen Clarke
I think the French may be on to something here.
bripat22
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 182


Slava Tebie, Boze nas! Slava Tebie


« Reply #14 on: August 13, 2005, 09:50:54 PM »

Despite the negative APPLICATIONS of  Vatican II (the liturgical changes made in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy were quite conservative and what Orthodox would not approve of the use of the vernacular??), the Council was VERY positive in it's calls for the Eastern Catholics to return to their traditionsd and get rid of Latinizations (who could forget the example of the that great Hierarch, Patriarch Maximos IV in his speeches to the Council?)  Also, the Council marked a turn around in former triumphalism towards Eastern Orthodoxy and for a dialogue and greater openness to the Orthodox Faith.  That was a great advance.
   Let us not blame the excesses of those who misapplied the Council afterwards with those like John XXIII of blessed memory who guided the beginnings of the Council.
 
Logged

For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like!-

                            Maggie Smith "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie"
Armando
Dead among the living
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 187

I gave up dreaming a long time ago...


« Reply #15 on: August 14, 2005, 01:08:25 PM »

A:  The 2nd Vatican Council was OECUMENICAL. Which means that any decisions taken there were for the Good of the Church and should not be debated.

B:  I have tried reading all these quotes from an Orthodox point of view! Trying to find a bit that will expose the "Popish cheat" (as the Protestants say). Nothing... Every one of these quotes leads to the conclusion that the RC are right. Sorry, but this is just how I feel.
Logged

Ten years have passed, the girl I loved
is now a woman, but I am still a child...
-Sad-ending fairytale, Miltos Paschalidis
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #16 on: August 14, 2005, 02:59:48 PM »

P.S. 2ÂÂ  Still I don't know why the Orthodox don't accept the Council of Constantinople which condemned Photius.


Perhaps because you might be a spoiled young apostate who belongs over on an RC forum  Wink

"Council in Constantinople considered a heretical Council by the Orthodox Church, 869-870 AD
Only 12 bishops attended at first, and attendance never exceeded 103. The legates of Pope Adrian II presided. Saint Photius had already been condemned, without a hearing, at a Roman synod and Pope Adrian, taking advantage of political changes in Constantinople, pressed for a council. Saint Photius' defense was cut short, and when he refused to sign his own condemnation, he was excommunicated. The result of these councils was to intensify the bitterness between East and West. Not regarded as 'Ecumenical' by Roman Catholicism until 11th or 12th century, it has never been accepted by Orthodoxy.

Fourth Ecumenical Council in Constantinople - Eighth Ecumenical (Imperial) Council 879-880 AD
Resolved scandals between East and West regarding Bulgaria. Expelled those who did not recognise Nicaea II as Seventh Ecumenical Council. Outlawed and repudiated local councils of Rome and Constantinople against Saint Photius. Established that the Symbol of Faith from Constantinople I (the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed) was to be forever 'un-innovated' and 'immutable'. Required those excommunicated by Rome to be treated as such by Constantinople and vice-versa. (Accepted by all five patriarchates, including Pope John VIII) "

http://www.jcsm.org/StudyCenter/BELIEVE/txw/orthcoun.htm
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
SeanMc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


« Reply #17 on: August 14, 2005, 05:12:20 PM »

What about the Council of Florence? I've heard allegations that the Greek bishops were starved, but there's no historical evidence for that outside of polemics.

I've heard that b/c the people rejected it, it was not an ecumenical council and not binding: a sort of sensus fidelium. But the sensus fidelium works with the people in union with the bishops otherwise we simply get democracy.

And this also raises another question: given that the Christians in the west did not reject it, neither clergy nor laymen, are the laymen without the bishops in the east an organ of infallibility?
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #18 on: August 15, 2005, 03:46:53 AM »

What about the Council of Florence? I've heard allegations that the Greek bishops were starved, but there's no historical evidence for that outside of polemics.

I don't recall reading about starvation, but the Emperor was desperate to secure western aid against the Ottomans and put the bishops in 'lock-down' even muzzling St Mark of Ephesus. A coerced council held underr duress. This is historical evdence. Read Deno Geankoplus's Byzantine East and Latin West which relates Orthodox sources (not polemics) of that period (notes during the the council to be exact). Of course, this material isn't widely read in the west for some reason.  Wink
Quote
I've heard that b/c the people rejected it, it was not an ecumenical council and not binding: a sort of sensus fidelium. But the sensus fidelium works with the people in union with the bishops otherwise we simply get democracy.

The 'people', the Body of Christ, yes. Lead of course by St Mark, Bishop of Ephesus. In fact many bishops returned east and quickly repudiated this council or hid its outcome from the faithful. I wouldn't call what happened 'democracy', but a revolt.

Quote
And this also raises another question: given that the Christians in the west did not reject it, neither clergy nor laymen, are the laymen without the bishops in the east an organ of infallibility?

Hypothetical; no answer possible as what you describe did not happen in the east. The emporer may have wanted a re-union and kept the bishops there for years until he got his way, but it was no 'ecumenical' council. Repudiated by bishops, rejected by priests, monks and laity..
« Last Edit: August 15, 2005, 03:47:52 AM by ΑριστÎÂà » Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Armando
Dead among the living
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 187

I gave up dreaming a long time ago...


« Reply #19 on: August 15, 2005, 04:38:45 AM »

The 1583 Synod of Jerusalem condemned the following: 1. those who do not believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone in essence, and from Father and Son in time [so the whole filioque clause was a misunderstood?];
2. those who believe the Lord Jesus Christ used unleavened bread at the Last Supper;
[Were they given some bloody recipe for mass bread in a dream or vision or something?!?]
3. those who believe in Purgatory;
[When I was EO and did not know about purgatory, I saw my dead great-grandmother telling me of a place like that...]
4. those who believe the pope, rather than the Lord Jesus Christ is head of the Church;
[The Pope is in no way a replacement for Christ... EO have to understand that]
5. those who use the Gregorian calendar and its new Paschalion.
[So the EO consider Julius Ceasar better than a Pope? God have mercy on them fools]
« Last Edit: August 15, 2005, 04:39:42 AM by Armando » Logged

Ten years have passed, the girl I loved
is now a woman, but I am still a child...
-Sad-ending fairytale, Miltos Paschalidis
dantxny
OC.net Mineshaft gap
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian
Posts: 769



« Reply #20 on: August 15, 2005, 10:24:26 AM »

Quote
The 1583 Synod of Jerusalem condemned the following: 1. those who do not believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone in essence, and from Father and Son in time [so the whole filioque clause was a misunderstood?];

It's never been disputed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, but it most definitly is not and the son eternally.  That's what the Synod is saying.  Basically, they're saying the same thing said previously as other Greek Fathers, as the Filioque does not (nor does its theology) say the above.

2. those who believe the Lord Jesus Christ used unleavened bread at the Last Supper;
[Were they given some bloody recipe for mass bread in a dream or vision or something?!?]

No, he used leavened bread. Contrary to common belief (someone help me here as I'm forgetting all my Jewish feasts! Oy vey!) it was not the feast where Jews use the unleavened bread, but the one before it.

3. those who believe in Purgatory;

[When I was EO and did not know about purgatory, I saw my dead great-grandmother telling me of a place like that...]
I'll leave this to the other thread.

4. those who believe the pope, rather than the Lord Jesus Christ is head of the Church;
[The Pope is in no way a replacement for Christ... EO have to understand that]

He may have not meant to, but he has become one.  I've asked several Roman theologians and your rank and file Neo-Conservative Catholic will say that we must submit to the pontiff out of all matters, even ones you may dissagree with (the mass issue or communion in hand issue).  Sounds pretty Christ like to me.

5. those who use the Gregorian calendar and its new Paschalion.
[So the EO consider Julius Ceasar better than a Pope? God have mercy on them fools]

No, but the consider the ecumenical council to make better decisions than this pope.  First of all, the Julian Calendar is a liturgical calendar that has been in use for nearly 2100 years.  It's far from perfect, but it does suit its puroposes.  Secondly, the Gregorian Calendar with its new Paschilian instituted something against the Councils in that we are celebrating Pascha before Jewish Passover.  This is not a Pope versus a dead dictator (although a fascinating one at that).  This is just another example of the Supreme primacy clamied by the Roman Pontiff versus the bishops and the Councils of the Church.  With that said, I don't see how this quote works into the previous conversation.
Logged

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen Clarke
I think the French may be on to something here.
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #21 on: August 15, 2005, 10:39:09 AM »

Quote

....With that said, I don't see how this quote works into the previous conversation.

It only works when you use 'troll logic'... Wink
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
dantxny
OC.net Mineshaft gap
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian
Posts: 769



« Reply #22 on: August 15, 2005, 01:46:51 PM »

It only works when you use 'troll logic'... Wink
lol, I've always wondered,do trolls look like those on Lord of the Rings, are those little plastic dolls from ten years back.  They world may never know . . . .
Logged

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen Clarke
I think the French may be on to something here.
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #23 on: August 16, 2005, 01:06:23 AM »

Thank you all for your responds but my question wasn't really answered. Maybe I should go to a Catholic forum and ask the Catholics there but I'd probably get lashed out at...eek old fashioned orthodox, lol from their pov.

My question was really how did catholics in Europe and North America in 1960's react to the changes? Did some freak out or were they happy about it or just really shocked?

And what abou the Orthodox? Did our communities freak out too and as a result refuse to change even language uintil many years later?

thanks,
            Timos
Logged
SeanMc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


« Reply #24 on: August 16, 2005, 01:34:44 AM »

Quote
My question was really how did catholics in Europe and North America in 1960's react to the changes? Did some freak out or were they happy about it or just really shocked?

I suggest you buy a book called Iota Unum, it's a most thorough study on the matter: http://www.angeluspress.org/iota_unum.htm

Hope that helps.
Logged
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #25 on: August 16, 2005, 09:26:55 PM »

Thanks for the book titles. I'll check it out.

As for the altar, most Catholic churches I've been to had their altars rearranged or completly ripped apart after VII.

Before, a grandiose altar table with tall candles and statues were there leading one's mind up to the altar and to the sacrifice being offered.

The new altars  now have seats behind the table (I don't even know if it;s really an altar) where the bishop and priests sit and instead a simple candle with no statues is all that is there.

The reason I said I doubted the term 'altar' is appropriate for modern catholic altars is because its not really treated with that much respect. Anyone and everyone can gather around it like it was a picnic table and can touch it and all anything on it. I know this because I go to a Catholic school and sometiems we gather in the chapel and apparently its ok to use the altar as a place to casually put our things on.

There isn't much but a trace of mysticism and holiness left I feel with the way VII has transformed things.

Maybe if the Catholic Church goes back to her roots (except for maybe allowing the vernacular) then maybe it would have the succesful 70+ % of its parishoners who did attend Mass regularly back in the 60's rather than the modern lame 20 something %.
Logged
Tags: The St. Maximos Quote 
Pages: 1   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 0.115 seconds with 53 queries.