What's it gonna take?

[winsome]

2.   What you mean by we have groups in the south mostly who are not unlike Pentecostals (Charismatic Pentecostals). They too are in communion with Rome but they are rejected by certain jurisdictions within Roman Catholicism.

I meant South America because that's where a lot of charismatic (speaking in tongues and really contemporary liturgies) are flourishing.  They're causing a lot of Catholics to question the movement or maybe I should say "some" Catholics.   Plus if you have a charismatic Catholic speaking in tongues in a Roman Catholic church where the priest or whoever is against such things then they usually get transferred, removed etc. 


3.   You also have other groups that have been absorbed into Rome who are so liturgically backwards that it's scary. Can you give an example of which groups you are referring to.

Well the one I posted up there is liturgically pretty whoa.  I mean, do you think the Apostles had the women incense the Altar and spin it around to a lion king soundtrack?  I know that sounds a little harsh but I mean, if the Apostles showed you to do a thing you would do that thing as it was done and you would have to be quite bold to think that you could just change that which was shown.  Perhaps I am being too firm here.  I don't know.  But coming from a protestant background, I don't react well to this stuff well.  If I were to go to a protestant service today it would feel more like a rock concert or a lecture. 

Even in the "traditional" protestant churches their hymns go back to the eighteenth century and are often filled with theological dispositions but I'm seeing in some of the Roman Catholic services these very same dispositions which are based on philosophies and scholasticism. 

They're experimenting with forms and varying expressions which seems more often than not to make the participant more "central" - man-centered if you know what I mean. 

Take a look at "emergent church" services and you'll see where a lot of this stuff is heading (i think). 


ICXC
NIKA

The Charismatic movement is worldwide. I've heard it said that in South America Catholic Charismatics are winning back millions of Catholics that went over to the Pentecostals.

However I think you raise two issues here, both of which may perhaps deserve their own thread.

The first is how much change/ updating/ inculturation/ development (call it what you will) is healthy and how much is not. My impression is that to some extent Orthodoxy is very frightened of change, rather like a rabbit transfixed in the headlights of an oncoming car. Its structure makes it very difficult to adapt.

That is both a strength and a weakness.  A strength because it does not easily absorb the whims of the day, or practices from outside that might be detrimental. A weakness because the world changes and sometimes we need to adapt to changing situations. The apostles did.  How far has Orthodoxy penetrated Africa, South America, India, Australia etc. or is it stuck in certain parts of the world, particularly Eastern Europe and Asia?

The second issue is the Catholic Charismatic movement. In some ways this exemplifies the first issue. I believe it is a move of the Holy Spirit in our time and is bringing great fruits to the Church. But at the same time I do have concerns in some areas at what goes on at grass roots level Part of the problem is that it has no structure of itself and it not properly pastored by the Church hierarchy. Perhaps that is good in that it stops the dead hand of the hierarchy throttling it off prematurely. It is a very young movement in Church terms

[Ryan2010]

Having said this it's clear to me that I need to go back into prayer/meditating mode.

Well, that is always good, but don't stop posting here Ryan.  I am not mad, I was only angry at the video you had posted due to the fact that it seemed to repeat some of the very erroneous charges that are simply not true or gross mischaracterisations of Catholic belief that I've heard over the years from the Protestants.

Please do not think that I am basing any feelings for you from that.  I know you are Orthodox and respect your beliefs. 

I am just busy with other stuff and can't always get back to answering your post very quickly some times.  I actually spend most of my time with this sort of thing posting on a Catholic board so I miss this one for a couple of days or more, every so often.   I will try to answer your last post tonight or tomorrow.  We're good.   

I know you're not mad and I agree with the language used in the video.  It was invisible to me and should have taken into account when posting it is all.  I often forget others sensibilities and assume they'll just overlook.  Something I have to work on. 

[desertknight]

Ryan does have a point that we Catholics in the west probably have worse problems with liturgical abuse than those of the east or among the Eastern Orthodox, but those abuses are rare and usually the fault of left-over 1970's experimentation.  In over 30 years of being a Catholic I have only witnessed any serious liturgical abuse on maybe, two occasions.  It also must be pointed out that bad taste and even disrespect, does not in and of itself constitute invalidity.  A Mass should be both licit, i.e., done according to the rubics, and valid, priest is legally celebrating and with proper intent.  There are Masses in which bad taste may even go so far as to make it illicit, but that does not necessarily mean that it is invalid.  The trend in the last 30 years has been to tighten up considerably on the reigns of liturgical practice and the blip of 70's innovation is now mostly in the past.

Ryan, I know you didn't mean anything by it, no hit, no foul.  

[Ryan2010]

No.  I am not sure what you are referring to as regards to the Catholic doctrine.  Which expression of "how" do you mean, specifically?  What formulaic expression?  

Well, the doctrine of transubstantiation uses Aristotelian logic to explain what is already dogma and so it makes the explanation dogma coupled with that which is already dogma.  

Like Winsome, that topic deserves, and has, it's own thread, but suffice it to say that no pope overturned anything there, and the filioque existed even before later councils endorsed it.  It was inserted by no pope.  It is not used by either eastern rite Catholics nor is it used in the Greek translations of the liturgy in the West.  Why?  In that answer is the reason why it is viewed by the west as a bit of a "red herring", but as I said, that could fill ten pages of another thread, dedicated to the matter.

Well again, my focus is not so much if the Pope exercises that which Rome believes he has the power to do but in the simple fact that Rome believes he has the power at all.  I think if you look at the anathemas and the disposition of Popes about the filioque prior to the addition and the fact that the language is so strong regarding the creed being "complete" that the addition itself done unilaterally is an act of Rome trying to overturn the judgement of general council.  But like you say, it's a lengthy topic.  I was just drawing attention to the assertion of power that Rome believes it has.  

And as such, he demanded obedience and loyalty to him, why?  Because he does not simply represent Antioch, but the Church.  The Bishop of Rome was acknowledged from the earliest records as having the place of primacy.  

Well that's where we depart.  Primacy sure but in what relation does this Primacy have to Supremacy and why don't we see this in early Christianity, councils, creeds and canons.  

They exercised that position of universal authority in the post canonical record begining with Clement's epistle to the church at Corinth.

I'll address this later.  The address of the letter itself is conciliar and doesn't point to Papal authority or supremacy but to Apostolic succession.  We can't confuse those things with Primacy or we juxtapose the modern definition onto the past where it does not exist.  

Almost any letter by any modern pope reads exactly as Clement's does.  His letter, btw, was deemed so important by the universal Church that it was read as part of the cannon by many churches up until the final cannon of the NT was decided on.  The point I am getting at which I will make again is that the pope is not separate from the loyalty and obedience owned any bishop as he represents the universal Church.  

That the letters read the same is not the issue. The idea that the Pope has universal jurisdiction is the issue and St. Clements letter does not support this universal jurisdiction but instead the conciliar reality.  To juxtapose the like qualities of conciliar tone as proof that St. Clement was talking about Universal Jurisdiction juxtaposes the present onto the past.  

I don't follow the logic here.  If it is a place to file and appeal, and you are correct, what good does it do to file one if when you loose that appeal, you simply then disavow the power of the judge to rule anyway, and go home?

I've come across other canons and letters written by early Christians that clear this up.  Blessed Augustine touches on this.  I'll post on this later as well.  

You mention that it may have been done as Rome had a wonderful track record.  Pardon me, Ryan, but that seems awfully close to the Protestant concept that if one does not like the authority that one is presented with, simply move on and find one that renders decisions more to your liking.  We do not owe obedience to any bishop, including the chief bishop, based on the criteria that they must agree with what we decide is orthodoxy, or all bets are off.  Authority is from God.  It is not for us to diminish or disobey because we may or may not, personally agree with it's decisions.

Well, I'm talking about the fact that Rome was given her Primacy of honor based on her past.  It was there that St. Peter and St. Paul were martyred and it was there that all roads led and so many Bishops gathered to her to study with other approved.  We see this reality in the council of Sardica wherein they decide that Bishops need to not spend so much time in Rome but tend to their own jurisdiction.  

It's not about rejecting authority or finding something suitable but for me it's about the search for the truth.  It's the reality of the early Church that I seek and Supremacy and Universal Jurisdiction isn't present.  To say that universal jurisdiction was given to the Bishops of Rome because they inherit the chrism of universal jurisdiction only from St. Peter and the chrism of infallible teaching from the person of St. Peter is not found in early Christianity or her expression through canons, creeds, councils and even biblical commentary.  

I'll address this later more fully as well.  

a.  Here is one big, big, big, misconception and problem you are having with this whole "Papal Supremacy" issue.  The authority of the Pope is not independent of the Church as a whole!  It is exercised in concert with wider council.  The pope's infallibility is a inseparable part of and an extension of, the infallibility promised by Christ for the whole Church.  It exist only within the area of "faith and morals" for that very reason.  It is only in speaking for, not as, the Universal Church, that the pope exercises such infallibility and has such authority.

Again, you see an Ecumenical council only being Ecumenical if in concert with the Pope but history does not paint this picture.  This is why I say that I don't see this "according to the whole".  The "infallibility" of the Pope according to Rome rests with him sometimes (#3) acting in concert with the general council but again this is foreign even to Rome until the later centuries wherein the schism became solidified.

b.  It is a hard one, because it, and others like it, point to the first point that I made.  If what was to become the Orthodox churches did not adhere to it's belief that issues were, "never been allowed to discuss again what has once been decided by the Apostolic See", then why in blazes did they continue to assent to such decisions and the dogmatic justification they were based on, for hundreds of years?

This is a quote that comes from St. Augustine, no?  I'll reply to this later as well.  I hope to put this into context.

I know the answer why and stated so in my first post in this thread.  The question is, given that there is clear history of the Popes exercising their full and universal authority over the whole Church long before AD1054, why did what would become the Eastern Orthodox not depart or object strongly, long before then?  I hope your prayer and meditation will lead you to that same answer that I have and cause you to have it both ways, which you can, and meet us at the Eastern Rites.    

If after my replies you see no truth in my posts pray for me but if they seem to paint a picture outside of the presupposition of universal jurisdiction for the Bishops of Rome, I pray you will pray with me in our search to attain to the unity of the faith (we should do this regardless though)


Blessings.

[Ryan2010]

Come on. The Council not the Pope defined dogma.

You complain that the Pope has the power define doctrine independantly of a Council  or that he could over-rule a council. Now you are complaining that he didn't over-rule a Council. Don't you think that is a little inconsistent?

No, I wasn't complaining but only showing that the power is there to exercise.  Not exercising it also points to the ability to exercise.  It Pope John Paul said not to make it dogmatic, then it would not become dogmatic. 

Again, I'm not trying to argue within the context of Papal Supremacy or Infallaiblity but that the power is believed to be Apostolic.  That it's not flexed is great but had Pope John Paul been another with the same agenda, you could have a very different situation on your hands. 

[Ryan2010]

I've just been reading through this and not commenting as I think you are doing a bang-up job on your own, Winsome.  

That's very kind of you but I felt I was sinking.

Perhaps we need a special "smiley" that says "help me out someone I'm sinking here" 

I know the feeling all too well.  lol. 

That's funny.  I often read a thing and want to respond but then hope that another Orthodox person might come out of the woodwork and give it a shot.  But then I get fidgety and wind up seeing if I can't give it a go.  I often wind up reading something after I post that makes the explanation much easier or even points out where I was wrong in my explanation and then I just hope that I haven't done damage.  I need to put a disclaimer on my replies.   

[winsome]

Come on. The Council not the Pope defined dogma.

You complain that the Pope has the power define doctrine independantly of a Council  or that he could over-rule a council. Now you are complaining that he didn't over-rule a Council. Don't you think that is a little inconsistent?

No, I wasn't complaining but only showing that the power is there to exercise.  Not exercising it also points to the ability to exercise.  It Pope John Paul said not to make it dogmatic, then it would not become dogmatic. 

Again, I'm not trying to argue within the context of Papal Supremacy or Infallaiblity but that the power is believed to be Apostolic.  That it's not flexed is great but had Pope John Paul been another with the same agenda, you could have a very different situation on your hands. 

I think that you are viewing that the wrong way. It's not that Pope would veto a decision of the council, but that without the Pope's agreement the Council would not be teaching in communion with him. It's not a case of #3 (Pope on his own making a decision) but of #2 not being fulfilled (all the assembled bishops in communion with the Pope).

[Ryan2010]

Ryan does have a point that we Catholics in the west probably have worse problems with liturgical abuse than those of the east or among the Eastern Orthodox, but those abuses are rare and usually the fault of left-over 1970's experimentation.  In over 30 years of being a Catholic I have only witnessed any serious liturgical abuse on maybe, two occasions.  It also must be pointed out that bad taste and even disrespect, does not in and of itself constitute invalidity.  A Mass should be both licit, i.e., done according to the rubics, and valid, priest is legally celebrating and with proper intent.  There are Masses in which bad taste may even go so far as to make it illicit, but that does not necessarily mean that it is invalid.  The trend in the last 30 years has been to tighten up considerably on the reigns of liturgical practice and the blip of 70's innovation is now mostly in the past.

Ryan, I know you didn't mean anything by it, no hit, no foul.  

Yeah my only point is that when you replace the liturgy that once was the vehicle through which the Holy Spirit instructs and teaches the faithful on matters of faith, doctrine, morals etc.  And then put in place some contemporary jangle and sprinkle it with words that are more like the, "one way Jesus" songs we find in protestant churches, you wind up losing the teachings of the Church.  A disconnect occurs.  

Throughout our history there have been times where the liturgy itself seemed to sustain Orthodoxy and kept the laity from departing from The Faith.  

Remove the worship that instructs and keeps us vigil and we become lax and self centered.  

Ohhhhh, catchy we say.  That was fun.  What is our belief on the Holy Trinity again?  Why can't my kid recite the Lords Prayer or the Creed?   It's been replaced by:

Now these are strongly worded and I think that these are probably the views of the Old Traditionalists in Roman Catholicism but they make a case on some points.  I don't think the change from Latin to English is a bad one and I don't really know how alike all the new Roman masses are.  

But what I wonder here is did the Pope have the authority to change even the Mass independent of even the Roman Councils?  I'm not asking if he exercised this but if he had the right and authority and did that right and authority come from his inheritance of the chrism of the person of St. Peter?  

[Ryan2010]

I think that you are viewing that the wrong way. It's not that Pope would veto a decision of the council, but that without the Pope's agreement the Council would not be teaching in communion with him. It's not a case of #3 (Pope on his own making a decision) but of #2 not being fulfilled (all the assembled bishops in communion with the Pope).

But see, the council then has not jurisdiction without the Pope.  So in the case of Pope Honorius?  How does this square?  The council could be valid and yet because of the error of the Pope not come to fruition.  I guess this is a moot point if you see apostolicity in Papal Supremacy. 

I'm going to post later, God willing, and see if I can't at least point out that universal jurisdiction for the Bishops of Rome is an innovation. 

[desertknight]

I think it points to what I was saying, Ryan, that the two clips you have posted have been recycled about a gazillion times.  The problem with the argument of the liturgy being "replaced" and being in error or in causing error, is that one does not follow the other.  What does that mean?  Well, the two vids you posted are not examples of what we Catholics call the OF, ordinary form, or sometimes called the Novus Ordo Mass.  Some traditionalist like to argue against the OF Mass as if they were, and I think you may be taking that position, but it is simply invalid. 

What those are, are examples of liturgical abuse of the OF form of the Mass.  It's as if I attended an Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy, and for whatever reason, the local ordinary decided to wear a "cheese head" hat during it to stupidly show support for his team.  Now as awful as it may be, it may, (or may not), invalidate that particular Mass, but it does not invalidate the entire form of the Mass he may be celebrating.

Some traditionalist tend to forget that liturgical abuse existed in the older form of the Mass as well, just as I'm sure that examples could be found among the Eastern Orthodox.  The argument over the OF Mass among us Catholics has put the spotlight on us and so it is much more visible.  As I said earlier, it is extremely rare to find such abuse which is why the same two or three videos keep getting re-cycled, over and over, and used to make the argument.

You should also note that one of the reasons for reforming the liturgy of the Mass was to make it come more into line with the Eastern Rites in their understanding of the liturgy, i.e., vernacular language used, more participation from the faithful, making reception of Holy Eucharist under both species the norm, etc.

[Ryan2010]

I think it points to what I was saying, Ryan, that the two clips you have posted have been recycled about a gazillion times.  The problem with the argument of the liturgy being "replaced" and being in error or in causing error, is that one does not follow the other.  What does that mean?  Well, the two vids you posted are not examples of what we Catholics call the OF, ordinary form, or sometimes called the Novus Ordo Mass.  Some traditionalist like to argue against the OF Mass as if they were, and I think you may be taking that position, but it is simply invalid. 

What those are, are examples of liturgical abuse of the OF form of the Mass.  It's as if I attended an Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy, and for whatever reason, the local ordinary decided to wear a "cheese head" hat during it to stupidly show support for his team.  Now as awful as it may be, it may, (or may not), invalidate that particular Mass, but it does not invalidate the entire form of the Mass he may be celebrating.

Some traditionalist tend to forget that liturgical abuse existed in the older form of the Mass as well, just as I'm sure that examples could be found among the Eastern Orthodox.  The argument over the OF Mass among us Catholics has put the spotlight on us and so it is much more visible.  As I said earlier, it is extremely rare to find such abuse which is why the same two or three videos keep getting re-cycled, over and over, and used to make the argument.

You should also note that one of the reasons for reforming the liturgy of the Mass was to make it come more into line with the Eastern Rites in their understanding of the liturgy, i.e., vernacular language used, more participation from the faithful, making reception of Holy Eucharist under both species the norm, etc.

I see. Thank you. 

I'm not familiar with the liturgies of the RCC but have only heard of all the hoopla that the changes received.  And my only point in addressing the liturgical change was to point out that the Pope has universal jurisdiction to cause such change.  That the change is benign is good but that the power and reach is there remains true. 

If there is no council separate from the Pope and that the Pope doesn't need council then the top heavy system doesn't seem to match the ancient church. 


Thanks again, Desert.  I have seen a Traditional Latin Mass on youtube but that doesn't count.  lol.  It was beautiful though.  I saw a lot of similarities and that's neat. 




God bless

[desertknight]

I would still caution you though, Ryan, that a pope, any pope, does not simply change the liturgy on his own.  It really doesn't work that way.  

Anywho, I saved this to a draft and found it in looking stuff up concerning the other argument.  This is from another message board and so I coudn't "quote" it, of course, but it is discussing the same issue and this quote is from a Russian Orthodox priest who is referring to the same quote from Irenaeus that I posted concerning all churches having to "agree with Rome".  I thought it interesting as the Father is taking to task many in his own church for miss-proof-texting and miss-translating it...

Fr Dcn Matthew (M.C. Steenberg), Orthodox Clergy and Moderator

No one expects apologists for certain positions to interpret texts in a uniform manner - else they would not be apologists for a specific interpretation. What needs to be done is to respond accurately in the face of such apologia, not simply returning tit-for-tat, but placing the fathers' writings into their proper contexts. The ultimate response against errant proof-texting is to move entirely away from that flawed form of argument and justification, not simply to turn it around and 'proof-text in reverse' by invalidating points on similarly flawed grounds. The response to proof-texting is context, and authentic reading. Most proof-texters will not give time to such a response; their wish is single phrase justifications for points of view. Real understanding of the fathers takes time, energy, calm.

But perhaps the best example of this intentional mistranslation is exposed by Abee Guettee in his book "the Papacy" in 1866. Not only does this former jesuit priest rejects this translation but he quite convincingly demonstrates what St Ireneous probably had indeed mean (see pages 62-69).
Abbé Guettée is not a realiable source. Apart from arguing almost entirely from a proof-texting position himself (albeit a reverse proof-texting, attempting to take every proof-text used by the Roman Catholic apologists he knew from his own past, and interpreting them in an Orthodox way against the RC usage), Guettée has a questionable relationship with many of the passages at which he looks. His large text, The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches, loses most of its credibility from its entire lack of objective grounding, and its extreme bias. This is not to say that bias is intrinsically bad (everyone has a bias), or to imply that 'objectivity' has to mean trating everything as equals; but Guettée is particuarly biased against his own background, and is unobjective in the worst sense: that he does not even try to understand why one might think differently than he, and thus imposes on many texts and writers views which he wishes them to have, without even giving consideration to alternative readings."

His treatment of St Irenaeus is case-in-point, and having spent the better part of my adult life studying St Irenaeus, I can say that I've never seen anyone take Guettée's views on him seriously. In chapter 3 of his The Papacy, Guettée gives a remarkably fanciful mis-translation of Ireaeus' On the detection and overthrow of knowledge falsely so-called 3.3.2, which he presents as:

   "we confound all those who in any manner whatsoever, either through blindness or bad intention, do not gather where they should; for every Church, that is to say, the faithful who are from all places, are obliged to go toward that Church, because of the most powerful principality. In this Church, the tradition of the Apostles has been preserved by those who are of all countries."

Guettée refuses to accept that agreement with the Church in Rome could possibly have been St Irenaeus' intention, on grounds, says Guettée, that 'Romish theologians choose a bad translation of this passage, in order to find in it an argument in favor of the papal sovereignty'. In a most remarkable paragraph following his presentation of his translation (above), he goes on to argue against various Roman Catholic readings, failing at every stage to recognise the difference between what certain apologists have interpreted the text to mean, and what St Irenaeus himself is talking about. He comments on their use to support 'papal sovereignty', but does not raise the fact that papal matters do not figure in Irenaeus' comments at all; he later speaks against the idea that the text speaks of Rome 'to which there must be uniformity and submission, because of her primacy', without actually challenging this against Ireaneus' focus in the chapter as a whole.

Because Guettée has decided that the text must speak against these misuses, rather than in its own right, and because the misuses he identifies are based on questions of authority, sovereignty, pirmacy and agreement, he finds himself forced to work St Irenaeus out of this embarrassing situation by completely mistranslating his words. It is not simply that he insists convenire must mean 'gather together' rather than 'agree with -- which it must not -- but he is forced to re-translate the whole thrust of St Irenaeus' argument in the whole of AH 3.2-3, so that it is now about apostles and faithful going towards Rome as empirical capital. Guettée goes on for some several paragraphs justifying this with grammatical arguments that no one finds convincing, not least because, grammar aside, they throw into nonsensical relief Irenaeus' own points elsewhere.

Long, I know, but I thought it worth posting.

[winsome]

Ryan does have a point that we Catholics in the west probably have worse problems with liturgical abuse than those of the east or among the Eastern Orthodox, but those abuses are rare and usually the fault of left-over 1970's experimentation.  In over 30 years of being a Catholic I have only witnessed any serious liturgical abuse on maybe, two occasions.  It also must be pointed out that bad taste and even disrespect, does not in and of itself constitute invalidity.  A Mass should be both licit, i.e., done according to the rubics, and valid, priest is legally celebrating and with proper intent.  There are Masses in which bad taste may even go so far as to make it illicit, but that does not necessarily mean that it is invalid.  The trend in the last 30 years has been to tighten up considerably on the reigns of liturgical practice and the blip of 70's innovation is now mostly in the past.

Ryan, I know you didn't mean anything by it, no hit, no foul.  

Yeah my only point is that when you replace the liturgy that once was the vehicle through which the Holy Spirit instructs and teaches the faithful on matters of faith, doctrine, morals etc.  And then put in place some contemporary jangle and sprinkle it with words that are more like the, "one way Jesus" songs we find in protestant churches, you wind up losing the teachings of the Church.  A disconnect occurs.  

Throughout our history there have been times where the liturgy itself seemed to sustain Orthodoxy and kept the laity from departing from The Faith.  

Remove the worship that instructs and keeps us vigil and we become lax and self centered.  

Ohhhhh, catchy we say.  That was fun.  What is our belief on the Holy Trinity again?  Why can't my kid recite the Lords Prayer or the Creed?   It's been replaced by:


Now these are strongly worded and I think that these are probably the views of the Old Traditionalists in Roman Catholicism but they make a case on some points.  I don't think the change from Latin to English is a bad one and I don't really know how alike all the new Roman masses are.  

But what I wonder here is did the Pope have the authority to change even the Mass independent of even the Roman Councils?  I'm not asking if he exercised this but if he had the right and authority and did that right and authority come from his inheritance of the chrism of the person of St. Peter?  

Bro Michael Dimond - Holy Family Monastery - sedevacntists. Not Catholics.

Pope Benedict is an anti-Pope. Mother Teresa of Calcutta is "one of the greatest apostates in history".

Take absolutely no notice of them or their videos.

[Ryan2010]

Ryan does have a point that we Catholics in the west probably have worse problems with liturgical abuse than those of the east or among the Eastern Orthodox, but those abuses are rare and usually the fault of left-over 1970's experimentation.  In over 30 years of being a Catholic I have only witnessed any serious liturgical abuse on maybe, two occasions.  It also must be pointed out that bad taste and even disrespect, does not in and of itself constitute invalidity.  A Mass should be both licit, i.e., done according to the rubics, and valid, priest is legally celebrating and with proper intent.  There are Masses in which bad taste may even go so far as to make it illicit, but that does not necessarily mean that it is invalid.  The trend in the last 30 years has been to tighten up considerably on the reigns of liturgical practice and the blip of 70's innovation is now mostly in the past.

Ryan, I know you didn't mean anything by it, no hit, no foul.  

Yeah my only point is that when you replace the liturgy that once was the vehicle through which the Holy Spirit instructs and teaches the faithful on matters of faith, doctrine, morals etc.  And then put in place some contemporary jangle and sprinkle it with words that are more like the, "one way Jesus" songs we find in protestant churches, you wind up losing the teachings of the Church.  A disconnect occurs.  

Throughout our history there have been times where the liturgy itself seemed to sustain Orthodoxy and kept the laity from departing from The Faith.  

Remove the worship that instructs and keeps us vigil and we become lax and self centered.  

Ohhhhh, catchy we say.  That was fun.  What is our belief on the Holy Trinity again?  Why can't my kid recite the Lords Prayer or the Creed?   It's been replaced by:


Now these are strongly worded and I think that these are probably the views of the Old Traditionalists in Roman Catholicism but they make a case on some points.  I don't think the change from Latin to English is a bad one and I don't really know how alike all the new Roman masses are.  

But what I wonder here is did the Pope have the authority to change even the Mass independent of even the Roman Councils?  I'm not asking if he exercised this but if he had the right and authority and did that right and authority come from his inheritance of the chrism of the person of St. Peter?  

Bro Michael Dimond - Holy Family Monastery - sedevacntists. Not Catholics.

Pope Benedict is an anti-Pope. Mother Teresa of Calcutta is "one of the greatest apostates in history".

Take absolutely no notice of them or their videos.

Ah, not even in communion with the RCC.  Good to know.  Thank you. 

What are sedevacntists?  Guess I can wiki... 

Thanks again, God bless

[winsome]

I think it points to what I was saying, Ryan, that the two clips you have posted have been recycled about a gazillion times.  The problem with the argument of the liturgy being "replaced" and being in error or in causing error, is that one does not follow the other.  What does that mean?  Well, the two vids you posted are not examples of what we Catholics call the OF, ordinary form, or sometimes called the Novus Ordo Mass.  Some traditionalist like to argue against the OF Mass as if they were, and I think you may be taking that position, but it is simply invalid.  

What those are, are examples of liturgical abuse of the OF form of the Mass.  It's as if I attended an Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy, and for whatever reason, the local ordinary decided to wear a "cheese head" hat during it to stupidly show support for his team.  Now as awful as it may be, it may, (or may not), invalidate that particular Mass, but it does not invalidate the entire form of the Mass he may be celebrating.

Some traditionalist tend to forget that liturgical abuse existed in the older form of the Mass as well, just as I'm sure that examples could be found among the Eastern Orthodox.  The argument over the OF Mass among us Catholics has put the spotlight on us and so it is much more visible.  As I said earlier, it is extremely rare to find such abuse which is why the same two or three videos keep getting re-cycled, over and over, and used to make the argument.

You should also note that one of the reasons for reforming the liturgy of the Mass was to make it come more into line with the Eastern Rites in their understanding of the liturgy, i.e., vernacular language used, more participation from the faithful, making reception of Holy Eucharist under both species the norm, etc.

I see. Thank you.  

I'm not familiar with the liturgies of the RCC but have only heard of all the hoopla that the changes received.  And my only point in addressing the liturgical change was to point out that the Pope has universal jurisdiction to cause such change.  That the change is benign is good but that the power and reach is there remains true.  

If there is no council separate from the Pope and that the Pope doesn't need council then the top heavy system doesn't seem to match the ancient church.  


Thanks again, Desert.  I have seen a Traditional Latin Mass on youtube but that doesn't count.  lol.  It was beautiful though.  I saw a lot of similarities and that's neat.  




God bless

The revision of the Mass was not something dreamed up by the Pope. It was authorised by the Council. There was a whole Council document Sacrosanctum Concilium (The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy), that spelt out the principles of what was wanted. The revised rites looked back pre-Council of Trent to the early liturgies of the Church.

The lectionary (scripture readings at Mass) was totally revised to give more continuous readings from the scriptures and ensure people were exposed to more scripture readings than previously.

[winsome]

Ryan does have a point that we Catholics in the west probably have worse problems with liturgical abuse than those of the east or among the Eastern Orthodox, but those abuses are rare and usually the fault of left-over 1970's experimentation.  In over 30 years of being a Catholic I have only witnessed any serious liturgical abuse on maybe, two occasions.  It also must be pointed out that bad taste and even disrespect, does not in and of itself constitute invalidity.  A Mass should be both licit, i.e., done according to the rubics, and valid, priest is legally celebrating and with proper intent.  There are Masses in which bad taste may even go so far as to make it illicit, but that does not necessarily mean that it is invalid.  The trend in the last 30 years has been to tighten up considerably on the reigns of liturgical practice and the blip of 70's innovation is now mostly in the past.

Ryan, I know you didn't mean anything by it, no hit, no foul.  

Yeah my only point is that when you replace the liturgy that once was the vehicle through which the Holy Spirit instructs and teaches the faithful on matters of faith, doctrine, morals etc.  And then put in place some contemporary jangle and sprinkle it with words that are more like the, "one way Jesus" songs we find in protestant churches, you wind up losing the teachings of the Church.  A disconnect occurs.  

Throughout our history there have been times where the liturgy itself seemed to sustain Orthodoxy and kept the laity from departing from The Faith.  

Remove the worship that instructs and keeps us vigil and we become lax and self centered.  

Ohhhhh, catchy we say.  That was fun.  What is our belief on the Holy Trinity again?  Why can't my kid recite the Lords Prayer or the Creed?   It's been replaced by:


Now these are strongly worded and I think that these are probably the views of the Old Traditionalists in Roman Catholicism but they make a case on some points.  I don't think the change from Latin to English is a bad one and I don't really know how alike all the new Roman masses are.  

But what I wonder here is did the Pope have the authority to change even the Mass independent of even the Roman Councils?  I'm not asking if he exercised this but if he had the right and authority and did that right and authority come from his inheritance of the chrism of the person of St. Peter?  

Bro Michael Dimond - Holy Family Monastery - sedevacntists. Not Catholics.

Pope Benedict is an anti-Pope. Mother Teresa of Calcutta is "one of the greatest apostates in history".

Take absolutely no notice of them or their videos.

Ah, not even in communion with the RCC.  Good to know.  Thank you. 

What are sedevacntists?  Guess I can wiki... 

Thanks again, God bless

The chair of Peter is empty. John XXIII (who called the council) and all subsequent Popes are heretics etc.

[mclees8]

I think it points to what I was saying, Ryan, that the two clips you have posted have been recycled about a gazillion times.  The problem with the argument of the liturgy being "replaced" and being in error or in causing error, is that one does not follow the other.  What does that mean?  Well, the two vids you posted are not examples of what we Catholics call the OF, ordinary form, or sometimes called the Novus Ordo Mass.  Some traditionalist like to argue against the OF Mass as if they were, and I think you may be taking that position, but it is simply invalid. 

What those are, are examples of liturgical abuse of the OF form of the Mass.  It's as if I attended an Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy, and for whatever reason, the local ordinary decided to wear a "cheese head" hat during it to stupidly show support for his team.  Now as awful as it may be, it may, (or may not), invalidate that particular Mass, but it does not invalidate the entire form of the Mass he may be celebrating.

Some traditionalist tend to forget that liturgical abuse existed in the older form of the Mass as well, just as I'm sure that examples could be found among the Eastern Orthodox.  The argument over the OF Mass among us Catholics has put the spotlight on us and so it is much more visible.  As I said earlier, it is extremely rare to find such abuse which is why the same two or three videos keep getting re-cycled, over and over, and used to make the argument.

You should also note that one of the reasons for reforming the liturgy of the Mass was to make it come more into line with the Eastern Rites in their understanding of the liturgy, i.e., vernacular language used, more participation from the faithful, making reception of Holy Eucharist under both species the norm, etc.

Please forgive me for jumping in here. I know that this is about differences between The Eastern Orthodox and the catholic mass. Maters of proper respect and observance is the issue. And yes i agree that some of what i saw was outrageous but I don't think this reflects the whole body of Christ.  The question comes to mind what is the proper respect. Is it just the prescribed rituals of those who are of a certain Christian religious order. Is it all about formalism and precise ritual.

I know that we have paintings of the last supper and I see that it reflects a common scene. This is most likely because when we read the scripture where Jesus takes the disciples to the upper room we don't think of this place as some fancy place. Secondly we know that Christ and the disciples were not ones to make a big show of their religion. We see them portrayed as common.  We don't think of Jesus dressed as a pope or even an Orthodox bishop and certainly not Peter I don't know what name they give their highest Orthodox Bishop.  

So my question is what is true respect when observing the last supper. What constitutes true respect. If we see the Last supper with with Christ and the disciples done in common fashion, What happened that changed the common to a formalistic relgious ceremony with all the fancy robes and hates.

Listen I'm not trying to take shots as you might think. I'm just a person that sees Christ and his followers as common people and that includes the leadership. I believe this is how it was from the beginning. Nothing in scripture suggests other wise  What happened that the leadership took on such outward appearances of authority that was above the common laity.

No disrespect here just an honest observance.    Surly as those of you that consider yourselves as intelligent debaters and apologists of you religious orders must have some answers for this.  

God bless

[desertknight]

I'm not trying to hang Abbe Guettee about the Orthodox neck, Ryan, I just started down that trail in trying to look up more info concerning the argument and found some good stuff, (for my argument.  ).  Here is a link that covers some important aspects of Pope Leo's (440-461) reign...

http://www.catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/guettee.html

The reason I bring this up is that although we can argue over what certain pasages mean, just to re-frame my argument, it would be two points...

1.  Given such information from such papacies as HH Leo, it seems clear that what we refer to as Papal Supremacy was well known long before schism occured.

2.  If those who we now call the Eastern Orthodox felt so strongly about Papal Supremacy, why did they not separate over it for centuries of time before AD1054?

The date may be somewhat arbitrary, but clearly there was no actual schism for at least 500 years of obvious assertion of Papal Supremacy.

[Ryan2010]

I would still caution you though, Ryan, that a pope, any pope, does not simply change the liturgy on his own.  It really doesn't work that way.  

Anywho, I saved this to a draft and found it in looking stuff up concerning the other argument.  This is from another message board and so I coudn't "quote" it, of course, but it is discussing the same issue and this quote is from a Russian Orthodox priest who is referring to the same quote from Irenaeus that I posted concerning all churches having to "agree with Rome".  I thought it interesting as the Father is taking to task many in his own church for miss-proof-texting and miss-translating it...

Fr Dcn Matthew (M.C. Steenberg), Orthodox Clergy and Moderator

No one expects apologists for certain positions to interpret texts in a uniform manner - else they would not be apologists for a specific interpretation. What needs to be done is to respond accurately in the face of such apologia, not simply returning tit-for-tat, but placing the fathers' writings into their proper contexts. The ultimate response against errant proof-texting is to move entirely away from that flawed form of argument and justification, not simply to turn it around and 'proof-text in reverse' by invalidating points on similarly flawed grounds. The response to proof-texting is context, and authentic reading. Most proof-texters will not give time to such a response; their wish is single phrase justifications for points of view. Real understanding of the fathers takes time, energy, calm.

But perhaps the best example of this intentional mistranslation is exposed by Abee Guettee in his book "the Papacy" in 1866. Not only does this former jesuit priest rejects this translation but he quite convincingly demonstrates what St Ireneous probably had indeed mean (see pages 62-69).
Abbé Guettée is not a realiable source. Apart from arguing almost entirely from a proof-texting position himself (albeit a reverse proof-texting, attempting to take every proof-text used by the Roman Catholic apologists he knew from his own past, and interpreting them in an Orthodox way against the RC usage), Guettée has a questionable relationship with many of the passages at which he looks. His large text, The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches, loses most of its credibility from its entire lack of objective grounding, and its extreme bias. This is not to say that bias is intrinsically bad (everyone has a bias), or to imply that 'objectivity' has to mean trating everything as equals; but Guettée is particuarly biased against his own background, and is unobjective in the worst sense: that he does not even try to understand why one might think differently than he, and thus imposes on many texts and writers views which he wishes them to have, without even giving consideration to alternative readings."

His treatment of St Irenaeus is case-in-point, and having spent the better part of my adult life studying St Irenaeus, I can say that I've never seen anyone take Guettée's views on him seriously. In chapter 3 of his The Papacy, Guettée gives a remarkably fanciful mis-translation of Ireaeus' On the detection and overthrow of knowledge falsely so-called 3.3.2, which he presents as:

   "we confound all those who in any manner whatsoever, either through blindness or bad intention, do not gather where they should; for every Church, that is to say, the faithful who are from all places, are obliged to go toward that Church, because of the most powerful principality. In this Church, the tradition of the Apostles has been preserved by those who are of all countries."

Guettée refuses to accept that agreement with the Church in Rome could possibly have been St Irenaeus' intention, on grounds, says Guettée, that 'Romish theologians choose a bad translation of this passage, in order to find in it an argument in favor of the papal sovereignty'. In a most remarkable paragraph following his presentation of his translation (above), he goes on to argue against various Roman Catholic readings, failing at every stage to recognise the difference between what certain apologists have interpreted the text to mean, and what St Irenaeus himself is talking about. He comments on their use to support 'papal sovereignty', but does not raise the fact that papal matters do not figure in Irenaeus' comments at all; he later speaks against the idea that the text speaks of Rome 'to which there must be uniformity and submission, because of her primacy', without actually challenging this against Ireaneus' focus in the chapter as a whole.

Because Guettée has decided that the text must speak against these misuses, rather than in its own right, and because the misuses he identifies are based on questions of authority, sovereignty, pirmacy and agreement, he finds himself forced to work St Irenaeus out of this embarrassing situation by completely mistranslating his words. It is not simply that he insists convenire must mean 'gather together' rather than 'agree with -- which it must not -- but he is forced to re-translate the whole thrust of St Irenaeus' argument in the whole of AH 3.2-3, so that it is now about apostles and faithful going towards Rome as empirical capital. Guettée goes on for some several paragraphs justifying this with grammatical arguments that no one finds convincing, not least because, grammar aside, they throw into nonsensical relief Irenaeus' own points elsewhere.

Long, I know, but I thought it worth posting.

That's an excellent point.  I don't think that we can read Rome out of the texts for sure.  That we are called to be in agreement is true as much as it is true that all churches be in agreement.  Primacy, as said, isn't really the issue but more so what the mind of Church regarding that Primacy was and should continue to be.  

Also, we can't deny that 14 of those early Fathers certainly do see that the "Rock" was in the person of St. Peter.  We can't read that out of history.  But we definitely have to be able to see it in the councils, canons and creeds.  


Good post.  Thanks for that Desert.  

Providentially perhaps I touch on this very topic in the post, "What's it gonna take part du."





God bless

[Ryan2010]

I'm not trying to hang Abbe Guettee about the Orthodox neck, Ryan, I just started down that trail in trying to look up more info concerning the argument and found some good stuff, (for my argument.  ).  Here is a link that covers some important aspects of Pope Leo's (440-461) reign...

http://www.catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/guettee.html

The reason I bring this up is that although we can argue over what certain pasages mean, just to re-frame my argument, it would be two points...

1.  Given such information from such papacies as HH Leo, it seems clear that what we refer to as Papal Supremacy was well known long before schism occured.

2.  If those who we now call the Eastern Orthodox felt so strongly about Papal Supremacy, why did they not separate over it for centuries of time before AD1054?

The date may be somewhat arbitrary, but clearly there was no actual schism for at least 500 years of obvious assertion of Papal Supremacy.

Well, technically we split about four times prior to 1054 I think and in the case of the second Ecumenical Council, that one was led by a Bishop not even communion with Rome.  Rome agrees to the council formally by the 6th council but there was a lot of instances where jurisdictions ran into issues with other jurisdictions. 

I think that the first time a Pope tried depose a Bishop in a jurisdiction not his own it resulted in hoopla but I have to look read more about that. 

Pope Leo is definitely worth looking at.  Thank you. 


God bless

[desertknight]

Please forgive me for jumping in here. I know that this is about differences between The Eastern Orthodox and the catholic mass. Maters of proper respect and observance is the issue. And yes i agree that some of what i saw was outrageous but I don't think this reflects the whole body of Christ.  The question comes to mind what is the proper respect. Is it just the prescribed rituals of those who are of a certain Christian religious order. Is it all about formalism and precise ritual.

It is, as the rubrics in which we conduct our liturgy are important for the very reasons that you indicate.  They guard against abuse, encourage respect for what is being celebrated, insure uniformity of practice and belief throughout the Church, etc.   St. Paul castigated the Corinthians for not following the proper form of "ritual", i.e., not doing things properly, due to their not understanding what was being celebrated in Holy Eucharist.

I know that we have paintings of the last supper and I see that it reflects a common scene. This is most likely because when we read the scripture where Jesus takes the disciples to the upper room we don't think of this place as some fancy place. Secondly we know that Christ and the disciples were not ones to make a big show of their religion. We see them portrayed as common.  We don't think of Jesus dressed as a pope or even an Orthodox bishop and certainly not Peter I don't know what name they give their highest Orthodox Bishop.

So you objection is on how people are dressed or look?  That is not much of an objection, and by that I mean it has no basis in theological error, it is simply one of taste and culture.  As a Catholic I look at protestants manhandling what they believe to be the Eucharist, (Wonder Bread pieces and Welch's Grape Juice), and I think, "Wow, how could they treat the Body and Blood of Christ with such disrespect?"  The reasons stems from exactly what St. Paul said to the Corinthians...because they "do not recognise it to be the Body."

So my question is what is true respect when observing the last supper. What constitutes true respect. If we see the Last supper with with Christ and the disciples done in common fashion, What happened that changed the common to a formalistic relgious ceremony with all the fancy robes and hates.

It starts with understanding what is being accomplished, i.e., it is the celebration of Holy Eucharist in which bread and wine become the true Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord, Jesus Christ.  It is actually eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood so that we may have life eternal.  That is the reason that we Catholics and Orthodox and even the Anglicans, believe it so important to get it right and follow the discipline of the Church in what she instructs concerning the rubrics.

Listen I'm not trying to take shots as you might think. I'm just a person that sees Christ and his followers as common people and that includes the leadership. I believe this is how it was from the beginning. Nothing in scripture suggests other wise  What happened that the leadership took on such outward appearances of authority that was above the common laity.

No disrespect here just an honest observance.    Surly as those of you that consider yourselves as intelligent debaters and apologists of you religious orders must have some answers for this.  

God bless

Christ may have been poor born, but "common", he was not.  I know what you are saying, however, McLees.  I just think that so much of your objection is based on how things "look" or "feel" to you and that is not something that I would want to bet my salvation on.  It also taints the actuality of something as opposed to just your emotional reaction to it.  You talk about being common?  Why do so many Protestant leaders, especially among the Evangelical pastors, have so, so, so, much personal wealth?  We Catholics may have been around for 2,000 years, but you are mistaking that just because over that time we have acquired an awful lot of prime real estate and have traditions of what you would consider "ornate" vestments or ecclesiastical art, that it means that our Church or clergy are rich.  Our clergy must make tremendous personal sacrifice in that area.  Although their vows may differ somewhat depending on what type of priest they are, all of them must live very modestly and most priest, Bishops, and Popes have very little in material goods.  Vows of chastity, poverty and obedience, in one form or another, are the norm.    Popes may live in great diggs and I'm sure they may seem to be rich, but as a rule, they are not.  When Pope John Paul II passed and his will was read, he actually owned virtually....nothing.  No bank account or credit cards.  No automobile or real estate, no home or anything other than a few personal goods.  All religious orders live in poverty as a rule and all diocesan religious must make similar sacrifice.

[winsome]

I think it points to what I was saying, Ryan, that the two clips you have posted have been recycled about a gazillion times.  The problem with the argument of the liturgy being "replaced" and being in error or in causing error, is that one does not follow the other.  What does that mean?  Well, the two vids you posted are not examples of what we Catholics call the OF, ordinary form, or sometimes called the Novus Ordo Mass.  Some traditionalist like to argue against the OF Mass as if they were, and I think you may be taking that position, but it is simply invalid. 

What those are, are examples of liturgical abuse of the OF form of the Mass.  It's as if I attended an Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy, and for whatever reason, the local ordinary decided to wear a "cheese head" hat during it to stupidly show support for his team.  Now as awful as it may be, it may, (or may not), invalidate that particular Mass, but it does not invalidate the entire form of the Mass he may be celebrating.

Some traditionalist tend to forget that liturgical abuse existed in the older form of the Mass as well, just as I'm sure that examples could be found among the Eastern Orthodox.  The argument over the OF Mass among us Catholics has put the spotlight on us and so it is much more visible.  As I said earlier, it is extremely rare to find such abuse which is why the same two or three videos keep getting re-cycled, over and over, and used to make the argument.

You should also note that one of the reasons for reforming the liturgy of the Mass was to make it come more into line with the Eastern Rites in their understanding of the liturgy, i.e., vernacular language used, more participation from the faithful, making reception of Holy Eucharist under both species the norm, etc.

Please forgive me for jumping in here. I know that this is about differences between The Eastern Orthodox and the catholic mass. Maters of proper respect and observance is the issue. And yes i agree that some of what i saw was outrageous but I don't think this reflects the whole body of Christ.  The question comes to mind what is the proper respect. Is it just the prescribed rituals of those who are of a certain Christian religious order. Is it all about formalism and precise ritual.

I know that we have paintings of the last supper and I see that it reflects a common scene. This is most likely because when we read the scripture where Jesus takes the disciples to the upper room we don't think of this place as some fancy place. Secondly we know that Christ and the disciples were not ones to make a big show of their religion. We see them portrayed as common.  We don't think of Jesus dressed as a pope or even an Orthodox bishop and certainly not Peter I don't know what name they give their highest Orthodox Bishop.  

So my question is what is true respect when observing the last supper. What constitutes true respect. If we see the Last supper with with Christ and the disciples done in common fashion, What happened that changed the common to a formalistic relgious ceremony with all the fancy robes and hates.

Listen I'm not trying to take shots as you might think. I'm just a person that sees Christ and his followers as common people and that includes the leadership. I believe this is how it was from the beginning. Nothing in scripture suggests other wise  What happened that the leadership took on such outward appearances of authority that was above the common laity.

No disrespect here just an honest observance.    Surly as those of you that consider yourselves as intelligent debaters and apologists of you religious orders must have some answers for this.  

God bless

mclees,

To understand Catholic (& Orthodox) liturgies you need to right back deep into the Judaic roots of Christianity. The Last Supper was not something Jesus inaugurated, though he gave it a whole new meaning. Jesus worshipped in the Temple, celebrated the various Jewish ritual meals with his followers – the Passover, the chaburah and the todah.  This last one is a sacrificial meal of bread and wine shared with friends. Todah means thankgiving (eucharistica in Greek). The Talmud records a rabbinic teaching that with the coming of Israel's anointed deliverer , the Messiah, all sacrifice will cease except the todah sacrifice, which does continue in the Mass (the Eucharist)

I maintain that protestants don't properly understand worship. They confuse it with praise.

In ancient Judaism worship was basically sacrificial worship. We can see worship meaning sacrifice in Jesus' exchange with the Samaritan woman in John chapter 4.
She says "Our ancestors worshipped on this mountain; but you people say that the place to worship is in Jerusalem.

[Ryan2010]

I think it points to what I was saying, Ryan, that the two clips you have posted have been recycled about a gazillion times.  The problem with the argument of the liturgy being "replaced" and being in error or in causing error, is that one does not follow the other.  What does that mean?  Well, the two vids you posted are not examples of what we Catholics call the OF, ordinary form, or sometimes called the Novus Ordo Mass.  Some traditionalist like to argue against the OF Mass as if they were, and I think you may be taking that position, but it is simply invalid.  

What those are, are examples of liturgical abuse of the OF form of the Mass.  It's as if I attended an Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy, and for whatever reason, the local ordinary decided to wear a "cheese head" hat during it to stupidly show support for his team.  Now as awful as it may be, it may, (or may not), invalidate that particular Mass, but it does not invalidate the entire form of the Mass he may be celebrating.

Some traditionalist tend to forget that liturgical abuse existed in the older form of the Mass as well, just as I'm sure that examples could be found among the Eastern Orthodox.  The argument over the OF Mass among us Catholics has put the spotlight on us and so it is much more visible.  As I said earlier, it is extremely rare to find such abuse which is why the same two or three videos keep getting re-cycled, over and over, and used to make the argument.

You should also note that one of the reasons for reforming the liturgy of the Mass was to make it come more into line with the Eastern Rites in their understanding of the liturgy, i.e., vernacular language used, more participation from the faithful, making reception of Holy Eucharist under both species the norm, etc.

Please forgive me for jumping in here. I know that this is about differences between The Eastern Orthodox and the catholic mass. Maters of proper respect and observance is the issue. And yes i agree that some of what i saw was outrageous but I don't think this reflects the whole body of Christ.  The question comes to mind what is the proper respect. Is it just the prescribed rituals of those who are of a certain Christian religious order. Is it all about formalism and precise ritual.

I know that we have paintings of the last supper and I see that it reflects a common scene. This is most likely because when we read the scripture where Jesus takes the disciples to the upper room we don't think of this place as some fancy place. Secondly we know that Christ and the disciples were not ones to make a big show of their religion. We see them portrayed as common.  We don't think of Jesus dressed as a pope or even an Orthodox bishop and certainly not Peter I don't know what name they give their highest Orthodox Bishop.  

So my question is what is true respect when observing the last supper. What constitutes true respect. If we see the Last supper with with Christ and the disciples done in common fashion, What happened that changed the common to a formalistic relgious ceremony with all the fancy robes and hates.

Listen I'm not trying to take shots as you might think. I'm just a person that sees Christ and his followers as common people and that includes the leadership. I believe this is how it was from the beginning. Nothing in scripture suggests other wise  What happened that the leadership took on such outward appearances of authority that was above the common laity.

No disrespect here just an honest observance.    Surly as those of you that consider yourselves as intelligent debaters and apologists of you religious orders must have some answers for this.  

God bless

Another thing to consider is how Mary lavished Christ's feet with oil.  Now of course we can say, ohhh all this could have gone to the poor or could have been used to buy tracts or something but the point of The Church in looking as it does and even the vestments is to prepare us and instruct us in the reality of the Kingdom.  

If you read Revelation and the depiction of the Throne and Heaven, The Church is made to look exactly as that temple.  This is so that we remember that we are surrounded by the Saints and angels who are in liturgy with God.  Jesus is even called, Liturgist.  

The Church looks as it does on the outside to serve as icons of the reality that is often hidden from our eyes.  The Lord Robbed in Majesty.  

But don't think that this is an innovation.  Look to see how old these Cappodecian "churches" are and see how they have not changed though they are even just carved out of the rocks.  

We know that St. Paul visited this region and was no stranger to worshiping with them.  They worshiped liturgically.  We know that the earliest of Christians were and then remained, liturgical.  

Beauty should never be condemned when it is an expression, a response of love, of our loving and majestic Creator.



ICXC
NIKA

[desertknight]

I also want to add, McLees, that do to the fact that you live in the wealthiest country on the planet, it may color your view of what the entire Catholic Church is like.  I don't have any official stats, but it would not surprise me if the vast majority of Catholic parishes in the world even had central heat or the priest had access to a car.  Most of the Church lives in the developing world and has very little in the way of anything "ornate" in their churches.

The reason I bring this up is that you need to separate what you perceive in the Mass with what is orthodoxy and vital to it.   I spent a career in the military and due to that I have been able to celebrate a High Mass in Reims Cathedral and also in small Bavarian churches, from my own rural American west parish to Masses I attended celebrated by a Colombian Army chaplain in the middle of the Amazon basin where his vestments were jungle camouflage and his altar were some covered ration boxes.

The point is that all of those were still the Mass.  They all still accomplished what the Church intends, what Christ intends.   What is important in the rubrics of the Mass is what Winsome has outlined above, not the actual "fanciness" of the vestments or of the churches.

[desertknight]

I watched that 60 Min. segment when it aired on TV, Ryan.  Very good but very depressing.  I wondered in watching it if the Turks have done so due to their being Muslim or is it the government's hostility to all religion.  I know that the devout among the Muslim feel oppressed there as well, but I was surprised that the Christians have come in for it too.

[winsome]

I said earlier

The revised rites looked back pre-Council of Trent to the early liturgies of the Church.

I've been digging a bit and found out that of the four Eucharistics prayers at the heart of the revised Mass, three are ancient:

Prayer I
The Roman Canon is the longest and perhaps the most ancient of the Eucharistic prayers. St. Ambrose had quoted portions of it in the mid 300′s.

Prayer II
Long been considered to have come from Hippolytus, but some scholars have challenged that hypothesis, placing it perhaps as late as the mid 300′s.

Prayer IV
Adaptated from several Eastern liturgical sources and considered the most ecumenical of the Eucharistic prayers.

Just thought that was interesting.

[Frank_N_Sense]

Not sure I see why they would even want to...

Same reason why Christ prayed that we might attain complete unity.  Same reason why Orthodox hope to seek communion with the protestants. 

We are called to be one.  You want to teach and believe the same things.  True unity.  It's not a Christian teaching to embrace pluralism or reduce the teachings of Christ to something that seems subjective or relative. 

Do you not hope that all will attain to the unity of the faith? 

True love does not call disunity unity but seeks that we might all be of one mind.  An image of the Holy Trinity.  Just as Christ is One with the Father so too are Christians called to be an image of that unity. 

John 17:21
that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

Anything less is counter to the good news. 


ICXC

They all share many, many, many things & tend to separate themselves based on the few things they do not agree on..........  I think they believe that they agree on the essentials......

That they/we all are going to agree & lots of these other things is not going to happen until Christ returns......

[mclees8]

Not sure I see why they would even want to...

Same reason why Christ prayed that we might attain complete unity.  Same reason why Orthodox hope to seek communion with the protestants. 

We are called to be one.  You want to teach and believe the same things.  True unity.  It's not a Christian teaching to embrace pluralism or reduce the teachings of Christ to something that seems subjective or relative. 

Do you not hope that all will attain to the unity of the faith? 

True love does not call disunity unity but seeks that we might all be of one mind.  An image of the Holy Trinity.  Just as Christ is One with the Father so too are Christians called to be an image of that unity. 

John 17:21
that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

Anything less is counter to the good news. 


ICXC

They all share many, many, many things & tend to separate themselves based on the few things they do not agree on..........  I think they believe that they agree on the essentials......

That they/we all are going to agree & lots of these other things is not going to happen until Christ returns......

I agree with what you say. there will always be disagreements among men, but love is our identity and call. Love Christ and our brother. this is the unity of the faith. Yes there are many things I would feel strongly against. At the beginning of this thread there is a picture of an Orthodox bishop that looks like a king. I feel sorry for any one who thinks this is what our faith is all about. God help us

God bless

[mclees8]

I know you may get tired of me, but i just can't help it. Now don't take this wrong. I believe we live our faith by example.  I go every Sunday to a park north of me and take meals for many of our unfortunates that are with out work. But I don't just serve a meal but I go to share Christ. I don't get all dressed up for I want to be a part of them. Not some one they could never identify with. Now think if i went looking like a pope or an Orthodox bishop. You no why many poor never go to one of our churches on Sunday. Think about it.

God bless

[mclees8]

Think about Jesus. Who did he most identify with. It was with common and not the religious. He went to be apart of them not like some fancy religious guy who dresses like a king.
God bless

[winsome]

I agree with what you say. there will always be disagreements among men, but love is our identity and call. Love Christ and our brother. this is the unity of the faith. Yes there are many things I would feel strongly against. At the beginning of this thread there is a picture of an Orthodox bishop that looks like a king. I feel sorry for any one who thinks this is what our faith is all about. God help us

I know you may get tired of me, but i just can't help it. Now don't take this wrong. I believe we live our faith by example.  I go every Sunday to a park north of me and take meals for many of our unfortunates that are with out work. But I don't just serve a meal but I go to share Christ. I don't get all dressed up for I want to be a part of them. Not some one they could never identify with. Now think if i went looking like a pope or an Orthodox bishop. You no why many poor never go to one of our churches on Sunday. Think about it.

Fine vestments give glory to God along the lines that God himself commanded.

From among the Israelites have your brother Aaron, together with his sons Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, brought to you, that they may be my priests. For the glorious adornment of your brother Aaron you shall have sacred vestments made. Therefore, to the various expert workmen whom I have endowed with skill, you shall give instructions to make such vestments for Aaron as will set him apart for his sacred service as my priest. These are the vestments they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a brocaded tunic, a miter and a sash. In making these sacred vestments which your brother Aaron and his sons are to wear in serving as my priests, they shall use gold, violet, purple and scarlet yarn and fine linen. (Ex 28:1-5)

Make filigree rosettes of gold,  as well as two chains of pure gold, twisted like cords, and fasten the cordlike chains to the filigree rosettes (Ex 38:13-14)

All around the hem at the bottom you shall make pomegranates, woven of violet, purple and scarlet yarn and fine linen twined, with gold bells between them; first a gold bell, then a pomegranate, and thus alternating all around the hem of the robe. Aaron shall wear it when ministering, that its tinkling may be heard as he enters and leaves the LORD'S presence in the sanctuary; else he will die. (Ex 28:33-35)

The tunic of fine linen shall be brocaded. The miter shall be made of fine linen. The sash shall be of variegated work. (Ex 28:39)

Likewise, for the glorious adornment of Aaron's sons you shall have tunics and sashes and turbans made. (Ex 28:40)

[mclees8]

I agree with what you say. there will always be disagreements among men, but love is our identity and call. Love Christ and our brother. this is the unity of the faith. Yes there are many things I would feel strongly against. At the beginning of this thread there is a picture of an Orthodox bishop that looks like a king. I feel sorry for any one who thinks this is what our faith is all about. God help us

I know you may get tired of me, but i just can't help it. Now don't take this wrong. I believe we live our faith by example.  I go every Sunday to a park north of me and take meals for many of our unfortunates that are with out work. But I don't just serve a meal but I go to share Christ. I don't get all dressed up for I want to be a part of them. Not some one they could never identify with. Now think if i went looking like a pope or an Orthodox bishop. You no why many poor never go to one of our churches on Sunday. Think about it.

Fine vestments give glory to God along the lines that God himself commanded.

From among the Israelites have your brother Aaron, together with his sons Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, brought to you, that they may be my priests. For the glorious adornment of your brother Aaron you shall have sacred vestments made. Therefore, to the various expert workmen whom I have endowed with skill, you shall give instructions to make such vestments for Aaron as will set him apart for his sacred service as my priest. These are the vestments they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a brocaded tunic, a miter and a sash. In making these sacred vestments which your brother Aaron and his sons are to wear in serving as my priests, they shall use gold, violet, purple and scarlet yarn and fine linen. (Ex 28:1-5)

Make filigree rosettes of gold,  as well as two chains of pure gold, twisted like cords, and fasten the cordlike chains to the filigree rosettes (Ex 38:13-14)

All around the hem at the bottom you shall make pomegranates, woven of violet, purple and scarlet yarn and fine linen twined, with gold bells between them; first a gold bell, then a pomegranate, and thus alternating all around the hem of the robe. Aaron shall wear it when ministering, that its tinkling may be heard as he enters and leaves the LORD'S presence in the sanctuary; else he will die. (Ex 28:33-35)

The tunic of fine linen shall be brocaded. The miter shall be made of fine linen. The sash shall be of variegated work. (Ex 28:39)

Likewise, for the glorious adornment of Aaron's sons you shall have tunics and sashes and turbans made. (Ex 28:40)

No! fine vestments do not give glory to God. I life that is given to Christ and clothed in humility gives glory to God, Walking in the spirit gives glory to God. You quote all from the Old testament priest hood. Please not nothing about Christ identifies with that. Nothing of the New covenant identifies with that. You are impressed with outward carnal things but that will never impress God. If yo want to quote old Testament Why not quote from
Ezekiel 11: 19
9 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh
Eze. 36: 26,27
6 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Did Elisha and John the baptist glorify God?

God bless

[winsome]

I agree with what you say. there will always be disagreements among men, but love is our identity and call. Love Christ and our brother. this is the unity of the faith. Yes there are many things I would feel strongly against. At the beginning of this thread there is a picture of an Orthodox bishop that looks like a king. I feel sorry for any one who thinks this is what our faith is all about. God help us

I know you may get tired of me, but i just can't help it. Now don't take this wrong. I believe we live our faith by example.  I go every Sunday to a park north of me and take meals for many of our unfortunates that are with out work. But I don't just serve a meal but I go to share Christ. I don't get all dressed up for I want to be a part of them. Not some one they could never identify with. Now think if i went looking like a pope or an Orthodox bishop. You no why many poor never go to one of our churches on Sunday. Think about it.

Fine vestments give glory to God along the lines that God himself commanded.

From among the Israelites have your brother Aaron, together with his sons Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, brought to you, that they may be my priests. For the glorious adornment of your brother Aaron you shall have sacred vestments made. Therefore, to the various expert workmen whom I have endowed with skill, you shall give instructions to make such vestments for Aaron as will set him apart for his sacred service as my priest. These are the vestments they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a brocaded tunic, a miter and a sash. In making these sacred vestments which your brother Aaron and his sons are to wear in serving as my priests, they shall use gold, violet, purple and scarlet yarn and fine linen. (Ex 28:1-5)

Make filigree rosettes of gold,  as well as two chains of pure gold, twisted like cords, and fasten the cordlike chains to the filigree rosettes (Ex 38:13-14)

All around the hem at the bottom you shall make pomegranates, woven of violet, purple and scarlet yarn and fine linen twined, with gold bells between them; first a gold bell, then a pomegranate, and thus alternating all around the hem of the robe. Aaron shall wear it when ministering, that its tinkling may be heard as he enters and leaves the LORD'S presence in the sanctuary; else he will die. (Ex 28:33-35)

The tunic of fine linen shall be brocaded. The miter shall be made of fine linen. The sash shall be of variegated work. (Ex 28:39)

Likewise, for the glorious adornment of Aaron's sons you shall have tunics and sashes and turbans made. (Ex 28:40)

No! fine vestments do not give glory to God. I life that is given to Christ and clothed in humility gives glory to God, Walking in the spirit gives glory to God. You quote all from the Old testament priest hood. Please not nothing about Christ identifies with that. Nothing of the New covenant identifies with that. You are impressed with outward carnal things but that will never impress God. If yo want to quote old Testament Why not quote from
Ezekiel 11: 19
9 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh
Eze. 36: 26,27
6 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Did Elisha and John the baptist glorify God?

God bless

Please explain why God instructed the Israelites to make vestments of gold, jewels and fine linen.
Was it to give glory to Aaron and his sons?

Please explain why God instructed that the items in Tabernacle (lampstand, table, ark etc) were to be made of gold or plated with gold.
Was it to give glory to the Israelites?

In heaven
Were there not seven gold lampstands in Rev 1 (one for each of the branches in the lampstand in the Tabernacle in the Temple)?

Jesus wore a full length robe with a gold sash (Rev 1:13)

The 24 elders wore gold crowns (Rev 4:4)

There were gold bowls of incense (Rev 5:8) and a gold censer (Rev 8:3)

There was a gold altar (rev 9:13)

Beautiful vestments and golden objects are there even in the heavenly worship. Who else are they to give glory to if not God?

[Ryan2010]

Mclees8, you would like St. John Chrysostom.  He often fought against the extravagance of secular culture, the pride of decadence and as all good followers of Christ was persecuted for it.  Kings and Queens came under his fire and they sought to chase him from his place as Bishop where God had placed him and yet St. John continued on.  More than this he even went after those within the church who would gather wealth and prestige around them and heap the sins upon them even more by even ignoring the poor.  St. John Chrysostom is one of the Saints who said that the road to hell is paved with the skulls of the priests (he was echoing another Saint who said that the floor to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops) and St. John Chrysostom was a bishop himself.  But read his biography, it's inspiring and some are so inspired by Christ in him that they seek to imitate his faith (remember your leaders, the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith - Hebrews):

Do you wish to honour the body of Christ? Do not ignore him when he is naked. Do not pay him homage in the temple clad in silk, only then to neglect him outside where he is cold and ill-clad. He who said: "This is my body" is the same who said: "You saw me hungry and you gave me no food", and "Whatever you did to the least of my brothers you did also to me" What good is it if the Eucharistic table is overloaded with golden chalices when your brother is dying of hunger? Start by satisfying his hunger and then with what is left you may adorn the altar as well. - St. John Chrysostom

The rich man is not one who is in possession of much, but one who gives much.
- Saint John Chrysostom

Prayer should be the means by which I, at all times, receive all that I need, and, for this reason, be my daily refuge, my daily consolation, my daily joy, my source of rich and inexhaustible joy in life.
- Saint John Chrysostom

The potency of prayer hath subdued the strength of fire; it hath bridled the rage of lions, hushed anarchy to rest, extinguished wars, appeased the elements, expelled demons, burst the chains of death, expanded the gates of heaven, assuaged diseases, repelled frauds, rescued cities from destruction, stayed the sun in its course, and arrested the progress of the thunderbolt.
- Saint John Chrysostom

"Our warfare does not make the living dead, but rather makes the dead to live, because it is conducted in the spirit of meekness and humility. I persecute by word, not by acts. I persecute heresy, not heretics. It is mine more to be persecuted, than to persecute. So Christ was victorious as a Crucified, and not as a crucifier." - St. John Chrysostom

"Let us therefore, both poor and rich, cease from taking the property of others. For my present discourse is not only to the rich, but to the poor also. For they too rob those who are poorer than themselves. And artisans who are better off, and more powerful, outsell the poorer and more distressed, tradesmen outsell tradesmen, and so all who are engaged in the market-place. So that I wish from every side to take away injustice."

"For if you wish to show kindness, you must not require an accounting of a person's life, but merely correct his poverty and fill his need.

[Ryan2010]

Mclees, if you would like, here too is a Patristic study on St. John Chrysostom in regards to "wealth" and "virtue". 


You devote yourself to the poor and so to Christ.  I only pray that this study might help you on your journey toward God. 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.st-philip.net%2Fpresentations%2Fwealth_and_virtue.pdf&rct=j&q=chrysostom+wealth+and+virtue+pdf&ei=Pt_US86vCIe09gSG3YyqDw&usg=AFQjCNEmmBjQqjPtd3O6Ir3UpyGtZ-q_Gw



Sorry for the huge link.  It's a PDF, about twenty pages.  But still wonderful and I hope will help you as you serve. 



God bless