Posted on 03/01/2006 10:35:38 AM PST by Full Court
A category which certianly included his (ahem) "genetic" mother:
"Behold the handmaid of the Lord. Be it done unto me according to thy word."
That's a true saying, and worthy of men to be received.
I'm pretty sure anybody can get ashes in a Catholic Church. It isn't a sacrament like the Eucharist.
Ashes is a reminder. The Eucharist is body, soul, and divinity of Christ. I am happy our separated brothers are reminding themselves, but their journey of faith is still in infancy.
I think my RCIA director hates Mother Angelica. I can't figure out why because she reminds me of her quite a bit, a feisty older lady, used to be principal of a Catholic high school. Not a nun, but a lay associate of the Basilians.
You MIGHT be able to get saved in a Baptist church. But after the first baptism, it's all dunkin donuts, iykwim.
The Waldenses started out as schismatic Catholics. They believed in the seven sacraments, including transubstantiation and infant baptism. They also believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary and believed that faith without works is dead.
Perhaps it's Mother's 'orthodoxy' that she dislikes.
I notice you left off my qualifier- and therefore distorted my point. The latter Waldenses were more Calvinistic in belief. They predate the origins that most of you all stick Baptists with.
I can see that --- with the best of intentions --- you're running into a kind of cultural perplexity about such things as bowing and praying and so forth.
Neither of these actions implies worship, in the sense of the supreme honor and adoration which is due to God alone. People in many cultures bow and curtsey to show honor to parents, rulers, elders; and so it is in Catholic culture. A person might bow their head at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier or at the Holocaust Memorial, just to show a spirit of solemnity and respect. And we Catholics even bow to each other at certain points. Yet we do not regard each other as Gods! (Really!) It's simply our custom to show outward signs of reverence.
Even if this seems culturally foreign to you, it is only fair that you should take our word for it. WE know whether we are "worshipping" Mary or not. If you do not accept our own testimony concerning our own beliefs and intentions, you would be implying that we are lying to you. Can't you see how unjust and obtuse that would be?
As for the matter of prayer, it is a common thing for all Christians to offer intercessory prayer for each other. And we read in Revelation 5:8 that this holy intercession continues in heaven:
Now when he had taken the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each one having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.
It's quite clear that the "elders" are offering the prayers of the saints. They are interceding. Notice that all prayer ultimately goes to God, even if it's your grandma that's praying for you.
I just wanted you to see that honoring God-loving people and asking for their intercession are normal daily practices of Christians everywhere. Thre's nothing spooky-dooky about asking your fellow-servants to pray for you, and certainly nothing idolatrous.
Please pray for me?
Yes, it is the orthodoxy. All the directors feel they were brutalized and that VII set them free. I'm always getting into arguments with them. They don't understand the damage that was done. I am not an anti-Vatican II person. I think they did some remarkable things that were tremendously beneficial in throwing over some of the old superstitions, like the one they told us about that when a baby is born, the Lord covers his eyes so as not to see the original sin being propagated.
It's the license with which those that would hurt the church took out after all of the grand traditions that offends me. I don't mind services in the vernacualar, but why did they have to take away the Traditional Mass for so many years? Communists, and I mean that literally, are to blame and must be forced out.
We've been noticing that many of them are having their "Lords Supper" weekly instead of monthly, and I don't think any of them still do it quarterly.
Actually, I think you may have missed my point. The Waldenses originally held doctrine diametrically opposed to those of present day Baptists (and Calvinits). The Catholic Church of today does not hold doctrine that condradicts belief of the Church in 300 AD.
That's true, up to a point. However, the Waldenses (by their own admission) date to the 13th century, not to, e.g., the 3rd or 4th. And they also admit quite frankly that they started out as a rebellion against Rome. ("Protestants", after a fashion, 300 years before the word came into existence.)
And the Baptists in the US don't have historical continuity with the Waldenses, but developed out of a rejection of the "Papist" tendencies of the Anglican church in early 17th C. England.
If I'm not mistaken, the Waldenses originally had some practices and beliefs -- Marian veneration for example -- which modern-day Baptists would not endorse.
Some Protestant denominations are over 400 years old. The memory requires more frequent reminders at that age.
Excellent question!
And one that recently surfaced during a discussion on the Eucharist with my pastor. I'll probably have my head handed to me on a silver platter by some freepers, but .... indulge me, okay?
First off, as you may (or may not) know, I am a cradle Roman Catholic, born pre VCII, practicing my faith in a Maronite (Eastern) Catholic Church. It just happens that I reside in a RC diocese run by an ultra liberal bishop whose 'right hand' men (no pun intended) have been assigned to the choicest parishes. Though educated in Catholic schools, it is here in the Religion Forum at FR that I have been truly blessed with excellent guides. Through them and certain well established links, I grew in knowledge about the GIRM and the rules governing the Mass. As a result, I was able to identify abuses in my parish and address them with the pastor. One victory brought encouragement but I was an army of 1 and the other parishioners, totally clueless about the GIRM, had no interest in joining the militia. They liked the pastor and appreciated the 'novelties' he introduced.
Long story short, I set off to find a new parish and ended up in the Maronite Church, replete with orthodox pastor and teachings, reverent liturgy and beautiful devotions. The pastor is bi-ritual - Maronite and Latin Rite - and volunteers what little free time he has to assist the local RC diocese. He says the NO Mass at priestless parishes during the week in order to consecrate the hosts for their weekend services. He also serves as chaplain at a local hospital and fills in for priests when they go on vacation or retreat. This priest is extremely orthodox in his view of the Eucharist and shocked at the disrespect shown in the local area RC parishes. All I need do is mention the word "eucharist" and he begins a long running tirade against the abuses he has witnessed :-). Love him!
With that background established, last week he gave an historical perspective on the liturgy. Naturally, the subject of the Indult TLM surfaced during the discussion. He is an adamant supporter of the notion that the faithful should celebrate the liturgy in the vernacular, because their own language draws them deeper into the sacrificial offering of the Mass. He is the only Maronite priest in the US to compile the two seasonal books normally used in our parishes, and create separate Missalettes for each week of the year, as well as separate Missalettes for Funerals, Weddings, Baptisms and devotions. (The bishop was most impressed!) In the Maronite Divine Liturgy, there are certain prayers and chants that retain their authentic Aramaic origins - the Qadeeshat (Trisagion), the Consecration, the Epiclesis, etc. For each of these prayers, he has printed the English translation. Otherwise, all of the other prayers and chants follow an official translation into English. Three years ago, the Patriarch of the Maronite Church convened the first Synod in more than 100 years to address these 'translations' and employed several groups to limit and improve on the translations of these texts, into 4 major language groups - English, French, Spanish and Arabic. (As a result of the Civil War in Lebanon, many Maronites have fled to the diaspora and the Maronite Church is now the 2nd largest Eastern Catholic Church in the world and growing rapidly.)
This brings us back to your original question. Having experienced the 'timeless' Latin Mass in my youth, I can assure you that pre-VCII, it was not celebrated as others would have you believe. The low mass was over in less than 45 minutes. The priest mumbled in Latin as we turned pages in our bi-lingual missals trying to follow along, the altar boys gave the responses in rushed Latin and the choir sang the hymns on behalf of the faithful. While all of this was going on, the seasoned women clacked their rosary beads in prayer, totally dissociated from the Mass. The Traditional Latin Mass, back then, was the only one celebrated and it was this way in all of the countries around the world. There was no participation by the faithful. They attended the Mass out of obligation and then went home. Hellfire and brimstone were guaranteed to reign down on anyone who missed Mass, so they showed up out of fear. This is not to suggest that everyone approached the mass with the same mindset but it was true for the majority. They went from a sense of obligation rather than desire. There was no switching from one parish to another ... there was no need to. You attended the Catholic Church closest to home, unless you were traveling. The Mass was identical no matter where you went, even to the farthest ends of the earth.
VCII was correct in acknowledging that the best form of liturgical prayer is one in which the laity participate. In ALL of the Eastern Churches, the liturgy is communal - a conversation chanted back and forth between the priest and the congregation. It has been this way since forever. Only the Latin Mass, frozen following the Reformation, retained the spirit of the priest offering the sacrifice on behalf of the 'witnesses', the congregation, who were silent partners. Some mumbled the responses, I am told, but I never experienced that. We were always witnesses at the Mass while the acolytes gave the oral responses and the choir sang our hymns. Some in the forum may disagree with this, but that is my experience.
They don't understand the damage that was done. I am not an anti-Vatican II person.
Of course not! VCII liberated them from the shackles of 'silent witnesses' and afforded them the opportunity to fully participate in the Mass. As noted above, the Eastern Churches have always had that participation and it is a necessary component to worship by the faithful. The prayers of the acolytes are your response to this great Mystery. The songs chanted by the choir are your salvific hymns. (We have some very bad voices in our parish but they are joined and elevated with the good ones in all of the chants. This is as is should be.
Unfortunately, the renegade liberalists took over their 'interpretation' of VCII documentation, imposing irrational changes that are totally contradictory with those intended by the writers. In the span of 2000 years, 50 is little more than a drop in the bucket. Unfortunately, it has occured in our lifetime and, hence, carries far more significance.
The Catholic Church remains intact, despite these different views and will survive. As Catholics, we need to find the service that provides the worship to which we believe our Lord is most deserving, be it in the Novus Ordo, Indult TLM, or anyone of the Eastern Divine Liturgies.
Praise be to God, always!
Never was claiming that the Waldenses were Baptists or visa versa. Just that there were some similarities in belief. That's part of a trail of belief. Not a full continuity of "This is a Baptist Church." But this church believed in this aspect like modern Baptists do. Some groups were much closer to Baptists than others. But they establish a line of belief that was separate from the belief systems of Rome.
Also, while some of these groups had former Catholics as leaders, it wasn't, for many of them, anti-Catholicism that drove them but pro scripturalism. I believe that at all times in all places God has left a group of people who have clung tenaciously to his Word. I believe Baptists are people of God's Word. In this way we have kindred spirits throughout history.
Catholicism has evolved. As to Marian veneration, a lot of what has happened in the Catholic church regarding this practice has come out of the apparitions of Mary during later times. For example, in 1858 Mary declared "I Am the Immaculate Conception" (Lourdes). She also proclaimed papal infallibility.
My point, by the way, is that historical Catholicism does not have a unity of belief that all Catholics have believed at all times. You can find strong similarities but also some pretty big differences.
Nobody is claiming a church called "Baptist" in Jerusalem. But rebaptism, baptism of adults (infant baptism I think wasn't instituted fully until the 4th century) etc., have been around for many centuries prior to the Protestant Reformation, and many of the groups that practiced such were also strongly akin to modern-day Baptists.
I agree with the statements on the Waldenses. Around the Protestant Reformation the connection was stronger. As to the Catholic church, it contradicts itself on doctrine that it held 50 years ago. 500 years ago. And at other times. The Catholic church of 300 AD was much closer to Baptists of today than the Catholic church of today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.