UCLA basketball
There was no social upheaval your slurces are hallucinating about.
Posted on 12/09/2008 5:52:09 AM PST by TexConfederate1861
UCLA basketball
There was no social upheaval your slurces are hallucinating about.
That's insanity.
Actually, I'm more in agreement with you, kosta. Renaissance art is the visual manifestation of the philosophical decadence of that time. St. Mary Magdalene would be quite scandalized of that depiction of her in #354.
I wouldn't blanket condemn all of Catholic culture however.
“What exactly is it you want from me, Kolo?”
Jo, its simple. I want you to come to understand how it is that the modern Roman Church got to such a state that for us Orthodox, the prospect of reunion is terrifying. Rome threw away its Western Orthodoxy, its own particular Orthodox mindset in favor of a human centered rather than Christ centered phronema. Our created purpose, Jo, is to become like God, not to become personally fulfilled. Our end is to die to the self, not to become self satisfied. Our object of worship is God, not God’s community around us, as important as that is.
The greatest and most glaring example of Rome’s scraping of its Orthodox heritage was the abrogation of the traditional Mass and the people forgot how to pray and even why to pray. But some of them were “fulfilled”, some of them became “important”, some of them could be on display playing “papadaki” (little priests)or dancing vestal virgins or truly perverse “fools for Christ” (disdaining the very concept). The focus could be on them instead of on Christ and every single bit of this is directly the result of the NO liturgy. Its no answer to say its the fault of bad priests and bishops. That sort of excuse has been around for 2000 years and its true as far as it goes. What makes it meaningless here is that it was the Roman Church itself which handed the explosives and the matches to the clerical mad bombers!
Jo, the theological differences between the East and West, I am convinced, can be relatively easily resolved. Whether or not the damage done by Vatican II and the NO liturgy can be resolved in less than 100-200 years is another matter. My concern, frankly, is that the Roman Church has been so compromised that its future looks more like American Episcopalianism than Orthodoxy...and we have nothing but contempt for that as I am sure you do.
The EP was and is so concerned about this issue that it has been front and center in his discussions with the Pope and other Latin hierarchs. Here’s a link to parts of his sermon in 2006 when the Pope came to the Phanar. Give it a read:
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2006_11_01_archive.html
No. it wasn’t.
Yes, I agree that unification can seem terrifying to a Church that places form over function. From what I have heard so far, the West is being judged on "moving away from its Western orthodoxy". I have not disagreed that we have our troubles with the Liturgy. I accept your criticisms.
However, I have strived to tell you that there ARE allowable items that can change and others that cannot. It seems to me that the East makes the slippery slope argument that "if the West changes matters on language of the Mass, they tommorrow claim that God is no longer a Trinity of persons". Am I not right? Is this not the fear of the East? That seems to be the fear in the mind of the Eastern Orthodox.
However, it is based on an incorrect view of what is "faith and morals" that are infallibly defined for all time everywhere and "discipline" or "tradition" that is subject to change. I have tried to show that there is a distinction, and I hope that the Easterns here can realize we have no desire (nor will God allow) for false teachings to destroy already-infallibly-taught matters into the Roman Church.
Do the Orthodox think for one second that the reason why heresy has not slipped into the Roman Church is based upon the Pope's own abilities??? LOL! No, it is God Himself, my friend. We trust that He continues to guard the Church from teaching error on such matters of faith and morals meant for the Church for all times and in all places.
Our created purpose, Jo, is to become like God, not to become personally fulfilled.
:> One enables the other to take place, doesn't it? Don't worry, the NO Mass is not designed to allow the participant to "become personally fulfilled"!
Our end is to die to the self, not to become self satisfied. Our object of worship is God, not God’s community around us, as important as that is.
True. But I do not think one can support the notion that the NO Mass INTENDS to remove worship of God from the Rite. Has it in the end? Perhaps it has removed the awe necessary to "more correctly" view God as holy and such. Liturgists have definitely made some statements that the current Pope would like to correct.
But some of them were “fulfilled”, some of them became “important”, some of them could be on display playing “papadaki” (little priests)or dancing vestal virgins or truly perverse “fools for Christ” (disdaining the very concept). The focus could be on them instead of on Christ and every single bit of this is directly the result of the NO liturgy.
While I agree with your premise, I do not agree this was a RESULT of the NO liturgy, but rather, silly priests who took it upon themselves to DEVIATE from what was allowed. The Second Vatican Council did not envision such craziness. I think we can agree that implementation of the Council's "mind" was very faulty, and some priests who were poorly trained took it upon themselves to put on a show. Most Catholics look on this stuff with disdain. I am not here to defend those ridiculous priests or "Catholics" who enjoy that stuff. But I don't blame the NO Mass for this either. The new Roman Missal does not call for such things.
I don't know how this was allowed. Perhaps if more people were like your Serbians you mentioned who murmured when some priest didn't do something, we wouldn't be in this mess. It would take a lot of bandwidth to cover WHY the typical Western sat by quietly disapproving these abominations. Perhaps there was too much respect for priests still. Perhaps society had become more "open" with what they allowed (sexual revolution, women's rights, etc). I do not know why people didn't stand up in the Mass and say "HEY, what are you doing"? I'm trying to envisage myself in that situation. I have already detailed why the bishops were lax - they didn't want schism. But perhaps, in retrospect, they should have done more.
Its no answer to say its the fault of bad priests and bishops. That sort of excuse has been around for 2000 years and its true as far as it goes. What makes it meaningless here is that it was the Roman Church itself which handed the explosives and the matches to the clerical mad bombers!
LOL! You have a way with words, my friend. People will point to the ambiguous wording of Vatican 2 documents...However, we can also point to the "ambiguous wording" of Nicea that prompted Constantinople, which prompted Chalcedon... If you look at Counciliar history, I think you'll find it takes many years for the dust to settle and the "intent" of the Council to be made manifest amongst the people. We can discuss the example of Arianism... Manipulating of the words and meanings of the Creed forced FURTHER defining by subsequent Councils.
Will we see another Council to "clarify" Vatican 2? I don't know, but I DO know that the Popes have been making efforts to correct the "manipulations" that come along with ALL councils. We place our trust that God will settle things and has given our Church the tools to do it through our Pope working down and the "sense of the faithful" who are providing the impetus to change things upwards.
Jo, the theological differences between the East and West, I am convinced, can be relatively easily resolved. Whether or not the damage done by Vatican II and the NO liturgy can be resolved in less than 100-200 years is another matter.
After these conversations, I completely agree. However, I have faith that the later part of what you say will be corrected sooner. It does seem that it can take 100 years for a Council's will to be "understood" and "implemented".
My concern, frankly, is that the Roman Church has been so compromised that its future looks more like American Episcopalianism than Orthodoxy...and we have nothing but contempt for that as I am sure you do.
Heaven forbid that God would allow His Church, either branch, to falter like that! I can appreciate your pessimism here in the US, but worldwide Catholicism is growing and in time, abuses will be corrected by closing the "loop holes". The seminaries are putting out better priests and it is our hope that the "wacko" priests will leave by attrition.
The EP was and is so concerned about this issue that it has been front and center in his discussions with the Pope and other Latin hierarchs.
I appreciate this discussion with you. It has given me the other side of the coin to look at. I was focusing on doctrines and pointing in particular to the Eastern laity as the cause of continued separation, that it hadn't occured to me that the REAL cause of mistrust is NOT the "theological lay experts of the East who misunderstand the Western infallible doctrines", but the mistrust caused by poor liturgical movements in the West. While there is validity to what I have said, your explanation makes more sense in today's world and I appreciate your correction.
Certainly, this is a RECENT cause of our continued separation. This is less than a 50 year problem. However, it is heartening to hear that we can clear up the problems from BEFORE 50 years ago and it is up to the West to clean up our own house in the Liturgy. I pray the East can be patient with us as we were with them in the first 1000 years.
Brother in Christ
I don't need to read the mind of another Freeper when it is so obviously noted in posts. I've been doing this for a long time. However, next time, I'll just mention that I no longer wish to speak with someone and put them on the ignore list.
Is that acceptable?
Regards
Yes, that is acceptable.
When the Orthodox “embrace” a heathen ruler over the Pope, that is insane.
Do you see some hope now with the motu proprio of last year?
I just finished. I cannot agree more with the Patriarch's take on Liturgy. We teach the same thing. It's just a matter of implementing these words and those words found in the Catechsim by removing the problems that have entered into our public prayer. The NO Mass has the potential to fulfill the Patriarch's desire, if we can remove some of the abuses and tighten such loopholes that some deviants desire to use.
Regards
Here is a link...
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=24633
Regards
That isn’t unprecedented actually. There has been more than one rite in the West before. In fact, up until the 1960s, you had the ‘old’ Roman rite, the Dominican rite, the Carmelite rite, the Ambrosian rite, the Cistercian rite, among others. They’re still around, but were greatly diminished, along with the “extraordinary” form.
Renaissance is decidedly pagan in its character, art, lifestyle and culture. It's not so much nudity, but the need to be excessively (and unnecessarily) explicit about it that is contrary to what Catholic Catechism says about modesty and, ultimately, human dignity.
The art was magnificent as much as it was vulgar in its in-your-face unnecessary sensuality.
I compare Renaissance to a stunningly beautiful woman who utters profanities.
I wouldn't blanket condemn all of Catholic culture however
I don't. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church, unlike the Orthodox Church, bought into the "Renaissance" of the liturgical reform movement of the early 1900's and magnified it many-fold at the Vatican II, only to vulgarize it in late 60's onward.
The Vatican II was a "French Revolution" of the Church, apparently driven more by human preference, taste, convenience and a lot of "mea culpa," than by any real theological urgency.
It was a populist and idealist movement, with plebeian, if not outright proletarian-like mindset, destined to imitate the world and appear greater than life. It was a "pastoral" council on paper but dogmatic in application, sort of like communist constitutions used to be: on paper proclaiming freedoms, but in application oppressive.
I did not condemn the entire Catholic culture. I assure you that if the Orthodox Church did anything similar, I would be just as adamant about that mistake. That's why I asked jo to list all the heretical Patriarchs of Constantinople, lest some of us forget that heresy and abomination in the Church is not an exclusive character of either one of the Particular Churches.
Thanks, I didn't know that - although are you speaking of a Carmelite "rite" or "missal"? The pope states that the two missals did not mean there were two Latin rites. At least that is what the motu proprio says.
In the end, I don't think the problem is having several rites/missals, but the abuses that have crept in because bishops were not holding wayward priests accountable for their deviant changing of the Liturgy on their own authority. Less vague rulings would help here.
The NO Mass, when originally conceived and celebrated with due holiness, is quite capable of teaching the faithful through the Liturgy. People can witness this on EWTN.
Regards
Overall, yes. However, Mary Magdalene traditionally has inspired reflection on sensual beauty's interplay with discipleship. Guercino's painting is such meditation. It is not lurid or obscene. It is not an icon, it does not belong in Church, but it is a part of Catholic culture.
Likewise, the breastfeeding madonna I posted earlier is a part of the Catholic culture, of which, as Catholic, I am proud. It is not frivolous: it celebrates the Mystery of the Incarnation with admirable directness. Fear of this celebratory mood is Jansenism; it is un-Catholic.
The context for this was photographs of Popes apparently attending some african-flavor performances, and some nudity on the part of the presenters is involved. So I pointed out that Catholic ulture generally is not as prudish as apparently, the Orthodox wish it to be.
Is it an argument for the Orthodox not to wish reunification? Of sorts, it is, but it does show shallowness of mind.
I am very receptive to the notion that the East is terrified of Catholic liturgical abuse, and I fully agree that we Catholics should heal our own Church before we can expect a more fraternal attitude from the Orthodox. I made several posts on this thread expressing this view. However, the Catholic non-liturgical culture is what it is. It is a part of Catholic phronema just as much as painted eggs and big beards are part of Orthodox phronema. It should not be an obstacle.
Yeah, all those are more “uses” or “missals” than completely-separate rites.
I fully concur that it should be terrifying; the issue is that people gripped with terror are not the best dialog partners. I want the old Kosta back.
The quote was from the Grand Duke Luke Notaras, who was on record saying that he’d rather see a Turkish turban than the Roman mitre in Constantinople, after Florence and shortly before the fall of his city.
His wish, as we know, was granted, and the sultan killed him with his sons. But his spirit lives on.
The quote was from Patriarch Gennadios II of Constantinople, known at the time as Scholarios.
And his reasons for feeling that way are certainly still valid 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.