Jump to content

Spammer

Members
  • Posts

    1,158
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

1,741 profile views

Spammer's Achievements

Mentor

Mentor (12/14)

  • Dedicated Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare

Recent Badges

607

Reputation

  1. Hi, sorry for the delay. Thanks for your thoughtful reply. What I’m asking is independent of any consideration of aesthetics, personal preference, or hints from heaven here and there - sayings of ‘latter day prophecy’ (how do you sort through which are/aren’t God-sourced?). I think the controversy boils down to what infallible source gets the final say about whether the liturgical reforms promulgated by V2 are licit? I thought the criteria of infallibility were well established in Roman Catholicism, so what’s the basis for disputing V2 if the disputants aren’t Infallibly speaking for God on the matter? It seems it’s vicious circles all around if the bishops and pope in communion meeting in an ecumenical council don’t have the final say.
  2. Hey Rory. You’re very generous but my perspective is worth 2 cents after the inflation adjustment. It seems to me that critics of Vatican 2 consider some elements of Catholic worship, e.g. facing East and silence, to be apostolic, part of the Deposit of Faith, and therefore dogmatic. Yes? My question is who decides whether facing East is apostolic? Is it due to its venerability, perhaps because it can be found in the church fathers? St Basil would agree (see his ‘On the Holy Spirit’ for the earliest patristic reference to it I’m aware of) but he’s 4th century. Who decides Basil is right in every point? He’s one Bishop. What’s the basis for deciding what is and isn’t apostolic in the order of Christian worship? This is precisely what’s at issue I think. Who gets the final say if not the bishops and pope in communion meeting in an ecumenical council?
  3. IMO the controversy boils down to the question of which Magisterium is to be trusted. That which reformed the liturgy following Trent or that which reformed the liturgy at Vatican II? Except there’s really only one Magisterium, not two, and the same authority made both reforms. What’s the basis for deciding when the Magisterium’s decisions about liturgy are or aren’t valid? If the Magisterium can go astray like that, that implies a higher authority, a final arbiter in matters of worship to sort things out. Right? Who is that arbiter?
  4. Matthew 5:48. Am I perfect yet like God is perfect? Do I love others perfectly with no trace of ego? No? Then I’ve done something that needs to be confessed. Only the perfect have nothing to confess.
  5. And then we have the "Social Democrats" which advocate a far far left position compared to how we use the term today So when someone says "Social Democrat"- what does that mean? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Social_Democratic_Labour_Party Hey! By socialist, I meant state socialism, the intermediary stage leading to true socialism, in which the means of production are socially owned - the communist society, where the state has withered away and the means of production are in the hands of workers. Yeah, it can be confusing, not least because 'socialism' and 'communism' are often used interchangeably to refer to the same thing: the desired end state of a stateless workers' paradise. I've always found it easier to distinguish between capitalism, socialism and communism by pointing to what the terms mean as actually implemented in history: private ownership of production, state ownership, and collective ownership, respectively. Only the first two have actually been tried on the mass scale, the latter of which led to mass suffering as is well known. At least, this is how I framed the information for my students when I taught this stuff while working on my graduate degree in Latin American politics and political economy. It's been a long time.
  6. Similarly, despite the rhetoric, I've never met anyone who actually believed that private property should be eliminated in favor of state ownership of the means of production (aka Socialism). The current rhetorical battle between people who yell 'Socialist!' and the targets of the yelling is really just a battle between capitalists who happen to disagree about how much the state should regulate the privately owned means of production.
  7. I have the leather WoF Bible vol 1 and agree it’s amazing. I can’t wait for vol 2. I dig Bishop Barron and his ministry. He’s also full of surprises. Turns out he has impeccable music taste.
  8. 3 nights! I’ll be seeing Dead and Co up the road in Bristow, VA on my birthday.
  9. If the priest doesn’t know you when approaching the chalice, he’ll probably ask point blank if you’re Orthodox. That’s always been my experience when visiting a new parish.
  10. I assume you're thinking of the Eastern Orthodox church and not the monophysite Oriental Orthodox churches in communion with neither the Greeks/Slavs nor Rome, so I'll answer accordingly. The question of who's closer to the original Nicene Christianity (Rome or the Greeks) is a matter of interpretation. Both accept the authority of the first seven ecumenical councils (Nicea was the first). The creed recited in both churches is based on the Nicene formulation, as amended by the second ecumenical council in Constantinople in 381 ad. Where they differ is Rome's later addition of the filioque clause to the Creed, which the Eastern Orthodox reject. Who's closer depends on how you answer the question about the legitimacy of Rome's addition, which in turn is related to the role of the Bishop of Rome. The filioque and the issue of papal supremacy is what currently (sadly) separates the two churches. The ancient seat of Byzantine Orthodoxy in terms of primacy is Constantinople/Istanbul. It's still there, 568 years after the Muslim conquest. The Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew is the current occupant of the Patriarch's seat there. There are also Orthodox patriarchs in the more ancient sees of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria. So yes, the Orthodox church still has seats in the Middle East and Asia Minor.
  11. The Byzantine Liturgy is beautiful. In my experience, Sunday worship in the Byzantine rite is comprised of Orthros (morning prayer), about 20-25 minutes of chanted psalms and doxologies, immediately followed by the Divine Liturgy - what Catholics call the Mass. Orthros and the Divine Liturgy are entirely chanted and sung and one runs into the other without a break. Unless you know what to look for or are familiar with the prayers and structure, it will seem like 2-2.5 hours of sung prayer, interrupted only by the homily. The way you'll know you're transitioning to the Divine Liturgy proper is when the the priest sings the words "Blessed is kingdom of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Whether Byzantine Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, the liturgy is the same. If you've never experienced it, you should definitely go to a Byzantine Catholic church so you can participate in the liturgy and receive communion. It’s glorious, especially if the priest and choir know how to sing. Just be sure to cross yourself from right to left every time the Trinity is invoked, with the tips of your thumb and next two fingers pressed together (the Trinity) and the tips of your last two fingers pressed into your palm (Christ’s dual natures). If you cross yourself open handed from left to right, they’ll know your a Latin interloper. Another difference from the Latin Rite: in the communion line, everyone crosses their arms on their chest and sings "Receive the Body of Christ; taste the fountain of immortality" over and over until the last person has received. The consecrated bread and wine are mixed in the chalice and the priest gives it to each properly confessed and disposed communicant with a spoon. Open wide and head back: the priest will drop the Eucharist into your mouth. Just do what the others do and you'll be fine.
  12. If by Orthodox you mean Eastern Orthodox, then the Byzantine Catholic rite=the Orthodox rite. Both are Byzantine Rite churches. MiserereNobis pointed out the same regarding the Coptic churches. The Coptic Catholic rite=the Coptic Orthodox rite. What most distinguishes Eastern Catholic churches from their corresponding (shared rite) Orthodox churches is the former are in communion with Rome and the latter (for now) are not. Edit to add: the same regional variation within the ancient Nicene creedal tradition pertains to the celibacy conversation above. Priests can be married in the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox churches. Celibacy is a Western Catholic (aka Latin Rite aka Roman Catholic) discipline. It’s not a dogma though, meaning that can change without doctrine changing.
  13. Lol, good to ‘see’ you too.
  14. Sure thing, I’ll do my best. What do you want to know?
  15. Hello. I heard I’ve been summoned. How can I help?
×
×
  • Create New...