Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns

Orthodoxinfo.com ^ | 1848 | Various

[Kolokotronis]

“Kolo, do you know if we, as a Church, have ever subscribed to such Christological heresies?”

That’s easy, NO!

[Kolokotronis]

“The pre-Vatican II Church was not multi cultural. It was catholic because it transcended all human cultures and races and languages.”

and

“The Gospels were taught in native tongues but not in the liturgy. Pre-Vatican II Catholics learned the Latin of the Holy Mass in their lifetime in Church. And that was the same language in Japan as it was in South Africa and America.”

My father, may his memory be eternal, always, always, always maintained that what made and kept the Roman Church “Catholic” was precisely what you have written. He would say, and he experienced as did I, that whether we were in the States, or Spain, or Japan, or Buenos Aires, the Holy Mass was the same. As for learning the Latin, well, Jo, EVERYONE understood that Latin. It came for most from spending every Sunday at Mass. For others, like me and some other altar boys, its because a father sent us to our room with a missal and told us not to come out until we had memorized the entire Mass, both the priest’s parts and the altar boy parts.... 50 years later and I can still do it, Jo!

You didn’t grow up then did you, Jo.

[jo kus]

First you cite no sources, just some opinions of yours. You claim the Church would have been much worse off without the Vatican II. Prove it! Sounds like you have a crystal ball.

What a hoot you are... How am I supposed to prove that if something didn't take place, we'd be worse off - to your liking??? Of course it is my opinion - and it far better explains your outsider opinion.

Where are you getting this from? What dominoes were falling? Your statistics are wrong. You are making things up, or someone is lying to you.

Slow down. What statistics did I give you??? I gave you reasons based upon my understanding of Catholicism from the inside. I deal with people falling away from Christainity and I deal with Church reports on WHY this happens. Reasons are not statistics. I know attendance is dropping, and I did not dispute that. I don't know, maybe you just like to argue. But I would suggest you actually read what I post and base your replies on that.

The problems were already within the Church, otherwise, there wouldn't have been such a major problem so quickly once the windows were opened... I named MAJOR forces at work within the American culture at this time. Loss of respect of authority, civil rights movements, and lack of meaning of a Liturgy that few understood. They far excel the idea that saying the Mass in English rather than Latin had some sort of magical effect that suddenly people stopped going to Church!

And guess what: despite all the pagan and abominal changes allowed to happen under the last Pope, the number of people who stopped coming to the the Church didn't stop, but increased!

Perhaps you have forgotten the history of your own Patriarchs and their leading "Orthodoxy" into heresy over and over again during the first millenium? Would you like an extensive list of the heretical Patriarchs of Alexandria and Constantinople? Then we could compare that to the number of heretics that sat at the Apostolic See in Rome... ZERO. So before you babble on about leading people into paganism, perhaps you should look to the mote in your own eye.

How could the Church be better off with the Vatican II as you seem to suggest then without it if the shortage of priests and nuns continues and the parishes continue to close?

It is quite naive to think that nuns threw off their habits BECAUSE the Mass was now said in the vernacular...!

I don't attribute the cause of problems in the Western Church TO Vatican 2. The causes were already creeping into the Church BEFORE the Council. People's view on God and Church and authority from God had already changed by the time Vatican 2 came about. "WHY LISTEN TO THE CHURCH? THEY'RE CRAMPING MY STYLE"... The end result of the Enlightenment. The heresy of Modernism. Vatican 2 was promulgated to fight the heresy of removing the necessity of the Church of Jesus Christ from the lives of people of the world.

Regards

[jo kus]

The real stuff started with the John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963, followed by the Martin Luther King's assassination five years later, and then Ted Kennedy's assassination, the Tet Offensive in Vietnam, and the radicalization of the America's blacks as a result of Martin Luther's death. This is way past the Vatican II and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Catholic Church! The women's movement and bra-burning protests didn't happen until the early 1970's, along with the Watergate scandal and the "love" culture that took over in that decade following our demise in Vietnam.

And when was the Vatican 2 implemented by the Church again???

Regards

[jo kus]

The Church had a few whacky liberal theologians, but other than that no one was clammoring for any kind of monumental change that happened in the Vatican.

I have asked you once already. Now again. Which "monumental changes" happened "in" Vatican 2?

Regards

[jo kus]

You didn’t grow up then did you, Jo.

I served as an altar boy in the 1970's, so no, I did not grow up then. However, I did know people who went to Mass every Sunday and prayed the rosary because they didn't understand what was said. The priest was doing his thing and the people were doing theirs. Participation was in name only. Mass was merely an obligation to attend to, not a meeting of our Lord and Savior.

Hopefully, you will understand that mere rote memory of Latin words does not mean a person UNDERSTANDS what is happening during the Mass, just as my rote memorization of the Byzantium Rites would make me suddenly knowledgeable of the Mysteries proclaimed. I am still at a loss why you think the LANGUAGE said during the Mass has any transcendant meaning.

Regards

[jo kus]

We are a Church of the Seven Councils, jo, and we do not subscribe to suboridnationalist tendencies, various individual theologians and Ecumenical Patriarchs notwithstanding.

I'd comment on this and your understanding of the filioque, but I can see there is no hope of constructive discussion with you, as you tend to appeal to emotion and are not able to take constructive criticsm.

Perhaps it would be better if I just don't respond anymore to you for awhile.

Regards

[Kolokotronis]

“I am still at a loss why you think the LANGUAGE said during the Mass has any transcendant meaning.”

Like my father said, it made the Roman Church “Catholic”; you do know what “Catholic” means, I assume.

“Hopefully, you will understand that mere rote memory of Latin words does not mean a person UNDERSTANDS what is happening during the Mass,”

Jo, you do understand, I trust, that the faithful had missals with English on the right hand page and Latin on the left. Like I said, Jo, EVERYONE understood the Latin, even we kids who learned it by “rote memory”. Lots of things used to be learned that way, Jo. Converts to Orthodoxy still learn that way, Greek/Slavonic/Arabic on one page, English on the other. Within a few years John Smith, convert from Presbyterianism, can chant with the best of them and tell you just what is going on and why at the Divine Liturgy. Maybe modern Latins aren’t receptive to that sort of education, but modern Protestants, grown ups or kids, seem to be quite capable of learning that way.

Oh, and as an aside, the likes of Tex and Kosta and I could go to a Divine Liturgy in Arabic in Syria and be quite at home and know exactly what’s going on and being said even though, I suspect, none of us know more than a dozen words in Arabic. We can do this because we learned the Liturgy in Byzantine Greek or Slavonic, neither of which are languages one hears on the street.

[kosta50]

The East canonized the Bible???

St. Athanasius' canon is the one that was accepted in the West at the end of the 4th century.

So when was the Book of Revelation, part of the Western Canon, accepted as the Word of God and preached during the Divine Liturgy in the East?

It was horse traded for the book of Hebrews. The Book of revelation was accepted sometime after the 9th century, and then only pro-forma. I think the Bible would be just fine without it. That book just doesn't seem Christian, let alone "inspired" at all to me.

Which Eastern Counciliar [sic] definition has provided us an infallible list of the Table of Contents of Scriptures?

Which Ecumenical Council mandated acceptance of the canon accepted at the III Council of Cartage? It's not mandatory.

[kosta50]

And IF they believe this is the Word of God, why is NOT the entire Word of God proclaimed?

Who says what is "mandatory?" Your local African Council? Talk about an air of superiority? Come on, jo, you are making me laugh.

Secondly, you don't LITERALLY pray the same way that was prayed and taught by the earliest Church

I never said we do. You are making that up too. I said our liturgy of St. Basic and its shorter version of St. John Chrysostom, is the way the Greek Churches prayed 1,700 years ago when the Church accepted the Bible canon from St. Athanasius.

Prior to that, the earliest divine liturgy predating St. Basil's is the Liturgy of St. James (the Just), in Jerusalem, believed to have been the first Christian liturgy served by the Church while still in Israel, that is in the 1st century synagogues.

The surviving copies, which are admittedly Christianized, show  striking similarity even identical hymns with that those found in St. Basil's/St. Jhn Chrysostom's liturgies of the third/fourth centuries.

[kosta50]

Clearly, you are being anachronistic and conveniently ignore the fact that the East ALSO utilizes a rite that is not original with Christianity's roots.

First, I never said our "rite" was how the original Church prayed, what she believed and taught  and served the liturgy. I said that's how we prayed and what we believed at the time when the Church canonized the Bible, c. 350 AD, by St. Athanasius of Alexandria, later accepted as canon by the III Council of Cartage in 397 AD.

Why are you mischaracterizing my statements which clearly never claimed that we pray as the original Church? I only said it is closer than other others to the original Church.

The Apostle's Creed is not the exact same Creed as the Nicean Creed

The Apostles Creed is a  misnomer. The Apostle's Creed is unknown in the East. Whose ever Creed it was it was not the Creed of the Church but of local assemblies, obviously influenced by the  Nicene Creed, and therefore subsequent to it. Earliest copies are late 8th century manuscripts. First mention of it is in a letter supposedly dated 390 AD. But with so many forgeries, no one can ever be sure. 

The East never used any other Creeds except the one formalized and declared by the whole Church, and never changed an iota in it.

[kosta50]

This includes how she prays to God in public worship. Why would that be different, while Councils convene to discuss what we believe intellectually?

You don't get it do you? We use the liturgy of St. Basil and its shorter version by St. John Chrysostom. In it, we recite/sin the Creed as it was finalized by the Church by the end of the 4th century. That's how we prayed then and that's how we pray today. That's what the Church in the East believed then and that's what we believe today. That's what the Church of St. Athanasius prayed and believed when it collected the canon of the Bible which the West accepted in 397 AD. 

We have not added any new creeds, changed the old one or discovered what we have not believed all along. We have added inconostasis, we have placed the Eucharist, the Body and Blood, into a cup and serve it with a golden spoon. We have changed how the pre-sanctified Gifts are brought not the church and where they are placed. We have changed the vestments to some degree. We have added hymns in between litanies. These are additions, but not to the what we believe or how we pray.

Yes, that is why you must post about the Catholic Church over and over

I am simply responding to you and others who reply, using facts as much as possible, to make my point. Is that against the law?

Now I know that nudity is permitted in the Catholic Church even though the Catechism is against it. I am not surprised any more.

Your definition of "church" and what makes a "church" is Pharisaical...

Okay, then anything goes! Right? Just say it and I will stop. Where doe you draw the line? When does a ritual become Pharisaical? By your reasoning the Catholic Church was the most Pharisaical Church for the longest time. Will you admit that? According to the Council of Trent, nothing can change. The words have to be pronounced exactly the same way without any change or otherwise the sacrament is empty.

Why do you have a Missal? Why not just ad lib?

[kosta50]

Oh, and as an aside, the likes of Tex and Kosta and I could go to a Divine Liturgy in Arabic in Syria and be quite at home and know exactly what’s going on and being said even though, I suspect, none of us know more than a dozen words in Arabic

I attended Divine Liturgy in Tokyo, Japan, every opportunity I had, and I was right at home, even though my Japanese is very basic. The liturgy is the same, the choir sang the same hymns but in Japanese and I hummed along in Slavonic.

My beloved friend crossed over from being Roman Catholicism to Orthodoxy five years ago. Today she can read Cyrillic and sing Slavonic liturgy in Russian and Serbian churches. She knows what each word means. People are amazed how quickly she learned. She didn't understand a lick of that language nor could she read Cyrillic five years ago.

[kosta50]

 

I'd comment on this and your understanding of the filioque, but I can see there is no hope of constructive discussion with you, as you tend to appeal to emotion and are not able to take constructive criticsm

I appeal to emotion? I use reference and data and pictures in my arguments. You call that emotional? 

You are welcome to say antyhing you want about the filioque, now that we understand that we are not exactly kissing cousins.

[kosta50]

I have asked you once already. Now again. Which "monumental changes" happened "in" Vatican 2?

The sources I listed that spell out the details you dismiss as traditionalist, so I can't help you there jo. Obviously many Catholics who know a lot about the Church think something monumental took place. For sure, lower Church attendance was the firstfuit of this "dedperately" needed reform. And it never stopped falling.

I don't know who is feeding you this information about the '60s and why, but either their perspective or their memory is flawed, or both.

[jo kus]

I appeal to emotion? I use reference and data and pictures in my arguments. You call that emotional?

Sure, whatever.

The only reason why you are speaking to a Westerner on these matters is emotional. You do not desire constructive discussion. You prefer to batter your OPPONENT with your self-proclaimed righteousness while continuously pointing out perceived shortcomings. This is not discussion that I wish to be part of.

I have done apologetics for years, and I have found that people like yourself (at least how you are presenting yourself now), Calvinists, Non-denominationals, SDA, JV's, and now you, are not looking to discuss issues. No matter what I say, it will just go in one ear and out the other as you either deny or ignore it, secure in your sense of superiority. I am able to accept constructive criticism, as I have been with Kolo. I cannot say the same for you, so I must bid you a farewell. I have no desire to waste time and energy with your constant pharisaical badgering. Spiritually, it is unsound to continue such talks that only aim at self-congratulatory pride.

Adios.

[kosta50]

And when was the Vatican 2 implemented by the Church again???

In 1963; ended in 1965. In 1963 there was no revolutionary sociopolitical upheaval in America. The 1960's were a very naive period, with beatles as somewhat odd but popular English import, with Elvis Presley and "I dream of Jeannie" shows.

The 1963 assasination of JFK was the crack that started it, but it wasn't felt until the country was thrown into turmoil by the detahs of Martin Luther King and Bob Kennedy, and the Tet Offensive, and the anrgy youth and acid culture of the Woodstock a year later.

And even then the majority of Americans were straight "squares" who elected Nixon and reelected him by a landslide four years later.

There was nothing "bubbling" underneath in America that made the Vatican II in 1963 Europe a "desperately" needed Council. There was nothing in prosperous and politically and socially stable Europe that required it either.

We were watching Dean Martin and the Rat pack, Jack Lemmon, Shirley McLaine, and the original "Pink Panther." and "Star Trek." Nothing particularly revolutionary bakc then, not until the end of the decade. By then the Vatican II was done and over with.

[jo kus]

Jo, you do understand, I trust, that the faithful had missals with English on the right hand page and Latin on the left. Like I said, Jo, EVERYONE understood the Latin, even we kids who learned it by “rote memory”. Lots of things used to be learned that way, Jo. Converts to Orthodoxy still learn that way, Greek/Slavonic/Arabic on one page, English on the other. Within a few years John Smith, convert from Presbyterianism, can chant with the best of them and tell you just what is going on and why at the Divine Liturgy. Maybe modern Latins aren’t receptive to that sort of education, but modern Protestants, grown ups or kids, seem to be quite capable of learning that way.

What exactly is it you want from me, Kolo? What is the purpose of this discussion again? To admit that the woes of the Western world stem from saying the Mass in English rather than Latin? Does it really matter what language we worship God in? Should we go back to Hebrew?

Oh, and as an aside, the likes of Tex and Kosta and I could go to a Divine Liturgy in Arabic in Syria and be quite at home and know exactly what’s going on and being said even though, I suspect, none of us know more than a dozen words in Arabic.

I had a pretty basic idea when I went to Rome and heard a Hungarian language Catholic Mass, as well...Some of the customs were different, but no matter, by the grace of God, I was able to raise my mind to God, not by some man-made construct, formula, or langauge.

The point I am and have been making is that I do not see WHY the Mass said in English is "pernicious". My question remains, my friend. Catholic means universal, but that is not in reference to one language, since the Catholic Church before Schism did not consist of a culture with one language.

Regards

[kosta50]

How am I supposed to prove that if something didn't take place, we'd be worse off - to your liking??? Of course it is my opinion - and it far better explains your outsider opinion.

Then maybe you can state them as you opinions and not as a matter of fact. Saying the Church is much better of with then without something is stating it as a matter of fact.

I know attendance is dropping, and I did not dispute that. I don't know, maybe you just like to argue.

The attendance nose dived right after Vatican II which was supposed to make things better! The attendance never stopped falling. Look at the chart again and tell me it's not related!

The problems were already within the Church, otherwise, there wouldn't have been such a major problem so quickly once the windows were opened

What was the problem?

I named MAJOR forces at work within the American culture at this time

There were no major forces in the American culture in 1963 acting on anything, let alone the Vatican. Are you suggesting that the Vatican was convened because of what was allegedly brewing in America? Is this another one of your bizarre opinions or a fact?

Loss of respect of authority, civil rights movements, and lack of meaning of a Liturgy that few understood

First there was no loss of respect for authority in 1963. The Civil Rights movement did not become radicalized until 1966 . I am sure it had absolutely nothing to do with the Vatican II, which concluded a year prior.

And I frankly have no clue why American Catholics suddenly "stopped" understanding the liturgy they heard all their life.

If anything the Vatican II has lead to the loss of respect and sanctity of the liturgy, the loss of the belief in the Real Presence being the child of the Vatican II, none of which was an issue before it.

Would you like an extensive list of the heretical Patriarchs of Alexandria and Constantinople?  

I think it would be very educational for all the lukers and others. It would also be good to state exactly who was behind them and who was not, because the Eastern Church did not unequivocally support these heresies.

 Then we could compare that to the number of heretics that sat at the Apostolic See in Rome... ZERO

No, ONE, Honorius I. He was condemned posthumously by an Ecumenical Council signed by one of his successors. In fact all Popes following that Council cursed Honirous I at their installment. This was changed after the Schism and the Church reversed its stand making a heretic into a "victim."

It is quite naive to think that nuns threw off their habits BECAUSE the Mass was now said in the vernacular...!

They left because of the Vatican II abuses!  The same Vatican II that was "desperately" needed according to your "sources."

The nuns had no problem staying in when the Latin was the vernacular because the Church in those days did not practice "anything goes" Christianity.

I don't attribute the cause of problems in the Western Church TO Vatican 2

Oh? Experts seem to think that all the "loopholes" intentionally left in the Vatican II documents are directly responsible for abuses.

The causes were already creeping into the Church BEFORE the Council.

Like what?

People's view on God and Church and authority from God had already changed by the time Vatican 2 came about

Whoever is feeding you this stuff about the early 1960s is either dreaming or hallucinating.

People didn't have long hair, there were no hippies, there was no "flower culture," sit-ins, Woodtsock, tie-dye t-shirts, long sideburns, free love, afros, or bellbototm pants. Not in 1963 or in 1965.  Not much different than the late 1950's.

Even the Beatles were clean-cut!

Vatican 2 was promulgated to fight the heresy of removing the necessity of the Church of Jesus Christ from the lives of people of the world.

Huh? Are you okay? What does that mean? And where are you getting this from?

[Religion Moderator]

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

Attributing motives - and otherwise reading the mind of another Freeper - is a form of "making it personal."