Posted on 12/09/2008 5:52:09 AM PST by TexConfederate1861
Me too. In the same Bible God says he made man in his image and likeness, and then the same God compares man to one of the the dumbest animals known. The "image of God" is a dumb sheep? Think about it.
John 17.
You don’t get it do you? The shepherds have authority not because they are smarter, but because they are learned and given spiritual blessings, seeking understanding. Repeating distortions and strawmen like the original letter that started this doesn’t help the matter.
No serious Catholic disagrees that the Latin Liturgy should not be abused, nor that the Mass, when said properly, is the highest expression of the Catholic faith.
However, the Catechism is a major evangelizing tool. 99 percent of our disagreements with other Christians is not with the Orthodox but with the Protestants. This is markedly different from AD 892 when Byzantium evangelized illiterate and pagan Russia on the strengths of the liturgy alone. For example, the bulk of our opponents at FR want to talk theology and scripture, not liturgy.
Further, 90 percent of these discussions hinge on ignorance of the Catholic belief system. Typically, once the distortion of Catholicism is creared away, the dispute disappears.
In this environment, a definitive theological document is of immense importance. I would agree that it has a side effect of fostering legalistic thinking, but the good that it does far outweighs it.
“However, the Catechism is a major evangelizing tool. 99 percent of our disagreements with other Christians is not with the Orthodox but with the Protestants. This is markedly different from AD 892 when Byzantium evangelized illiterate and pagan Russia on the strengths of the liturgy alone. For example, the bulk of our opponents at FR want to talk theology and scripture, not liturgy.”
Alex, my dear brother, what does the liturgy, whether the TLM or the Divine Liturgies, teach us to believe and live with every fiber of our bodies and every element of our being if not Christian theology and scripture?
“In this environment, a definitive theological document is of immense importance.”
I believe that the Latin Church believes this but I must ask why having a catechumen simply live the life of The Church through the liturgies and devotions and traditions, like fasting for example, under the guidance of a spiritual father, of the Church year, assuming there are places/parishes/dioceses where one can actually do that, wouldn’t be far, far more effective than the statute like catechism?
The Catechism is not supposed to replace liturgy, devotions, or faith formation.
Sir:
I would appreciate it if you would curb your sarcasm.
If you start ad hominem attacks with me, you will not like the result.
No. Too far is any attempted reunion with Rome WITHOUT the consent of all the Patriarchs. I suspect Bartholomew desires to be the first Pope from the east.
The historical record says otherwise.
Why don’t you take your own advice, I posted this article for the benefit of Orthodox Christians, and Roman Catholics who could engage in polite debate. If you can’t take the heat.......
“I suspect Bartholomew desires to be the first Pope from the east.”
I don’t doubt that for a second. Years ago that was the Jesuit chatter both here and in Rome. I will tell you, however (and I know), Pat. Bartholomew knows how close he came to spending the rest of his days in an isolated monastery over the matter of the failed Archb. Spyridon. He fully understands what will happen if the whole Orthodox world aligns against him.
“The Catechism is not supposed to replace liturgy, devotions, or faith formation.”
I would hope not, though in honesty do you think that what passes for liturgy and devotions in most Western Latin parishes doesn’t do more harm than good when it comes to forming true and devoted and understanding members of The Church? Clown Masses, heck, even Masses where the priest sort of makes up the rubrics as he goes along, are destructive; they are obstacles to the formation of a Christian mindset. To substitute a communal, liturgical prayer life with the catechism is likewise destructive, though if the liturgical life has been distorted, as it certainly seems to have been, maybe the catechism is the best tool you have left. But the result won’t be good.
Again, while liturgy has declined at roughly the same time that the Catechism was written, the Catechism is not replacing the liturgy. In fact, if the clergy better internalized the Catechism, we’d see less liturgical abuse.
>> No, you don’t get it, do you? We are either his sons or his sheep. Take your pick. <<
1.) That’s a false dichotomy that directly contradicts scripture.
2.) 98% of the people in 1436 couldn’t read or write. On what basis could they possibly discern heresy in the writings of another people from another culture expressing themselves in another language? Or as sons, are your presupposing they had some supernatural discernment?
Et people need is less talking between church dignitaries and more talk on common level.
What I mean is that 99,9% of Christians are cueless about ecumenism.
In Blkans especialy.
Wee need meetings, open arguments, TV shows, even talkshows where we, as common people and Orthodox believers can talk to Catholic priests, representatives from vatican nad our own Catholic prirests from Serbia.
1. People must be ensured that Vatican is not some foreighn mystical power that wants to convers Orthodox
2. We need someone to explain to the Serbs that Vatican is no longer supporting anti-Serb and Anti-Russian actions (relations are getting better, Vatican supports Serbia over Kosovo and that one goes well as relations in general)
talks between cardinals and Patriarcha are useless.
If people are having open disscussions about joining EU or some stupid laws, we need to see and TALK to Catholics
You see for us Serbs (as you know) when you ask a common Serb abouth Vatican- his brain goes: Vatican-Croatia-Genocide- WWII.
But we need a Catholic priests, even common Catholic believers from OTHER countries, Hungary, Mexico, Brazil tec.
DIALOGUE must be lowered down to ordinary people.
My opinion anyway....
The main reason for the Vatican II were not infallible dogmatic statements in the face of heresy, but the push to end this passive spectator culture and to get the participation of the congregation in the liturgy while maintaining elements of the Latin Mass.
This turned out to be a disaster because the, the substance, degree and manner of participation of the laity was not spelled out precisely enough, leaving plenty of "holes" that ended up being filled by everyone as they saw fit.
In the culture where the priests performed on stage and the laity simply observed, official catechisms replaced the liturgical lex orandi, lex credendi principle, so people had to be taught what to believe.
This may explain the existence of different "rites" (unknwn to the early Church), and perhaps that's why most Catholics don't see changes in the liturgy necessarily as changes in their faith, or understand why the liturgy must be preserved essentially unchanged.
No doubt, any reunion would have to be approved by the Synond of the Patriarchs, with Bartholomew vote being counted as any other Patriarch's vote.
A disconnect between the Mass and the Catechism can only be confusing and counterproductive. When you have more than one Mass, how can you have the same Catechism?
How can anyone internalize anything if it keeps chaging? The Catechism from 80 years ago is not the same Catechism of today. In this fluid magisterial culture how can anyone know for sure what is orthodox and what is not?
Which "radition" do you adhere to?
On the same basis as all along—the liturgy. Lex orandi, lex credendi. Eastern liturgy is not a spectator sport. Liturgy is participation in God'spresence. Whatever they had in the litireguy is what they believed as orhtodox. That's why liturgy cannot change.
We also use icons which are Gospels in pictures. People knew the New Testament through the icons. Each picture is a liturgcial story. And every homily is based on the Biblical reading which they heard in the Church, at funerals, and feasts. Every sacrament is litrugical.
The early Church did not have catechisms. They just had the liturgy. By your formula, one would have to wait until the 20th century, when literacy peaked, to become fully catechized.
People in the East in 1436 had the same liturgy for over 1,000 years. That's the only way one can tell if it is still orthodox. If you change your service every so often, or your catechism, or you introduce different rites and "ordinary" and "extraodinary" Masses, how are you to know what is orthodox and what is not? How can Catechism be in harmony wiht something like a Clown Mass?
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.